Your model would completely eliminate any economic progress. Large companies would be free to copy an idea, use it in their products and use their market position to crush any new ideas. I cannot imagine a more disasterous idea.
That's just wrong.
Millions of new products come out annually without patents. The consumers pick the winners. Patents don't make people innovate, they prevent innovation and enhancement.
These patent procedures are really impossible to understand. There are so many confusing patents that no one, not even the PTO, can wade through them all. Is it fraudulent for companies to try to take advantage of the legal use of force that patents offer?
There's no solution to this government atrocity except complete dismantling. Before I was a believer in anarchocapitalism, I thought the best solution was to file a patent and immediately pay a tax on sales, a tax that increments every year until the company releases the rights. I see taxation as theft, so I don't support that process anymore.
My solution? Obfuscation. There is nothing that truly needs a patent (not even prescription drug research once you consider the high ost of regulations). Items that are revolutionary can be protected, temporarily, by hiding the process. The more a competitor wants to knock off your product, the more they'll need to invest to figure it out.
Let's forget even protecting secrets. Thousands of competing patents cover competitive products, but the patented features don't sell the product. What sells it? Ease of use, marketing, quality, safety and support. The patented portion supports very little in terms of sales.
Some Korean bootlegger released a $50 iPod knockoff already. It is a piece of junk. Apple has little to fear because their name sells product based on people's past experiences.
Just like long term quality content gets your website into a high position in the search engines, the same is true of products and services. Use competitiveness instead of force to earn your future.
Sen. Hilary Clinton began her re-election campaign in Chicago a few weeks ago. Direct voting is not in the state's interest. Read up on the 17th for clarification -- enacting it was directly done to reduce the rights of the states.
But he continued support for a militant Israel and increased police murder via the War on Drugs. He supported Greenspan's inflation of the money base, creating a stock market and housing market bubble. He never balanced the budget, taxation on the bubbles did.
2000+ soldiers have died, and there is no end in sight.
How many people were imprisoned for victimless crimes under Clinton's watch?
Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time.
FDR's New Deal violates almost all of the first 8 Amendments and created the federal monster we live under. The New Deal helped few at the expense of personal responsibility.
But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.
He lied to get us into WWII and duped the US voters. The New Deal is counter-freedom and became law based on fear and scare tactics.
I will say that at least we slashdotters don't think we're "journalists."
Yet the word journalist is more apropos for a blogger than a media careerist. Going back to the dawn of the printing press, you see much more emotion and variety until fairly recent times.
The media now seems locked in with one another. It is all Reuters and UPI regurgitation.
Bloggers that focus on consistency float to the top. My favorite 5 bloggers offer 80% of the news I read -- some of them are ex-media writers. I also read some blogs just to get a sens of alternate opinions.
My 5 blogs (2 public, 3 private) replace my e-mail newsletter (2 years running) that replaced my print newsletter (3 years before the e-news). My readership is down 95% as I attempt to transition, but I'm getting a much better view on who is reading and who isn't.
I'm committed to writing 7 days a week. I already spend 2-3 hours reading links mailed to me, why not set those links up for others with similar ideas? Is my attached opinion wanted by the readers? Only time will tell.
Just off curiosity, do you post as both dada21 and the guy with "Repeal the 17th Ammendment" sig? Seriously, I don't get it.
Nope. I've been voicing my concern over the 17th for about 5 years, glad others support the minority view.
The 17th amendment puts more power in the hands of the people. Because there are only two per state instead of somewhere between 2 and 50 per state like the house, senators are in the best position to represent states rights (invariably, it's the little guy who needs the most protection).
Exactly. We agree. The drafters knew that, historically, people give away more power to the central government over time. They feared true democracy (mob rule) and protected against it by letting state legislators pick federal senators. It bypassed the crazy majority and balanced against trends.
The goverment, whether big or small, needs to be all about the people.
In a socialist country, yes. In a free country, government is about protecting the individual from the mob.
The state needs to protect the people, the federal needs to protect the people. How do you guarantee protection other than through your votes?
By forcing a limited central government via the Constitution and giving the states a check in the balance. That intent fell apart when the 17th Amendment was sold based on fear -- similar to how anti-terrorism is sold to us.
Just because it was initially meant as a measure to protect state rights, can it not also be a measure to protect individual rights (such as used here)?
There is no protection for the individual now, we live in a socialist country where I is less than We, and Us is more important than Them.
The filibuster was meant to be a stranglehold over a large central government, not a partisan tool.
Before the terrible 17th Amendment, Senators were picked by state government, to balance the democratically elected House reps. Senators were to keep government small and defend the rights of the states.
I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton or any President going back 3 generations. Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can.
Why do you think it took so long to release papers from Kennedy's time? National security?
Microsoft owns their software, correct? Copyright and patent protect the ownership of the ideas of their software. The physical CD it comes on isn't what they're protecting, they're protecting the ideas on that CD, agreed?
If they own the software, why can't they redesign it to give them a competitive edge? What is wrong in changing formats so your competition is one step behind? In do it in my businesses -- I change my price, I change my sales tactics, I even change the way we perform certain actions to make it more efficient or harder to copy. That's business.
If you want to make a product compatible with someone else's product, expect to get screwed. Some people are basing their websites on Google Maps. Google promises to do no evil, but if they wanted to change their API and charge for it, it is in their power to do so. Would this be "illegal" by your argument?
The only way I accept a company as a monopoly is if they force others out of the market through physical action (murder is one option) or if they hire government to protect their processes. Both are wrong, but the second process is considered legal. I ran many operating systems over the years that Microsoft was considered a monopoly, and I really didn't see them trying to prevent me from running them. In fact, I ended up with Windows repeatedly when the other operating systems didn't find the efficiencies and the ease of use that Microsoft discovered -- after spending millions and even billions on clearing out the bad ideas and redesigning the good ones.
And when they have filed lawsuits or destroyed competition, they did it using every legal power that government granted them. We, the People.
These toolkits are very interesting for the "now" but not very valid for the future.
Google and Yahoo and others and their search engine mechanics are always working on these manipulations of the results. My big problem with any "buy my hidden secrets" kits is that once a secret is known by the person being manipulated, it is easier to defend against. Do you seriously believe that the top SEO companies would ever tell you anything that they'd want google to find out?
I have some secrets to great search engine placement:
1. Create worthy content.
2. Spell things correctly.
3. Create worth content.
4. Update it regularly.
5. Keep the same domain name as long as you can. I lost some "valuable" second and third positions by letting domain names expire.
6. Try and figure out what the newest "industry catchphrases" are and make sure you use them, except if you're targeting slashdot readers:)
7. Create worthy content.
8. If you find a way to get a higher page rank, don't tell anyone. Be happy until the search engines close that venue off. If you really want to be placed at the top, just pay the piper for an advertisement.
If you're chasing a niche market, you can hit the top 10 in 2-3 weeks, generally. If you're chasing a broad market, good luck, you're too late.
When it comes to marketing kits, learn from Taco's posts: don't be duped.
Oh, as long as this guy is getting slashvertising to his website, might as well click on my link. It is only fair!
Well, the Microsoft contracts with OEMs that forbade them from offering alternate OSes (or Netscape) preinstalled (on pain of huge penalties in Windows pricing) seems to be a pretty straightforward example of abusing monopoly power to stifle competition (with government in no way involved). In fact, I think you'd have to be pretty selective with your facts not to be able to see monopolies abusing their power. The prices only go up AFTER the market is solidified, by the way, so 'supercompetitive' is a misunderstanding. Capitalism stops working when it's impossible to enter the market with a competing product.
That's interesting. I was an OEM for years. We built many PCs and took advantage of the Microsoft deal in order to lower the prices for our consumers. We also offered OS/2, but most copies incurred a HIGHER cost of service than Microsoft, who offered us unlimited direct service.
It is not impossible to enter the operating system market, you just have to offer consumers everything they want. They're very happy with Microsoft -- a company that loses billions a year on new research and development. Again, I am not pro-Microsoft, but I have thousands of happy customers and family using many of their products. They also make some duds, which my customers and family don't use.
Also, what kind of article are you writing when you seem to be unaware of monopoly abuses and remedies from the Gilded Age through the Roosevelt administration?
The Roosevelt administration was one of the most corrupt, anti-market groups I've ever researched. They were backed by so much corruption that I can't say they ever had consumer defense in mind. One large part of the article I'm working on reviews some of the backroom deals they performed to help some by hurting others.
Finally, plenty of 'good products' have been crushed by MS in underhanded ways. The DR-DOS lawsuit, and the demise of Lotus 1-2-3, OS/2, and Wordperfect come to mind.
All 3 of these programs were "destroyed" based on government laws that defended Microsoft's position. Without government protection on Microsoft's software, we'd have seen better programs come out, not destroyed.
I know I sound like a troll (sometimes), but I definitely believe my views are worthy of debate. I'll never say I'm right, I'll just say I'm offering a different opinion with facts as well. The patent/copyright debate is so deep and convoluted that it will take a book to resolve every problem. All that I see is government power abused, not corporations using the free market to take advantage of anyone.
Heh. You may note that I don't agree with most people here, but I do offer new opinions. Even the libertarians distance themselves from me:)
Copyrights are another matter-but even if they're allowed (they are Constitutional, although I don't believe the current iteration is), they should be reformed heavily
20 years ago I'd say you'd be right. Now, I think it is impossible. We're less than a year away from truly anonymous P2P. The laws against copying, even the laws again bad things like child porn will not be effective. There is no way to turn the Internet around, and there will be no way to track information copying. DRM implementations have to happen soon, and Sony has set back DRM 5 years.
New content creators will soon realize they have to go into the business with a model that compensates them for more than just the information they create. The physical product, the social product, in-person performances and other value added services and options will be mandatory to differentiate between the creator's version and the "bootleg" vesion.
I make money on my writings, and I have never used copyright. I always intend for others to take my work, modify it and post it as their own. I always want others to take my ideas and make them better. I will still get paid to create, even if it means that I have to get hired by a megawebsite or a little local newspaper.
I've been writing a pretty extensive article about the idea of monopoly and have been researching recent anti-monopoly litigation and was very surprised to see the lack of hard evidence against a company that could be construed as the company actually using "free market" powers to be that monopoly. Almost always, the company that is considered a monopoly is using one of many government tools to capture a market. The company gets busted because they used the wrong tool, even though other companies use that government tool without any legal proceedings.
It seems to me the label of monopoly comes more from media outcry against a company rather than actual consumer concern. In the Microsoft case, I could not find ONE customer of mine who didn't like their products, the price and the service they received. I'm no Microsoft defender, but it was just odd to me that out of thousands of customers, I didn't find out who hated them. I can't go back to interview Standard Oil customers, but the fact that Standard Oil used "monopoly powers" to lower the price to consumers leads me to believe that S.O. was just supercompetitive, not monopolistic.
Funny how the corporations who hate Microsoft are the same ones who just don't have a good product to attract people with.
Note to moderators: not being anti-Microsoft != troll:)
You're right that the problem seems to be patent abuse. One could also say that many of the problems we face today with government comes from Congressional abuse or Presidential abuse.
This argument (to me) isn't quite valid. It is like blaming the gun for a murder or blaming a sneeze for passing on a cold. When we have a problem, we need to battle the source, not the visible middleman.
Patents are a legal monopoly to use the force of government to protect something that isn't a physical object but a thought. In every situation where government is given a power to use force, we see massive corruption and abuse. You can't name one government force that isn't abused today. We can continue to jail or fine the abusers, but it doesn't get rid of the source of the problem -- offering the power in the first place.
I think you and I agree on many things, though, and I appreciate your opinion. I held a similar position until recently (maybe the past 6 years) when I realized that we can't fix any of these problems by ousting one politician or political party. The problem is deeper than the people, it is the actual power that creates the corruption.
I've asked the question in the past -- what stifling monopolies did we have in the past?
Standard Oil? Halfway down the page, Edmonds refutes that S.O. was a monopoly except where it worked with government to create laws.
I'd like to know who was a monopoly so I can research WHY they were a monopoly. I don't see much proof that a corporation had monopoly powers, except when they were able to abuse the power of Congress in their favor.
My political beliefs don't let me trust a legislature that has abused their power. Take 500 politicians that have abused their power for decades, and expect them to diminish the power of those who lobby them nonstop? It isn't a realistic solution. When bureaucracy starts to grow, it can sit at a "manageable" level for a very long time. The best way to end the bureaucracy is to force it to become out of control and impossible to fund. Maybe we should start to use the Freedom of Information Act to review patent research. I'm sure its a heap of corruption, and it costs less to file FOIA requests than a lawyer to investigate patent research.
As an anti-patent, anti-copyright anarchocapitalist, I wonder if we should just support every patent that is applied for and see if the entire system can come crashing down. Eventually it will cost companies more to enforce their patents than they're receiving from the "protection" they get out of them, right?
I can not, for the life of me, see how patents give people reason to research and develop new ideas. If someone is going to capitalize on your idea, they'll modify the process and create a patent of their own. Look at every cell phone that is released with 5 new patents, and the "bootlegs" of those phones that are released just 6-12 months later. What the heck is the point of patenting something that isn't of value even a year down the line?
The typical slashdot response to my anti-patent opinion is that prescription drugs wouldn't be researched, but the majority of the people actually researching these drugs aren't the ones who gain billions in profits from the discovery. You may not see megacorps working on solutions, but the biggest medical developments in human history came originally from a few researchers, not megalabs that spend billions and release drugs that addict and kill their users.
Come on, people, don't you see that there is no solution to this legal racketeering other than dismantling the entire system? Competitition is good for consumers, anti-competitive government force is terrible. In the end, we all pay with our pocketbooks (to enforce these legal monopolies) and with our lives (when imperfect drugs/safety devices/whatever can not be perfected by competition). Let's start looking at what made this country great -- open competition.
Microsoft isn't the only patent abuser. Maybe its time for someone to research (and blog?) about every patent abusing lawsuit that hits the courts, and see how consumer choice is severely hampered by the ridiculous protection of ideas.
My ex-h6315 had "always on" GPRS, so after a phone call it would reconnect in 3-5 seconds.
It didn't query the server, there was software that sits and waits for an SMS telling it to poll the mail server. T-mobile polled the server every minute (or less) and sent the SMS on new message notice.
Re:Is Opera Google's doorway to beating Microsoft?
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 1
Your comment forced me to think for a good half hour:)
Google might want Opera over Firefox specifically for the reason you posted. They can't buy IE. They don't need to use Firefox as the code supporters will adapt (freely) for anything Google does. Firefox is also lacking on the mobile support, IE isn't.
That seems to leave Opera. My guess is Google made them an offer months ago which gave Opera incentive to finish their mobile version. Google continues to buy closed source code but releases open APIs.
Slashdot Mirror
Your model would completely eliminate any economic progress. Large companies would be free to copy an idea, use it in their products and use their market position to crush any new ideas. I cannot imagine a more disasterous idea.
That's just wrong.
Millions of new products come out annually without patents. The consumers pick the winners. Patents don't make people innovate, they prevent innovation and enhancement.
These patent procedures are really impossible to understand. There are so many confusing patents that no one, not even the PTO, can wade through them all. Is it fraudulent for companies to try to take advantage of the legal use of force that patents offer?
There's no solution to this government atrocity except complete dismantling. Before I was a believer in anarchocapitalism, I thought the best solution was to file a patent and immediately pay a tax on sales, a tax that increments every year until the company releases the rights. I see taxation as theft, so I don't support that process anymore.
My solution? Obfuscation. There is nothing that truly needs a patent (not even prescription drug research once you consider the high ost of regulations). Items that are revolutionary can be protected, temporarily, by hiding the process. The more a competitor wants to knock off your product, the more they'll need to invest to figure it out.
Let's forget even protecting secrets. Thousands of competing patents cover competitive products, but the patented features don't sell the product. What sells it? Ease of use, marketing, quality, safety and support. The patented portion supports very little in terms of sales.
Some Korean bootlegger released a $50 iPod knockoff already. It is a piece of junk. Apple has little to fear because their name sells product based on people's past experiences.
Just like long term quality content gets your website into a high position in the search engines, the same is true of products and services. Use competitiveness instead of force to earn your future.
Sure it is.
Sen. Hilary Clinton began her re-election campaign in Chicago a few weeks ago. Direct voting is not in the state's interest. Read up on the 17th for clarification -- enacting it was directly done to reduce the rights of the states.
I disagree. Look at their wars:
Cliton got us into Kosovo.
But he continued support for a militant Israel and increased police murder via the War on Drugs. He supported Greenspan's inflation of the money base, creating a stock market and housing market bubble. He never balanced the budget, taxation on the bubbles did.
2000+ soldiers have died, and there is no end in sight.
How many people were imprisoned for victimless crimes under Clinton's watch?
Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time.
FDR's New Deal violates almost all of the first 8 Amendments and created the federal monster we live under. The New Deal helped few at the expense of personal responsibility.
But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.
He lied to get us into WWII and duped the US voters. The New Deal is counter-freedom and became law based on fear and scare tactics.
I will say that at least we slashdotters don't think we're "journalists."
Yet the word journalist is more apropos for a blogger than a media careerist. Going back to the dawn of the printing press, you see much more emotion and variety until fairly recent times.
The media now seems locked in with one another. It is all Reuters and UPI regurgitation.
Bloggers that focus on consistency float to the top. My favorite 5 bloggers offer 80% of the news I read -- some of them are ex-media writers. I also read some blogs just to get a sens of alternate opinions.
My 5 blogs (2 public, 3 private) replace my e-mail newsletter (2 years running) that replaced my print newsletter (3 years before the e-news). My readership is down 95% as I attempt to transition, but I'm getting a much better view on who is reading and who isn't.
I'm committed to writing 7 days a week. I already spend 2-3 hours reading links mailed to me, why not set those links up for others with similar ideas? Is my attached opinion wanted by the readers? Only time will tell.
Just off curiosity, do you post as both dada21 and the guy with "Repeal the 17th Ammendment" sig? Seriously, I don't get it.
Nope. I've been voicing my concern over the 17th for about 5 years, glad others support the minority view.
The 17th amendment puts more power in the hands of the people. Because there are only two per state instead of somewhere between 2 and 50 per state like the house, senators are in the best position to represent states rights (invariably, it's the little guy who needs the most protection).
Exactly. We agree. The drafters knew that, historically, people give away more power to the central government over time. They feared true democracy (mob rule) and protected against it by letting state legislators pick federal senators. It bypassed the crazy majority and balanced against trends.
The goverment, whether big or small, needs to be all about the people.
In a socialist country, yes. In a free country, government is about protecting the individual from the mob.
The state needs to protect the people, the federal needs to protect the people. How do you guarantee protection other than through your votes?
By forcing a limited central government via the Constitution and giving the states a check in the balance. That intent fell apart when the 17th Amendment was sold based on fear -- similar to how anti-terrorism is sold to us.
Just because it was initially meant as a measure to protect state rights, can it not also be a measure to protect individual rights (such as used here)?
There is no protection for the individual now, we live in a socialist country where I is less than We, and Us is more important than Them.
The filibuster was meant to be a stranglehold over a large central government, not a partisan tool.
Before the terrible 17th Amendment, Senators were picked by state government, to balance the democratically elected House reps. Senators were to keep government small and defend the rights of the states.
When our officials follow the laws granting them enumerated and limited power, I'll be impressed.
The is no provision for the PATRIOT Act in the Constitution.
Don't believe it is Bush's doing, either. Both parties are equally guilty of violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton or any President going back 3 generations. Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can.
Why do you think it took so long to release papers from Kennedy's time? National security?
Lies. Everyone has secrets to hide.
Microsoft programmers found this solution by modifying a secret Vista file called WIN.INI with the following line:
shell=command.com
Then, they added the GUI in another secret Vista file called AUTOEXEC.BAt containing one line:
win.com
You're 100% right.
I've never intended to dupe people or try to obfuscate a debate. The issue is too convoluted for slashdot, but I'm working on it.
Microsoft owns their software, correct? Copyright and patent protect the ownership of the ideas of their software. The physical CD it comes on isn't what they're protecting, they're protecting the ideas on that CD, agreed?
If they own the software, why can't they redesign it to give them a competitive edge? What is wrong in changing formats so your competition is one step behind? In do it in my businesses -- I change my price, I change my sales tactics, I even change the way we perform certain actions to make it more efficient or harder to copy. That's business.
If you want to make a product compatible with someone else's product, expect to get screwed. Some people are basing their websites on Google Maps. Google promises to do no evil, but if they wanted to change their API and charge for it, it is in their power to do so. Would this be "illegal" by your argument?
The only way I accept a company as a monopoly is if they force others out of the market through physical action (murder is one option) or if they hire government to protect their processes. Both are wrong, but the second process is considered legal. I ran many operating systems over the years that Microsoft was considered a monopoly, and I really didn't see them trying to prevent me from running them. In fact, I ended up with Windows repeatedly when the other operating systems didn't find the efficiencies and the ease of use that Microsoft discovered -- after spending millions and even billions on clearing out the bad ideas and redesigning the good ones.
And when they have filed lawsuits or destroyed competition, they did it using every legal power that government granted them. We, the People.
These toolkits are very interesting for the "now" but not very valid for the future.
:)
Google and Yahoo and others and their search engine mechanics are always working on these manipulations of the results. My big problem with any "buy my hidden secrets" kits is that once a secret is known by the person being manipulated, it is easier to defend against. Do you seriously believe that the top SEO companies would ever tell you anything that they'd want google to find out?
I have some secrets to great search engine placement:
1. Create worthy content.
2. Spell things correctly.
3. Create worth content.
4. Update it regularly.
5. Keep the same domain name as long as you can. I lost some "valuable" second and third positions by letting domain names expire.
6. Try and figure out what the newest "industry catchphrases" are and make sure you use them, except if you're targeting slashdot readers
7. Create worthy content.
8. If you find a way to get a higher page rank, don't tell anyone. Be happy until the search engines close that venue off. If you really want to be placed at the top, just pay the piper for an advertisement.
If you're chasing a niche market, you can hit the top 10 in 2-3 weeks, generally. If you're chasing a broad market, good luck, you're too late.
When it comes to marketing kits, learn from Taco's posts: don't be duped.
Oh, as long as this guy is getting slashvertising to his website, might as well click on my link. It is only fair!
Well, the Microsoft contracts with OEMs that forbade them from offering alternate OSes (or Netscape) preinstalled (on pain of huge penalties in Windows pricing) seems to be a pretty straightforward example of abusing monopoly power to stifle competition (with government in no way involved). In fact, I think you'd have to be pretty selective with your facts not to be able to see monopolies abusing their power. The prices only go up AFTER the market is solidified, by the way, so 'supercompetitive' is a misunderstanding. Capitalism stops working when it's impossible to enter the market with a competing product.
That's interesting. I was an OEM for years. We built many PCs and took advantage of the Microsoft deal in order to lower the prices for our consumers. We also offered OS/2, but most copies incurred a HIGHER cost of service than Microsoft, who offered us unlimited direct service.
It is not impossible to enter the operating system market, you just have to offer consumers everything they want. They're very happy with Microsoft -- a company that loses billions a year on new research and development. Again, I am not pro-Microsoft, but I have thousands of happy customers and family using many of their products. They also make some duds, which my customers and family don't use.
Also, what kind of article are you writing when you seem to be unaware of monopoly abuses and remedies from the Gilded Age through the Roosevelt administration?
The Roosevelt administration was one of the most corrupt, anti-market groups I've ever researched. They were backed by so much corruption that I can't say they ever had consumer defense in mind. One large part of the article I'm working on reviews some of the backroom deals they performed to help some by hurting others.
Finally, plenty of 'good products' have been crushed by MS in underhanded ways. The DR-DOS lawsuit, and the demise of Lotus 1-2-3, OS/2, and Wordperfect come to mind.
All 3 of these programs were "destroyed" based on government laws that defended Microsoft's position. Without government protection on Microsoft's software, we'd have seen better programs come out, not destroyed.
I know I sound like a troll (sometimes), but I definitely believe my views are worthy of debate. I'll never say I'm right, I'll just say I'm offering a different opinion with facts as well. The patent/copyright debate is so deep and convoluted that it will take a book to resolve every problem. All that I see is government power abused, not corporations using the free market to take advantage of anyone.
Heh. You may note that I don't agree with most people here, but I do offer new opinions. Even the libertarians distance themselves from me :)
Copyrights are another matter-but even if they're allowed (they are Constitutional, although I don't believe the current iteration is), they should be reformed heavily
20 years ago I'd say you'd be right. Now, I think it is impossible. We're less than a year away from truly anonymous P2P. The laws against copying, even the laws again bad things like child porn will not be effective. There is no way to turn the Internet around, and there will be no way to track information copying. DRM implementations have to happen soon, and Sony has set back DRM 5 years.
New content creators will soon realize they have to go into the business with a model that compensates them for more than just the information they create. The physical product, the social product, in-person performances and other value added services and options will be mandatory to differentiate between the creator's version and the "bootleg" vesion.
I make money on my writings, and I have never used copyright. I always intend for others to take my work, modify it and post it as their own. I always want others to take my ideas and make them better. I will still get paid to create, even if it means that I have to get hired by a megawebsite or a little local newspaper.
Thanks.
:)
I've been writing a pretty extensive article about the idea of monopoly and have been researching recent anti-monopoly litigation and was very surprised to see the lack of hard evidence against a company that could be construed as the company actually using "free market" powers to be that monopoly. Almost always, the company that is considered a monopoly is using one of many government tools to capture a market. The company gets busted because they used the wrong tool, even though other companies use that government tool without any legal proceedings.
It seems to me the label of monopoly comes more from media outcry against a company rather than actual consumer concern. In the Microsoft case, I could not find ONE customer of mine who didn't like their products, the price and the service they received. I'm no Microsoft defender, but it was just odd to me that out of thousands of customers, I didn't find out who hated them. I can't go back to interview Standard Oil customers, but the fact that Standard Oil used "monopoly powers" to lower the price to consumers leads me to believe that S.O. was just supercompetitive, not monopolistic.
Funny how the corporations who hate Microsoft are the same ones who just don't have a good product to attract people with.
Note to moderators: not being anti-Microsoft != troll
You're right that the problem seems to be patent abuse. One could also say that many of the problems we face today with government comes from Congressional abuse or Presidential abuse.
This argument (to me) isn't quite valid. It is like blaming the gun for a murder or blaming a sneeze for passing on a cold. When we have a problem, we need to battle the source, not the visible middleman.
Patents are a legal monopoly to use the force of government to protect something that isn't a physical object but a thought. In every situation where government is given a power to use force, we see massive corruption and abuse. You can't name one government force that isn't abused today. We can continue to jail or fine the abusers, but it doesn't get rid of the source of the problem -- offering the power in the first place.
I think you and I agree on many things, though, and I appreciate your opinion. I held a similar position until recently (maybe the past 6 years) when I realized that we can't fix any of these problems by ousting one politician or political party. The problem is deeper than the people, it is the actual power that creates the corruption.
I've asked the question in the past -- what stifling monopolies did we have in the past?
Standard Oil? Halfway down the page, Edmonds refutes that S.O. was a monopoly except where it worked with government to create laws.
I'd like to know who was a monopoly so I can research WHY they were a monopoly. I don't see much proof that a corporation had monopoly powers, except when they were able to abuse the power of Congress in their favor.
My political beliefs don't let me trust a legislature that has abused their power. Take 500 politicians that have abused their power for decades, and expect them to diminish the power of those who lobby them nonstop? It isn't a realistic solution. When bureaucracy starts to grow, it can sit at a "manageable" level for a very long time. The best way to end the bureaucracy is to force it to become out of control and impossible to fund. Maybe we should start to use the Freedom of Information Act to review patent research. I'm sure its a heap of corruption, and it costs less to file FOIA requests than a lawyer to investigate patent research.
As an anti-patent, anti-copyright anarchocapitalist, I wonder if we should just support every patent that is applied for and see if the entire system can come crashing down. Eventually it will cost companies more to enforce their patents than they're receiving from the "protection" they get out of them, right?
I can not, for the life of me, see how patents give people reason to research and develop new ideas. If someone is going to capitalize on your idea, they'll modify the process and create a patent of their own. Look at every cell phone that is released with 5 new patents, and the "bootlegs" of those phones that are released just 6-12 months later. What the heck is the point of patenting something that isn't of value even a year down the line?
The typical slashdot response to my anti-patent opinion is that prescription drugs wouldn't be researched, but the majority of the people actually researching these drugs aren't the ones who gain billions in profits from the discovery. You may not see megacorps working on solutions, but the biggest medical developments in human history came originally from a few researchers, not megalabs that spend billions and release drugs that addict and kill their users.
Come on, people, don't you see that there is no solution to this legal racketeering other than dismantling the entire system? Competitition is good for consumers, anti-competitive government force is terrible. In the end, we all pay with our pocketbooks (to enforce these legal monopolies) and with our lives (when imperfect drugs/safety devices/whatever can not be perfected by competition). Let's start looking at what made this country great -- open competition.
Microsoft isn't the only patent abuser. Maybe its time for someone to research (and blog?) about every patent abusing lawsuit that hits the courts, and see how consumer choice is severely hampered by the ridiculous protection of ideas.
Weird. I didn't do anything different. Someone tell Taco :)
http://www.riaa.org/freerip4u/
1. $0.00 / CD, No shipping needed
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
Anyone wonder how many Sony Rootkits (tm) these guys got?
My ex-h6315 had "always on" GPRS, so after a phone call it would reconnect in 3-5 seconds.
It didn't query the server, there was software that sits and waits for an SMS telling it to poll the mail server. T-mobile polled the server every minute (or less) and sent the SMS on new message notice.
Not as nice as BB.
Power to the people!!!
No, no. You mean power to the individual. Power to the people gives you big government that gives power to the elite.
Power to the individual!
Your comment forced me to think for a good half hour :)
Google might want Opera over Firefox specifically for the reason you posted. They can't buy IE. They don't need to use Firefox as the code supporters will adapt (freely) for anything Google does. Firefox is also lacking on the mobile support, IE isn't.
That seems to leave Opera. My guess is Google made them an offer months ago which gave Opera incentive to finish their mobile version. Google continues to buy closed source code but releases open APIs.