They have a patent pool that protects the core of the GNU/Linux environment, and a presumably irreversible promise to not bring suits against FOSS under at least a certain group of licenses.
Patents are directly in opposition to free market capitalism as they prevent or limit competition. You can argue that they are justified under certain conditions, but that doesn't make them part of capitalism.
But your old man still had his copy of the idea, so it wasn't stolen. I suppose you can argue that credit for the invention was stolen, though, but that's a different issue.
There are plenty of different skillsets within the groups of 'geeks' and 'warriors.' Teaching elementary basics of tech and combat to everyone may be a good idea, and there may be some special ops that need expertise in both, but properly differentiating between different skillsets is important. You can label a certain category of 'geeks' as 'warriors', but it'd be a stupid differentiation. Why not call medics 'disease warriors' while you're at it?
The AC's comment was regarding only software patents. I was staying on topic.
I didn't say you were off topic. I was saying that you aren't actually presenting an argument of why software patents work, but rather that software is similar to other patents, which may or may not work. Similarities between the two might just mean that all patents suck.
So your argument is that software is easier to steal, so it shouldn't be protected?
No, my argument is that there is less overhead in production, so there is a greater chance that providing the same protection is harmful. If it costs less to produce, then the ideal degree of protection needed for motivation is less. And ideas can't be stolen, they can be copied or imitated. Learn the difference.
The inventor spent their own resources to research the idea, and I think they deserve to be paid.
Nobody is saying that researchers shouldn't be paid. However, there are other methods of insuring that they receive compensation than patents. More importantly, the patent system in the US at least is explicitly for the benefit of the public. If we get just as much or more invention/innovation just letting market competition handle things, then we shouldn't have patents regardless of their effect on the welfare of inventors.
MIT didn't meet the accreditation standards for the USPTO until 1996. That's a serious problem that has an incredible bias. As for the concern over evidence of skill, it's probably because of the number of obvious software patents that make it through. Of course, that could be attributed to adequately covering prior art being insane even for the most competent examiner.
Patent pools only help against those that produce a product, and only if said product infringes one of your patents. If a company doesn't produce anything, patents are useless against them.
You don't really seem to be presenting an argument for software patents on their own merits, but rather that other patents are accepted and that you don't see too many differences. However, you do acknowledge a difference in cycle. Another difference would be the overhead. You need a considerable sum of money to manufacture a device on an industrial scale. With software, it's quite possible for a single person to do everything themselves, and the distribution network can have virtually no actual cost. Perhaps more importantly, the idea that other non-software patents are good is not self evident, so this kind of argument is basically just raising the stakes instead of providing an actual defense.
Actually, there was a recent study I saw that showed that there is a strong bias against computer science majors at the USPTO. The results were that software patents have grown to the second largest category, while I think CS majors are 7th place (it might have been CS and computer engineering combined, computer engineering dealing mostly with hardware). This means that we've either got unqualified people granting software patents, or those granting software patents are incredibly overworked. Neither of these is favorable, even if there is competence.
Actually, I think MAFIAA has been mostly aimed at democrats since the Mccarthy era. Apparently, accusing half of Hollywood of being communist traitors didn't sit well.
There was a handsofftheinternet astroturfing site, and I think Glenn Beck whined a bit about it, but free market arguments only apply to free markets, while a huge share of telecoms are government backed monopolies.
Life of the author is a horrible way of doing things. Perhaps the most important thing is that is ridiculously discriminatory. On average, women live longer than men, white people live longer than black people, righties live longer than lefties, non-diabetics live longer than diabetics, younger people have more remaining years than older people, etc. Countless aspects of your life have some effect on what your projected lifespan will be, and each of these factors either increases or decreases the period of protection you receive. Why would anyone support a sexist, racist, ageist, etc. institution when fixed terms provide equal protection to all?
I'm saying that the US government saying "it's not a big deal" and moving on would be the best way to protect American soldiers. By attempting to prevent the information from getting out, they are ensuring that when it does, it is widely proliferated, quite likely much more than it would have been otherwise.
"If one copy will be seen by 100,000 people, then two copies leaking is 200,000, and that's twice the risk."
I'm saying 100,000 people will see it because it's 'banned' information and thus more interesting. If they had just left it alone, the names wouldn't propagate much beyond the original 10,000 buyers, and certainly not as fast. As others have said, the Streisand effect will occur, and these names will be more readily available than they would otherwise be.
I'm getting tired of doing things in the sake of 'national security.' Besides, this almost certainly won't work. At least one copy will leak, and at least 100,000 people will see the names.
Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about how a CEO from MS will effect the FOSS projects Nokia has. But maybe, just maybe, it will actually help build some bridges between MS and FOSS.
It is monitored by a private company, and outside of perhaps restrooms, there probably aren't many legal limitations of what they can do with it, at least internally.
That's when you get accounting and legal together to find out a policy for compliance. Sometimes it's more cost effective to break the rules and beg for forgiveness, and I'm pretty sure that even in the US not all parts of a license are guaranteed to be legally binding.
You need to keep your story straight. Small businesses are generally not publicly traded, so they aren't subject to the whims of stockholders trying to get a quick buck. They tend to actually care about long term investments because these are important to them. Depending on the size and nature of the business, there might be only a few employees that even use computers.
It is in their best interests because having a job in five years is important. If the stockholders will kick out management because of a minor dip for one quarter, the company is doomed for failure because you can't sustain a business long term on short term planning.
Yes, that's a possible solution, but that is not what is being proposed, and it will probably never happen with any search engine ever unless we have a decentralized p2p search engine or something along those lines.
The best action for management to take for a company that's doomed is embezzlement (which is even better than you bonus), so your argument is flawed. You are saying that it's a better plan for idiots who are incapable of long term planning, but nobody wants to be an idiot incapable of long term planning
Slashdot Mirror
They have a patent pool that protects the core of the GNU/Linux environment, and a presumably irreversible promise to not bring suits against FOSS under at least a certain group of licenses.
Shh! George Lucas will hear you
Patents are directly in opposition to free market capitalism as they prevent or limit competition. You can argue that they are justified under certain conditions, but that doesn't make them part of capitalism.
But your old man still had his copy of the idea, so it wasn't stolen. I suppose you can argue that credit for the invention was stolen, though, but that's a different issue.
There are plenty of different skillsets within the groups of 'geeks' and 'warriors.' Teaching elementary basics of tech and combat to everyone may be a good idea, and there may be some special ops that need expertise in both, but properly differentiating between different skillsets is important. You can label a certain category of 'geeks' as 'warriors', but it'd be a stupid differentiation. Why not call medics 'disease warriors' while you're at it?
I didn't say you were off topic. I was saying that you aren't actually presenting an argument of why software patents work, but rather that software is similar to other patents, which may or may not work. Similarities between the two might just mean that all patents suck.
No, my argument is that there is less overhead in production, so there is a greater chance that providing the same protection is harmful. If it costs less to produce, then the ideal degree of protection needed for motivation is less. And ideas can't be stolen, they can be copied or imitated. Learn the difference.
Nobody is saying that researchers shouldn't be paid. However, there are other methods of insuring that they receive compensation than patents. More importantly, the patent system in the US at least is explicitly for the benefit of the public. If we get just as much or more invention/innovation just letting market competition handle things, then we shouldn't have patents regardless of their effect on the welfare of inventors.
MIT didn't meet the accreditation standards for the USPTO until 1996. That's a serious problem that has an incredible bias. As for the concern over evidence of skill, it's probably because of the number of obvious software patents that make it through. Of course, that could be attributed to adequately covering prior art being insane even for the most competent examiner.
Patent pools only help against those that produce a product, and only if said product infringes one of your patents. If a company doesn't produce anything, patents are useless against them.
You don't really seem to be presenting an argument for software patents on their own merits, but rather that other patents are accepted and that you don't see too many differences. However, you do acknowledge a difference in cycle. Another difference would be the overhead. You need a considerable sum of money to manufacture a device on an industrial scale. With software, it's quite possible for a single person to do everything themselves, and the distribution network can have virtually no actual cost. Perhaps more importantly, the idea that other non-software patents are good is not self evident, so this kind of argument is basically just raising the stakes instead of providing an actual defense.
Actually, there was a recent study I saw that showed that there is a strong bias against computer science majors at the USPTO. The results were that software patents have grown to the second largest category, while I think CS majors are 7th place (it might have been CS and computer engineering combined, computer engineering dealing mostly with hardware). This means that we've either got unqualified people granting software patents, or those granting software patents are incredibly overworked. Neither of these is favorable, even if there is competence.
Actually, I think MAFIAA has been mostly aimed at democrats since the Mccarthy era. Apparently, accusing half of Hollywood of being communist traitors didn't sit well.
There was a handsofftheinternet astroturfing site, and I think Glenn Beck whined a bit about it, but free market arguments only apply to free markets, while a huge share of telecoms are government backed monopolies.
Perhaps one in east Texas?
Life of the author is a horrible way of doing things. Perhaps the most important thing is that is ridiculously discriminatory. On average, women live longer than men, white people live longer than black people, righties live longer than lefties, non-diabetics live longer than diabetics, younger people have more remaining years than older people, etc. Countless aspects of your life have some effect on what your projected lifespan will be, and each of these factors either increases or decreases the period of protection you receive. Why would anyone support a sexist, racist, ageist, etc. institution when fixed terms provide equal protection to all?
I'm saying that the US government saying "it's not a big deal" and moving on would be the best way to protect American soldiers. By attempting to prevent the information from getting out, they are ensuring that when it does, it is widely proliferated, quite likely much more than it would have been otherwise.
"If one copy will be seen by 100,000 people, then two copies leaking is 200,000, and that's twice the risk." I'm saying 100,000 people will see it because it's 'banned' information and thus more interesting. If they had just left it alone, the names wouldn't propagate much beyond the original 10,000 buyers, and certainly not as fast. As others have said, the Streisand effect will occur, and these names will be more readily available than they would otherwise be.
I'm getting tired of doing things in the sake of 'national security.' Besides, this almost certainly won't work. At least one copy will leak, and at least 100,000 people will see the names.
Car salesman aren't agents acting on your behalf.
Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about how a CEO from MS will effect the FOSS projects Nokia has. But maybe, just maybe, it will actually help build some bridges between MS and FOSS.
It is monitored by a private company, and outside of perhaps restrooms, there probably aren't many legal limitations of what they can do with it, at least internally.
That's when you get accounting and legal together to find out a policy for compliance. Sometimes it's more cost effective to break the rules and beg for forgiveness, and I'm pretty sure that even in the US not all parts of a license are guaranteed to be legally binding.
You need to keep your story straight. Small businesses are generally not publicly traded, so they aren't subject to the whims of stockholders trying to get a quick buck. They tend to actually care about long term investments because these are important to them. Depending on the size and nature of the business, there might be only a few employees that even use computers.
It is in their best interests because having a job in five years is important. If the stockholders will kick out management because of a minor dip for one quarter, the company is doomed for failure because you can't sustain a business long term on short term planning.
Yes, that's a possible solution, but that is not what is being proposed, and it will probably never happen with any search engine ever unless we have a decentralized p2p search engine or something along those lines.
The best action for management to take for a company that's doomed is embezzlement (which is even better than you bonus), so your argument is flawed. You are saying that it's a better plan for idiots who are incapable of long term planning, but nobody wants to be an idiot incapable of long term planning