"Our country is under no obligation to buy or sell goods with any other country. "
That's not what's being argued. The 'obligation' is to let private Swedish entities and private American entities do business with each other as they so choose. At least on the American side, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Allowing Swedes and Americans to trade freely is thus the norm until a law or policy happens to change that. Thus, trade sanctions, tariffs, and so forth are the exceptions to the norm, and are undeniably punitive measures. Using the threat of punitive measures to influence other countries policies is disrespecting the sovereignty of those countries to govern themselves.
Also, it seems as if you think I'm Swedish. I'm American, and I think it was utter bullshit when European countries shoved shitty laws down our throats. It's also bullshit when non-American countries shove such laws down the throats of non-American countries.
There are no 'international copyright laws.' There are international copyright agreements, and involvement in those often has other strings attached, making them not entirely voluntary.
'Problem 2' is in most cases that the countries pushing copyright agendas are going to threaten trade sanctions or otherwise opt for unfavorable trade policies unless they can get what they want in regards to copyright policy. I think in most viewpoints, trade sanctions are seen as a punishment. So, the reality is that a country like Sweden is going to be punished by the US unless they do the US wants.
What Sweden does with their copyright laws is none of the US's business, and pressuring other countries to change their laws completely disrespects their sovereignty.
It can be a few thousand dollars or less, or it can be higher depending upon the circumstances. Even so, a few thousand dollars may be prohibitively expensive to a start-up on a small budget in some cases. Also, within a year, a nonprovisional patent would have to be filed, which makes it have a fair bit more of a cost. And all of this is assuming that there is only one 'invention', since filing more patents means the costs multiply, with the likelihood of this being the case depending greatly upon the field in question.
I'm not saying anything about how often the first inventor being disadvantaged happens, but rather that it's not something to discount completely. The bigger concern to me is the incredibly low bar set for receiving patents, meaning that as a practical manner, many of these companies have to divert tens of thousands of dollars just to have some kind of leverage against the big dogs, with the vast majority of the portfolios for both sides often not having anything substantially new, and probably not really warranting the effort of even filing, let alone the social costs of two decades of monopoly.
Saying that patents don't stifle innovation reeks of bullshit. The best argument you can make is that patents give us more innovation than they take away from us, but there's not much good evidence on that. As for inventors keeping their processes secret, that's generally bullshit too. If someone can practice an process widely and still have it functionally kept a secret for more than 20 years, they would be fools to get a patent. It only makes sense to get a patent for an invention that can't be kept a secret while being widely practiced for more than 20 years. Three reasonable possibilities exist for a patented invention:
1) the invention is widely practiced and kept secret for less than 20 years
2) the invention is kept secret for more than 20 years, but not widely practiced during that time
3) the resources put into development of the invention are not spent because an adequate return on investment can't be made
Most reasonable arguments for patents assume that 3) is the most common scenario, with perhaps a bit of 2) sprinkled in. 1) is going to generally be preferable than patents.
Also, patents do stop something other than re-inventing. They can make the invention of something that depends upon an existing invention not commercially viable. This is actually quite common, since practically all inventions require the use of existing inventions.
The first inventor can be screwed by a first-to-file system. Those with more resources can go from invention to filing faster. One concern is translating a useful invention into 'patentese', as well as doing a lot of searching for prior art. However, it's not really a point worth arguing deeply IMO. If two parties independently come up with the same invention in a short time period, then the invention is most likely obvious and no patent should have been granted ( a lot of the problems we have lie in our horrible methods of finding prior art and low standards for what constitutes 'obvious'). There are exceptions, but they would be very rare, perhaps within the same kind of frequency as lunar eclipses, and the best course of action in such cases very well may be to give a patent to neither even if the invention is clearly non-obvious.
That's working under the assumption that people outside of the FOSS community see Stallman as a figurehead in any way. Linus is way more well known, and he's more presentable than Ballmer IMO. Besides, corruption is a much easier route. You could look and act like rms if had Bill Gates' bank account and still win those contracts.
Tanks aren't the best way to stop conventional military conflicts. The internet is. If we want to stop China, Iran, or whoever the big boogeyman is from dropping bombs on us, we should be dumping them with wired and wireless communication as well as investing in the needed infrastructure. It would be orders of magnitude more cost effective.
If you bother with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, than you've got a device that is significantly less portable than a tablet, would require more time to set up, and would be far more limited in where you could use it, and many of the places where you could sort of use it would result in ergonomics inferior to a laptop. I will concede that a laptop has inferior ergonomics to a properly positioned desktop with a monitor, but I wouldn't call it extremely poor. Extremely poor fits better for a tablet design, as it has the keyboard, mouse, and screen all on the same plane
Would people that would complain like that even try to install a different OS? Most of the people that would make such a complaint don't know what an OS is. Jailbreakers don't seem to have tarnished the iPhone's reputation. Worse case scenario, their technologically inclined friends or family install it and blame it on the person who did that. They'll also blame them messing with the iPad as the cause when the cable TV stops working.
Because it's Apple and that's what they do. It's not as if there aren't many cheap devices that do some or all of the above in lots of technological areas. Lots of businesses have been rather slow on picking up the open standards stuff as a means of making money.
True, but it wasn't a standard firewire connection. It's was firewire with a unique connector, meaning you couldn't use a standard firewire cable without an adapter.
It's quite possible that the sanest copyright and patent laws are no laws at all. Legal monopolies are a very odd tool to be using in the 21st century. About the only place outside of 'IP' they are seen today is in utilities, where the logistics make normal competition inefficient, and most of those aren't fully private (typically either state owned or member owned). The only ones I can think of that are fully private are telecoms, and they are one of the biggest scourges to our society IMO.
The great irony of that being that DIsney was largely built upon public domain works, with a large share of the remainder being licensed adaptations.
Also, I think the average person is getting more concerned about copyright. They might have a feeling in the abstract about how 'artists should get paid,' but any effect it has on them on a personal level is likely to be seen as unjust.
The key word here is should. It's both an ex post facto law, and retroactive extensions can't conceivably 'promote the progress', which is the only condition upon which copyright laws are to be allowed. SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one.
Native Americans don't call themselves 'Native Americans' (the name would vary depending upon the tribe), and I think Brazilians call themselves Brasilianos (although that's not too much of a stretch). However, the indigenous people of the Amazon probably didn't call Brazil 'Brazil' or the Amazon 'the Amazon.' That sort of suggests the futility in trying to have a 'native' name.
Also, I can't seem to find ANY results on Weemoteeuktuk
I think you may have the wrong picture, unless Steve Jobs has turned into Norse Mythology. Honestly, I don't want to acknolwedge the existence of iDin, which is 30% thinner and lighter than Odin
I think most airplanes would be closer to flying buses. Also, the colloquial use of the term "flying car" has a more specific use than anything car-like that flies, as well as being a metonymy for a technological utopia.
I would agree that China innovates less than most western nations, at least per capita. However, I would attribute that to a lower income, and more to a lack of personal liberties, not to a lack of protecting "intellectual property."
Also, you should be careful about criticizing "for the common good" as at least the US patent and copyright systems exists "to Promote the Progress."
Slashdot Mirror
"Our country is under no obligation to buy or sell goods with any other country. "
That's not what's being argued. The 'obligation' is to let private Swedish entities and private American entities do business with each other as they so choose. At least on the American side, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Allowing Swedes and Americans to trade freely is thus the norm until a law or policy happens to change that. Thus, trade sanctions, tariffs, and so forth are the exceptions to the norm, and are undeniably punitive measures. Using the threat of punitive measures to influence other countries policies is disrespecting the sovereignty of those countries to govern themselves.
Also, it seems as if you think I'm Swedish. I'm American, and I think it was utter bullshit when European countries shoved shitty laws down our throats. It's also bullshit when non-American countries shove such laws down the throats of non-American countries.
There are no 'international copyright laws.' There are international copyright agreements, and involvement in those often has other strings attached, making them not entirely voluntary.
'Problem 2' is in most cases that the countries pushing copyright agendas are going to threaten trade sanctions or otherwise opt for unfavorable trade policies unless they can get what they want in regards to copyright policy. I think in most viewpoints, trade sanctions are seen as a punishment. So, the reality is that a country like Sweden is going to be punished by the US unless they do the US wants.
What Sweden does with their copyright laws is none of the US's business, and pressuring other countries to change their laws completely disrespects their sovereignty.
It can be a few thousand dollars or less, or it can be higher depending upon the circumstances. Even so, a few thousand dollars may be prohibitively expensive to a start-up on a small budget in some cases. Also, within a year, a nonprovisional patent would have to be filed, which makes it have a fair bit more of a cost. And all of this is assuming that there is only one 'invention', since filing more patents means the costs multiply, with the likelihood of this being the case depending greatly upon the field in question.
I'm not saying anything about how often the first inventor being disadvantaged happens, but rather that it's not something to discount completely. The bigger concern to me is the incredibly low bar set for receiving patents, meaning that as a practical manner, many of these companies have to divert tens of thousands of dollars just to have some kind of leverage against the big dogs, with the vast majority of the portfolios for both sides often not having anything substantially new, and probably not really warranting the effort of even filing, let alone the social costs of two decades of monopoly.
Saying that patents don't stifle innovation reeks of bullshit. The best argument you can make is that patents give us more innovation than they take away from us, but there's not much good evidence on that. As for inventors keeping their processes secret, that's generally bullshit too. If someone can practice an process widely and still have it functionally kept a secret for more than 20 years, they would be fools to get a patent. It only makes sense to get a patent for an invention that can't be kept a secret while being widely practiced for more than 20 years. Three reasonable possibilities exist for a patented invention:
1) the invention is widely practiced and kept secret for less than 20 years
2) the invention is kept secret for more than 20 years, but not widely practiced during that time
3) the resources put into development of the invention are not spent because an adequate return on investment can't be made
Most reasonable arguments for patents assume that 3) is the most common scenario, with perhaps a bit of 2) sprinkled in. 1) is going to generally be preferable than patents. Also, patents do stop something other than re-inventing. They can make the invention of something that depends upon an existing invention not commercially viable. This is actually quite common, since practically all inventions require the use of existing inventions.
The first inventor can be screwed by a first-to-file system. Those with more resources can go from invention to filing faster. One concern is translating a useful invention into 'patentese', as well as doing a lot of searching for prior art. However, it's not really a point worth arguing deeply IMO. If two parties independently come up with the same invention in a short time period, then the invention is most likely obvious and no patent should have been granted ( a lot of the problems we have lie in our horrible methods of finding prior art and low standards for what constitutes 'obvious'). There are exceptions, but they would be very rare, perhaps within the same kind of frequency as lunar eclipses, and the best course of action in such cases very well may be to give a patent to neither even if the invention is clearly non-obvious.
A lot of Microsoft's concern over reform is in dealing with NPEs, since their war chests aren't at all useful against them.
That's working under the assumption that people outside of the FOSS community see Stallman as a figurehead in any way. Linus is way more well known, and he's more presentable than Ballmer IMO. Besides, corruption is a much easier route. You could look and act like rms if had Bill Gates' bank account and still win those contracts.
Tanks aren't the best way to stop conventional military conflicts. The internet is. If we want to stop China, Iran, or whoever the big boogeyman is from dropping bombs on us, we should be dumping them with wired and wireless communication as well as investing in the needed infrastructure. It would be orders of magnitude more cost effective.
circuitry can't be copyrighted
Conspicuous consumption isn't limited to the upper crust of society. It's also present when "keeping up with the Joneses"
If you bother with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, than you've got a device that is significantly less portable than a tablet, would require more time to set up, and would be far more limited in where you could use it, and many of the places where you could sort of use it would result in ergonomics inferior to a laptop. I will concede that a laptop has inferior ergonomics to a properly positioned desktop with a monitor, but I wouldn't call it extremely poor. Extremely poor fits better for a tablet design, as it has the keyboard, mouse, and screen all on the same plane
Would people that would complain like that even try to install a different OS? Most of the people that would make such a complaint don't know what an OS is. Jailbreakers don't seem to have tarnished the iPhone's reputation. Worse case scenario, their technologically inclined friends or family install it and blame it on the person who did that. They'll also blame them messing with the iPad as the cause when the cable TV stops working.
Because it's Apple and that's what they do. It's not as if there aren't many cheap devices that do some or all of the above in lots of technological areas. Lots of businesses have been rather slow on picking up the open standards stuff as a means of making money.
True, but it wasn't a standard firewire connection. It's was firewire with a unique connector, meaning you couldn't use a standard firewire cable without an adapter.
It's quite possible that the sanest copyright and patent laws are no laws at all. Legal monopolies are a very odd tool to be using in the 21st century. About the only place outside of 'IP' they are seen today is in utilities, where the logistics make normal competition inefficient, and most of those aren't fully private (typically either state owned or member owned). The only ones I can think of that are fully private are telecoms, and they are one of the biggest scourges to our society IMO.
The great irony of that being that DIsney was largely built upon public domain works, with a large share of the remainder being licensed adaptations.
Also, I think the average person is getting more concerned about copyright. They might have a feeling in the abstract about how 'artists should get paid,' but any effect it has on them on a personal level is likely to be seen as unjust.
The key word here is should. It's both an ex post facto law, and retroactive extensions can't conceivably 'promote the progress', which is the only condition upon which copyright laws are to be allowed. SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one.
Native Americans don't call themselves 'Native Americans' (the name would vary depending upon the tribe), and I think Brazilians call themselves Brasilianos (although that's not too much of a stretch). However, the indigenous people of the Amazon probably didn't call Brazil 'Brazil' or the Amazon 'the Amazon.' That sort of suggests the futility in trying to have a 'native' name.
Also, I can't seem to find ANY results on Weemoteeuktuk
So, Moleman River?
I think you may have the wrong picture, unless Steve Jobs has turned into Norse Mythology. Honestly, I don't want to acknolwedge the existence of iDin, which is 30% thinner and lighter than Odin
So, sitting around and watching scary movies is really awful for you?
That's working under the assumption that autistics and homosexuals have no value to society, and should be eradicated. I don't think that is the case.
I think most airplanes would be closer to flying buses. Also, the colloquial use of the term "flying car" has a more specific use than anything car-like that flies, as well as being a metonymy for a technological utopia.
I would agree that China innovates less than most western nations, at least per capita. However, I would attribute that to a lower income, and more to a lack of personal liberties, not to a lack of protecting "intellectual property." Also, you should be careful about criticizing "for the common good" as at least the US patent and copyright systems exists "to Promote the Progress."