everybody knows that a mission critical app for an enterprise is going to be written in Java
Also, not being able to install iTunes will probably raise productivity.
Average users aren't going to be that confused much more than a transition to a newer version of Windows, and they can generally do less damage in Ubuntu.
There are quite a few signs pointing to Microsoft funding them. Searching 'Microsoft' on http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ gives you mostly Google results, despite Microsoft being a convicted monopolist with a long history of abuse, which is the kind of thing a consumer watchdog should be reporting on
If the default behavior is to track everyone, and specific individuals choose not to be tracked, then you have to keep track of these individual to not track them. I think the more feasible option is to just block google services through something like noscript
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the identification system has changed, but there was no patent 1 in 1810, and the first US patent would actually be 1X today.
I agree that it could encourage competition if there was a listed expiration date, but if they don't want to do this, they can not put the date and just change the mold once the patent expires.
I also agree that the solution was probably quite a bit more difficult before the internet, and that's probably when this law originated.
No, the numbering system changed in 1836 and previous patents were retroactively renumbered, so a patent in 1810 would have a different number than the one it has today.
Saying patent No XXXXXXX on a product is a legal claim, just like putting ® next to a name is a legal claim.
Outside of pharmaceuticals, patent terms are fairly consistent, presumably because Disney doesn't have many patents.
That does make things a bit more complex. Maybe have a list of possible expiration dates, or just have patent holders adjust their molds, which likely costs less than the maintenance fees.
That would depend on whether the law governs production or sale. Production would make more sense to me, and thus not harm this hypothetical warehouse.
They aren't profiting from patents, they are profiting from abuse of patents, although you could argue that this abuse is generally small. There is some degree of public benefit from this and the only thing this discourages is improper patent labeling, which isn't really a good thing. This could make printing expiration dates the standard, which would actually be beneficial to the public.
It's additional effort and a false legal claim. There's a very simple solution that nobody reasonably objects to: put the patent and the expiration date on there. You won't get sued, and the public has more information.
Why not make a label saying the patent number and the expiration date of said patent? Then there is no misinformation, all of the benefits of patent marking, and no need to remake molds. Everybody wins
I'm pretty sure they can list expired patents on it if they want, as long as they are marked as such. It is somewhat misleading to the public, although you could argue that the concerns are minor. However, the effect it would have on the ecosystem would be that companies are very careful and proactive in correctly labeling patent marking. That's not a particularly horrible scenario IMO.
In practice, that is the case. Any copyright holder of the Linux kernel can bring action against someone who infringes (this includes big companies like IBM and even Microsoft recently) and there is no problem finding infringement, and yet no lawsuits appear. SCO, on the other hand, brought numerous lawsuits over copyright that wasn't actually infringed that they didn't actually own the rights to.
It may not be about gutting the GPL, but it is an incredibly corrupt practice. The existence of BMI helped put pressure on ASCAP to be less crazy.
If a proper system of funding comes along, being funded as a service theoretically means that there is actually a stronger incentive to record, because you won't any money sitting on you laurels. The way to get more money is to record more. To bring back the construction metaphor, the construction worker continuously builds houses because they don't get any money for houses they've already built. Of course, this is relying on the carrot/stick model of motivation, which is questionable when applied to something like creativity. It's quite possible that fixing the education system to stop discouraging creativity would have a bigger impact than the copyright system ever did.
"Then why am I finding it so hard to think of a band, local, national, or international who gives away their recordings at cost price to support their tours?"
Because their record label wants to make money. However, the radio, MTV, myspace, youtube Greatful Dead bootlegs and the like all allow people to listen to music at no cost.
"How does that work?"
Somebody funds it. Your favorite band raises money and records an album. Perhaps some philanthropy happens (that's how we got Carnegie hall). Maybe somebody records in a small studio for the love of music.
"The burden of proof did lie with us, a few hundred years ago when copyright was proposed. Now that we've accepted it, and our culture has grown and blossomed so much, the burden of proof now rests with anyone who wants to change it"
The evidence is actually quite poor. especially given that in many cases the system that predates it was basically 'censor all works that are critical of the king/church and let publishers print works that make the king/church look good'. The economics for the internet age have further changed the dynamics of the system, and to assume without evidence that our current copyright system fits it is ridiculous. Nobody questioning the system is why it's so broken in the first place, and that in my lifetime, the public domain has actually shrank.
SCO and 2 Live Crew alone have been involved in a lot more litigation than copyleft. If you really want, I can hunt down the specific cases that only made it to a single court. Actually, I won't since I'm lazy and you can do it yourself. And it's not that FOSS doesn't get infringed, the SFLC allegedly finds a violation every day, and just sends out compliance notices. Note that this isn't little filesharers, this is entirely industrial scale copyright infringement, which is the really bad kind.
The way it sounds, they have their ASCAP with an automatic monopoly, and they collect royalties for everything, and this legislation is about opting out of that. You might have to opt in to get those royalties, but not for their ASCAP to collect them on your works.
I believe what he means is that producers of content have their works treated as a service. You know, like how you pay a session musician $200 for a night's work.
As for musicians, outside of the Beatles, Eagles, Metallica, and such, there have never been significant profits in music recordings and probably never will be.
Slashdot Mirror
everybody knows that a mission critical app for an enterprise is going to be written in Java Also, not being able to install iTunes will probably raise productivity.
If your management can't plan long term, there's a good chance your company won't exist long term.
Average users aren't going to be that confused much more than a transition to a newer version of Windows, and they can generally do less damage in Ubuntu.
There are quite a few signs pointing to Microsoft funding them. Searching 'Microsoft' on http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ gives you mostly Google results, despite Microsoft being a convicted monopolist with a long history of abuse, which is the kind of thing a consumer watchdog should be reporting on
I'm not sure if any reputable TCO studies have actually shown that, at least over any decent length of time.
If the default behavior is to track everyone, and specific individuals choose not to be tracked, then you have to keep track of these individual to not track them. I think the more feasible option is to just block google services through something like noscript
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the identification system has changed, but there was no patent 1 in 1810, and the first US patent would actually be 1X today.
I agree that it could encourage competition if there was a listed expiration date, but if they don't want to do this, they can not put the date and just change the mold once the patent expires. I also agree that the solution was probably quite a bit more difficult before the internet, and that's probably when this law originated.
No, the numbering system changed in 1836 and previous patents were retroactively renumbered, so a patent in 1810 would have a different number than the one it has today.
Saying patent No XXXXXXX on a product is a legal claim, just like putting ® next to a name is a legal claim. Outside of pharmaceuticals, patent terms are fairly consistent, presumably because Disney doesn't have many patents.
It is a legal claim. It is false. No confusion here.
Actually, US patent numbering has changed in the last 200 years.
That does make things a bit more complex. Maybe have a list of possible expiration dates, or just have patent holders adjust their molds, which likely costs less than the maintenance fees.
That would depend on whether the law governs production or sale. Production would make more sense to me, and thus not harm this hypothetical warehouse.
They aren't profiting from patents, they are profiting from abuse of patents, although you could argue that this abuse is generally small. There is some degree of public benefit from this and the only thing this discourages is improper patent labeling, which isn't really a good thing. This could make printing expiration dates the standard, which would actually be beneficial to the public.
It's additional effort and a false legal claim. There's a very simple solution that nobody reasonably objects to: put the patent and the expiration date on there. You won't get sued, and the public has more information.
You are still making a false legal claim.
Why not make a label saying the patent number and the expiration date of said patent? Then there is no misinformation, all of the benefits of patent marking, and no need to remake molds. Everybody wins
If a product has no current patents, you could copy any functionality of said product without having to look anything up.
I'm pretty sure they can list expired patents on it if they want, as long as they are marked as such. It is somewhat misleading to the public, although you could argue that the concerns are minor. However, the effect it would have on the ecosystem would be that companies are very careful and proactive in correctly labeling patent marking. That's not a particularly horrible scenario IMO.
In practice, that is the case. Any copyright holder of the Linux kernel can bring action against someone who infringes (this includes big companies like IBM and even Microsoft recently) and there is no problem finding infringement, and yet no lawsuits appear. SCO, on the other hand, brought numerous lawsuits over copyright that wasn't actually infringed that they didn't actually own the rights to. It may not be about gutting the GPL, but it is an incredibly corrupt practice. The existence of BMI helped put pressure on ASCAP to be less crazy.
If a proper system of funding comes along, being funded as a service theoretically means that there is actually a stronger incentive to record, because you won't any money sitting on you laurels. The way to get more money is to record more. To bring back the construction metaphor, the construction worker continuously builds houses because they don't get any money for houses they've already built. Of course, this is relying on the carrot/stick model of motivation, which is questionable when applied to something like creativity. It's quite possible that fixing the education system to stop discouraging creativity would have a bigger impact than the copyright system ever did.
"Then why am I finding it so hard to think of a band, local, national, or international who gives away their recordings at cost price to support their tours?"
Because their record label wants to make money. However, the radio, MTV, myspace, youtube Greatful Dead bootlegs and the like all allow people to listen to music at no cost.
"How does that work?" Somebody funds it. Your favorite band raises money and records an album. Perhaps some philanthropy happens (that's how we got Carnegie hall). Maybe somebody records in a small studio for the love of music.
"The burden of proof did lie with us, a few hundred years ago when copyright was proposed. Now that we've accepted it, and our culture has grown and blossomed so much, the burden of proof now rests with anyone who wants to change it"
The evidence is actually quite poor. especially given that in many cases the system that predates it was basically 'censor all works that are critical of the king/church and let publishers print works that make the king/church look good'. The economics for the internet age have further changed the dynamics of the system, and to assume without evidence that our current copyright system fits it is ridiculous. Nobody questioning the system is why it's so broken in the first place, and that in my lifetime, the public domain has actually shrank.
SCO and 2 Live Crew alone have been involved in a lot more litigation than copyleft. If you really want, I can hunt down the specific cases that only made it to a single court. Actually, I won't since I'm lazy and you can do it yourself. And it's not that FOSS doesn't get infringed, the SFLC allegedly finds a violation every day, and just sends out compliance notices. Note that this isn't little filesharers, this is entirely industrial scale copyright infringement, which is the really bad kind. The way it sounds, they have their ASCAP with an automatic monopoly, and they collect royalties for everything, and this legislation is about opting out of that. You might have to opt in to get those royalties, but not for their ASCAP to collect them on your works.
I believe what he means is that producers of content have their works treated as a service. You know, like how you pay a session musician $200 for a night's work. As for musicians, outside of the Beatles, Eagles, Metallica, and such, there have never been significant profits in music recordings and probably never will be.