The patent system is supposed to be a pragmatic institution. It barters away the rights of the public (and competitors) in hopes of greater disclosure and greater scientific advance. Thus, it is only just under the conditions that the benefits outweigh the costs. Figuring out what parameters this happens would require a good degree of independent scientific testing, although it would still be somewhat subjective. If there are no conditions under which the patent system is a net benefit, than the only just action is to get rid of the patent system. I personally wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. The mechanisms of getting the patent system to work are very complex, and yet the basics of the system predate anything that could be remotely considered modern economics or psychology.
A day or so seem like a very short time for a twenty year monopoly. While not something easy to measure, I would say that something would be expected to otherwise not be available to the market for at least 3 to 5 years for it to justify that period of exclusivity.
How directly the one being influenced was directed is very important. Many serial killers and nutjobs have been inspired to successfully commit murder by lots of things that had nothing to do with murder, and it's clearly inappropriate to ban those books or punish those authors.
Short of payment, blackmail, etc. the burden of proof for influencing a crime should be very high.
I'd say the more preferable position is to err on the side of being permissive. We can always make more people, but lost freedom is very hard to get back, and generally involves a lot of killing people.
as for the second part, I meant that convincing people to murder is difficult, not that committing murder is difficult. Watch:
You should totally kill Obama with the lead pipe, in the library.
I just told you that you should commit murder, and I gave you very specific instructions. However, I doubt you would act upon these instruction even if put 'serious' html tags around them to show you how serious I was.
If he singled out Stephen Timms and said that he needed a good stabbing in a manner that clearly showed that these threats were meant to be taken as literal orders, then you've got a point, if he had fairly vague anti-western messages that were interpreted as 'stab Stephen Timms' by a nutjob. If we hold people accountable for what crazy people do with your message, then we'll jail all kinds of people who 'inspired' crimes.
Also, the getting away with murder requires convincing people to actually commit murder, which isn't particularly easy to do.
Treason is very hard to get prosecuted. You have to do something like GIVE NUCLEAR SECRETS TO ANOTHER COUNTRY to get treason charges brought against you, and even then it's got a good bit of controversy.
The British government is pressuring the government and private entities. Some private entitites may cave, but that doesn't mean the US government is going to do anything those that don't.
One being true would put usage based billing in a stronger position, but without all of them being true, we are almost certainly better off with speed-based billing
I mean peak bandwidth capacity for the network. If the peak traffic time is 5:30 PM, then the thing that costs them money is ensuring that the needs for 5:30 are met. Let's say for the sake of example that the total traffic going over their network is 1 tbps. If doesn't matter much if the rest of the day is 0.99 tbps or 1gbps, because the actual costs go into assuring that the network can handle 5:30's traffic.
You might have a point if telecoms were competitive markets, usage was the biggest cost factor, and prices were in any way representative of costs. These are monopolies, peak capacity and running the lines are the real cost last time I checked and it'll probably result in virtually everyone paying more.
He's speaking of making your own materials, which anyone is free to do. However, there is a gray area of fair use in the US where students are given course packs under certain circumstances, and as I understand it, it's royalty free, but somewhat legally questionable.
We can just set an upper cap, since the point of the patent system is to stimulate progress, and thus any period of exclusivity is gratuity. Just say that no technology can get more than 20 years of patent protection, and set some guidelines for reduced periods in other categories. It doesn't have to be that specific, and could just include various broad categories like pharmaceuticals, mechanical devices, etc. The generations wouldn't be dead on, but they'd probably fit better than our current system, in which pharmaceuticals are probably about the only one that regularly needs our current periods of exclusivity.
Available support from a stable, proven company is a positive factor, but that is not the same thing as vendor lock-in. You can have one without the other. I'm not saying that there aren't negative factors in this choice, but I listed a positive factor that FOSS gives that in many cases proprietary software doesn't.
The answer is to not have an unnecessary war. And besides, they could not contribute back if they really want to 'wage war,' although keeping up a fork would bear an added cost, but still probably be less than starting from scratch.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent system is supposed to be a pragmatic institution. It barters away the rights of the public (and competitors) in hopes of greater disclosure and greater scientific advance. Thus, it is only just under the conditions that the benefits outweigh the costs. Figuring out what parameters this happens would require a good degree of independent scientific testing, although it would still be somewhat subjective. If there are no conditions under which the patent system is a net benefit, than the only just action is to get rid of the patent system. I personally wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. The mechanisms of getting the patent system to work are very complex, and yet the basics of the system predate anything that could be remotely considered modern economics or psychology.
A day or so seem like a very short time for a twenty year monopoly. While not something easy to measure, I would say that something would be expected to otherwise not be available to the market for at least 3 to 5 years for it to justify that period of exclusivity.
How directly the one being influenced was directed is very important. Many serial killers and nutjobs have been inspired to successfully commit murder by lots of things that had nothing to do with murder, and it's clearly inappropriate to ban those books or punish those authors. Short of payment, blackmail, etc. the burden of proof for influencing a crime should be very high.
Youtube can do that, but if you pay attention, they are pressuring the US government to do this as well.
The only things the constitution says about treason are about the punishment and what to do when politicians commit it.
I'd say the more preferable position is to err on the side of being permissive. We can always make more people, but lost freedom is very hard to get back, and generally involves a lot of killing people.
as for the second part, I meant that convincing people to murder is difficult, not that committing murder is difficult. Watch:
You should totally kill Obama with the lead pipe, in the library.
I just told you that you should commit murder, and I gave you very specific instructions. However, I doubt you would act upon these instruction even if put 'serious' html tags around them to show you how serious I was.
If he singled out Stephen Timms and said that he needed a good stabbing in a manner that clearly showed that these threats were meant to be taken as literal orders, then you've got a point, if he had fairly vague anti-western messages that were interpreted as 'stab Stephen Timms' by a nutjob. If we hold people accountable for what crazy people do with your message, then we'll jail all kinds of people who 'inspired' crimes. Also, the getting away with murder requires convincing people to actually commit murder, which isn't particularly easy to do.
Punish the people doing the stabbing. Stabbing has been illegal for a long time.
Well, just get your guns and ...oh wait.
Treason is very hard to get prosecuted. You have to do something like GIVE NUCLEAR SECRETS TO ANOTHER COUNTRY to get treason charges brought against you, and even then it's got a good bit of controversy.
Are you claiming somebody is forcing British citizens to watch videos of 'extremists'
The British government is pressuring the government and private entities. Some private entitites may cave, but that doesn't mean the US government is going to do anything those that don't.
That's insulting. The 'terrorists' aren't nearly as bad as the British government.
One being true would put usage based billing in a stronger position, but without all of them being true, we are almost certainly better off with speed-based billing
I mean peak bandwidth capacity for the network. If the peak traffic time is 5:30 PM, then the thing that costs them money is ensuring that the needs for 5:30 are met. Let's say for the sake of example that the total traffic going over their network is 1 tbps. If doesn't matter much if the rest of the day is 0.99 tbps or 1gbps, because the actual costs go into assuring that the network can handle 5:30's traffic.
You might have a point if telecoms were competitive markets, usage was the biggest cost factor, and prices were in any way representative of costs. These are monopolies, peak capacity and running the lines are the real cost last time I checked and it'll probably result in virtually everyone paying more.
It is, but circumventing DRM technology to use those backups somehow isnt. It's a pretty tricky plan.
He's speaking of making your own materials, which anyone is free to do. However, there is a gray area of fair use in the US where students are given course packs under certain circumstances, and as I understand it, it's royalty free, but somewhat legally questionable.
College bookstores rip you off, but nothing is stopping enterprising students from setting up exchanges of their own.
I'm guessing those are per year.
I have to say, that's a great metaphor, which is strange, since car metaphors are usually horrible.
We can just set an upper cap, since the point of the patent system is to stimulate progress, and thus any period of exclusivity is gratuity. Just say that no technology can get more than 20 years of patent protection, and set some guidelines for reduced periods in other categories. It doesn't have to be that specific, and could just include various broad categories like pharmaceuticals, mechanical devices, etc. The generations wouldn't be dead on, but they'd probably fit better than our current system, in which pharmaceuticals are probably about the only one that regularly needs our current periods of exclusivity.
Available support from a stable, proven company is a positive factor, but that is not the same thing as vendor lock-in. You can have one without the other. I'm not saying that there aren't negative factors in this choice, but I listed a positive factor that FOSS gives that in many cases proprietary software doesn't.
Protection against lock-in is something employers understand the value of.
The answer is to not have an unnecessary war. And besides, they could not contribute back if they really want to 'wage war,' although keeping up a fork would bear an added cost, but still probably be less than starting from scratch.