Sport are pretty much competitive by definition. There are personal goals and improvements, but the core concern is whether one person or group is better or worse than another person or group. Wins and Losses are zero sum. Having more or more capable doctors, engineers, and scientists doesn't entail a loss, so the concerns are very different. If those same people will have shorter lifetimes or careers because of these drugs or other adverse effects, then there is a need for a balancing act. However, the balance would be the positive effects versus the negative effects, both for the individual and society. These concerns apply regardless of what is considered normal. People with ADHD severe enough to harm their functional abilities may have negative effects from Aderall that outweigh their costs. However, people that are already above average on productivity may get a net benefit from Aderall.
Perhaps a better analogy would be vitamins. Someone in good health without any nutritional deficiencies might benefit from vitamins, and we wouldn't see a problem with that.
This is a compilation of public data, with the legwork being done by others. You've got no real legal option in protecting the data, at least in regards to the US. You could perhaps try some technical means of controlling the data, but that would greatly reduce the utility. I would also consider in unethical to try and 'own' the results of work done by other unpaid volunteers. If you wish to be the center of this data collection, than make it as useful as possible.
Actually, it does have something to do with the ticket. This is how things are by design in order to make sure the revenue stream isn't interrupted. If invalid tickets were reasonable to challenge, then they couldn't hand out nearly as many invalid tickets.
Also, it strikes me as quite peculiar how much you are defending a clearly predatory system just because it's the law. No public good is served by this.
Some places have 'zero tolerance' for speeding, and the cops in those places will pull you over for 2 MPH. Now, you are correct in the fact that it's legally shaky, but you'd have to go to court, which would cost more than paying the ticket. Also, in many cases, the victims of this are people passing by, so fighting it would include the additional burden of traveling a decent distance.
There are legitimate reasons to enforce speed limits, namely public safety and environmental protection, but that differs quite a bit from predatory speed traps. Those are just money rackets, and they often encourage behavior that makes the public less safe and results in worse fuel economy.
I'm not using objective sources, since those exist, but I get information from a variety of sources on different parts of the spectrum. Such sources can lead to a clear conclusion that differs from the opinion of many people, especially when one side rarely makes evidence based arguments that hold up to any serious scrutiny. Also it's not that patents offer nothing of value, but that they can't produce a net benefit. They have their minor positive effects, but they can't outweigh their costs. I would attribute that to the underlying theory behind the institution being flawed.
That shouldn't really come as a surprise. Understanding how to foster creativity requires a strong understanding of psychology, economics, game theory, etc., and back when the patent system was first devised, humanity didn't have anything remotely modern in any of those subjects, and they were trying to use an old tool that was clearly harmful in a good way. That system actually working as intended would be an unbelievable miracle.
The system is still fundamentally the same as it was during that time, and in order to fix it to actually accomplish those goals, you would have to change it so much that it would have virtually nothing in common with patents other than the goal of furthering progress. In such a case, starting anew is a much better solution.
A variety of websites, slashdot being one of the smallest portions for me. A major source of my knowledge is online debate with patent lawyers on their own sites. There are slashdotters that are largely insulated from opposing viewpoints, but I am not one of them.
I've read quite a bit on the subject from economists, developers, lawyers, and journalists. I know how patents work. The basic mechanics aren't that complicated. Exactly what constitutes prior art may be a bit complex at times, and understanding exactly what is covered in a claim is often far from simple, but even on those aspects, I am competent enough to make informed judgments on the subject, although probably not enough to be a lawyer.
Again, there's not good evidence that patents actually do anything helpful. Patents themselves don't have a particularly good argument behind them, and software patents are pretty clearly a net harm to society.
Close, but in this case, you've got four perfectly good tires, and the tire you think is low is actually an anchor tied to the back. Getting rid of the anchor that does nothing but slow you down is a good idea. There is no invention required, no need to try and make the anchor more aerodynamic. Just get rid of it. An anchor is not useful in any way for a car. Only idiots think it's a good idea to put an anchor behind a car.
Okay, then try to explain it to somebody that thinks that no credible evidence has been given that software patents have a net positive effect on innovation, while a good amount of evidence to the contrary exists.
They have mechanisms for withdrawal, and those mechanisms will involve threats of trade sanctions. Now, those threats may very well be hollow, at least in the long run, but they are a means of control through fear, which is the MO of this brand of thugs.
What I mean is that while there would be some drawbacks to it, basically some jerks that don't like to share, they would be heavily outweighed by the advantages, like freely reverse engineering software for compatibility. It's also worth noting that the business models of said jerks would be less practical in this environment, so they would largely die out if they didn't change their way of doing things.
There's not really a problem, per se. The free market does a good job of encouraging innovation on its own. If enough cases occur where this isn't the case, a superior alternative would be direct funding.
Implementations of inventions and documentation of patents CAN be covered by copyright though.
Yes, implementations of inventions can be covered by copyright, but copyright allows for independent invention.
If the problem with patents is that they are virtually useless as documentation, then one change to patent law should be to force minimum quality standards for documentation. (i.e. implementable by any practitioner in the field).
It is 'a' problem, not 'the' problem. Even within that particular issue, you seem to be focusing on one particular element of why they are useless as documentation. Yes, being in patentese is troubling, but more relevant is that patents are most often sought on things which are trivially easy to reverse engineer (if they aren't, a trade secret is generally a better choice). Documenting things which are evident upon usage provides no benefit. We learn things we would already know, even if the patents are written properly.
Abolishing patents entirely is throwing away any possible benefits of a patent system to society.
True, although patents have not demonstrated any possible benefits, and it is doubtful that the system can produce any net benefits.
Understand that if you are talking about abolishing the patent system, you're not just talking about abolishing software patents, but all patents in all fields
That's fine. While in most fields, patents aren't as clearly problematic as in software, they are a neutral force at best.
That is provably false. There was innovation before patents. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe 'no patents, no innovation.' At least 'no patents, less innovation' is plausible, but the evidence seems to suggest the opposite to be true.
I'm curious as to where you think that there is such a biblical reference (especially given a great deal of slavery going on). The closest thing I'm aware of is the mention of the sweat of the brow in Genesis 3:19. However, the context is that man will suffer because he will have to labor to be fed, instead of living in the paradise of Eden where all of our needs are taken care of.
What you are speaking of only applies to patents that were in the transitional period where the US adopted a WTO mandate, which was 20 years. I forget the exact implementation, but I believe it only applied to patents that were active or had pending applications around 1995.
Except that inventions can't be covered by copyright.. Boldrin and Levine also oppose copyright as well, anyway.
Also, patents as they exist now are virtually useless as documentation (often not even making sense to the listed inventor), and people don't seek patents on things that they can easily protect via trade secrets, so no real knowledge is gained via disclosure.
Copyleft is primarily a hack to counter copyright. There would be some potential issues with copyleft licenses being unenforceable, but it would remove countless roadblocks. People can still voluntarily cooperate, and that makes up the lion's share of FOSS development.
Except the idea of a patent system is fundamentally flawed. Legal monopolies are rarely an effective legal tool, and information is not one of the exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Sport are pretty much competitive by definition. There are personal goals and improvements, but the core concern is whether one person or group is better or worse than another person or group. Wins and Losses are zero sum. Having more or more capable doctors, engineers, and scientists doesn't entail a loss, so the concerns are very different. If those same people will have shorter lifetimes or careers because of these drugs or other adverse effects, then there is a need for a balancing act. However, the balance would be the positive effects versus the negative effects, both for the individual and society. These concerns apply regardless of what is considered normal. People with ADHD severe enough to harm their functional abilities may have negative effects from Aderall that outweigh their costs. However, people that are already above average on productivity may get a net benefit from Aderall.
Perhaps a better analogy would be vitamins. Someone in good health without any nutritional deficiencies might benefit from vitamins, and we wouldn't see a problem with that.
This is a compilation of public data, with the legwork being done by others. You've got no real legal option in protecting the data, at least in regards to the US. You could perhaps try some technical means of controlling the data, but that would greatly reduce the utility. I would also consider in unethical to try and 'own' the results of work done by other unpaid volunteers. If you wish to be the center of this data collection, than make it as useful as possible.
Actually, it does have something to do with the ticket. This is how things are by design in order to make sure the revenue stream isn't interrupted. If invalid tickets were reasonable to challenge, then they couldn't hand out nearly as many invalid tickets.
Also, it strikes me as quite peculiar how much you are defending a clearly predatory system just because it's the law. No public good is served by this.
Some places have 'zero tolerance' for speeding, and the cops in those places will pull you over for 2 MPH. Now, you are correct in the fact that it's legally shaky, but you'd have to go to court, which would cost more than paying the ticket. Also, in many cases, the victims of this are people passing by, so fighting it would include the additional burden of traveling a decent distance.
There are legitimate reasons to enforce speed limits, namely public safety and environmental protection, but that differs quite a bit from predatory speed traps. Those are just money rackets, and they often encourage behavior that makes the public less safe and results in worse fuel economy.
Perhaps people are taking these courses for personal enrichment instead of fluffing their resume.
since those *don't* exist
I'm not using objective sources, since those exist, but I get information from a variety of sources on different parts of the spectrum. Such sources can lead to a clear conclusion that differs from the opinion of many people, especially when one side rarely makes evidence based arguments that hold up to any serious scrutiny. Also it's not that patents offer nothing of value, but that they can't produce a net benefit. They have their minor positive effects, but they can't outweigh their costs. I would attribute that to the underlying theory behind the institution being flawed.
That shouldn't really come as a surprise. Understanding how to foster creativity requires a strong understanding of psychology, economics, game theory, etc., and back when the patent system was first devised, humanity didn't have anything remotely modern in any of those subjects, and they were trying to use an old tool that was clearly harmful in a good way. That system actually working as intended would be an unbelievable miracle.
The system is still fundamentally the same as it was during that time, and in order to fix it to actually accomplish those goals, you would have to change it so much that it would have virtually nothing in common with patents other than the goal of furthering progress. In such a case, starting anew is a much better solution.
A variety of websites, slashdot being one of the smallest portions for me. A major source of my knowledge is online debate with patent lawyers on their own sites. There are slashdotters that are largely insulated from opposing viewpoints, but I am not one of them.
I've read quite a bit on the subject from economists, developers, lawyers, and journalists. I know how patents work. The basic mechanics aren't that complicated. Exactly what constitutes prior art may be a bit complex at times, and understanding exactly what is covered in a claim is often far from simple, but even on those aspects, I am competent enough to make informed judgments on the subject, although probably not enough to be a lawyer.
Again, there's not good evidence that patents actually do anything helpful. Patents themselves don't have a particularly good argument behind them, and software patents are pretty clearly a net harm to society.
Close, but in this case, you've got four perfectly good tires, and the tire you think is low is actually an anchor tied to the back. Getting rid of the anchor that does nothing but slow you down is a good idea. There is no invention required, no need to try and make the anchor more aerodynamic. Just get rid of it. An anchor is not useful in any way for a car. Only idiots think it's a good idea to put an anchor behind a car.
Okay, then try to explain it to somebody that thinks that no credible evidence has been given that software patents have a net positive effect on innovation, while a good amount of evidence to the contrary exists.
It still does prevail, but many parties aren't fully aware of what mathematics entails
True, but how is that at all related to software patents?
They have mechanisms for withdrawal, and those mechanisms will involve threats of trade sanctions. Now, those threats may very well be hollow, at least in the long run, but they are a means of control through fear, which is the MO of this brand of thugs.
What I mean is that while there would be some drawbacks to it, basically some jerks that don't like to share, they would be heavily outweighed by the advantages, like freely reverse engineering software for compatibility. It's also worth noting that the business models of said jerks would be less practical in this environment, so they would largely die out if they didn't change their way of doing things.
There's not really a problem, per se. The free market does a good job of encouraging innovation on its own. If enough cases occur where this isn't the case, a superior alternative would be direct funding.
Yes, implementations of inventions can be covered by copyright, but copyright allows for independent invention.
It is 'a' problem, not 'the' problem. Even within that particular issue, you seem to be focusing on one particular element of why they are useless as documentation. Yes, being in patentese is troubling, but more relevant is that patents are most often sought on things which are trivially easy to reverse engineer (if they aren't, a trade secret is generally a better choice). Documenting things which are evident upon usage provides no benefit. We learn things we would already know, even if the patents are written properly.
True, although patents have not demonstrated any possible benefits, and it is doubtful that the system can produce any net benefits.
That's fine. While in most fields, patents aren't as clearly problematic as in software, they are a neutral force at best.
That is provably false. There was innovation before patents. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe 'no patents, no innovation.' At least 'no patents, less innovation' is plausible, but the evidence seems to suggest the opposite to be true.
I'm curious as to where you think that there is such a biblical reference (especially given a great deal of slavery going on). The closest thing I'm aware of is the mention of the sweat of the brow in Genesis 3:19. However, the context is that man will suffer because he will have to labor to be fed, instead of living in the paradise of Eden where all of our needs are taken care of.
What you are speaking of only applies to patents that were in the transitional period where the US adopted a WTO mandate, which was 20 years. I forget the exact implementation, but I believe it only applied to patents that were active or had pending applications around 1995.
Except that inventions can't be covered by copyright.. Boldrin and Levine also oppose copyright as well, anyway.
Also, patents as they exist now are virtually useless as documentation (often not even making sense to the listed inventor), and people don't seek patents on things that they can easily protect via trade secrets, so no real knowledge is gained via disclosure.
Copyleft is primarily a hack to counter copyright. There would be some potential issues with copyleft licenses being unenforceable, but it would remove countless roadblocks. People can still voluntarily cooperate, and that makes up the lion's share of FOSS development.
Except the idea of a patent system is fundamentally flawed. Legal monopolies are rarely an effective legal tool, and information is not one of the exceptions.