Pharmaceuticals have the same exclusivity period as anything else (20 years), but it often takes 10-12 years to do enough testing to get it to market. Also, the pharmaceutical industry patents end products, and there is virtually never any infringement cases because the patent is covering a specific chemical, and a slightly different product with just one portion being different is not covered by that patent, which is why they will often release a slightly modified version as a 'new and improved' version of a drug.
There were two problems with submarine patents, there was the not knowing about them, and the process of delaying the issue of the patent until it became worth suing over. The latter would still exist by the changing period of protection to start with issue date.Something that take 7 years to catch a major audience would not have much to sue over with the 3 years to issue and 2 years of protection. However, if you can take 7 years to issue, you could sue a lot of companies.
First, your argument is based on a shaky premise counter-indicated by every country in the world, as each experienced surges of economic and technological progress after implementing patent acts."
That evidence is dubious at best. I'm not as familiar with how the US patent law differed from Europe, but I'm aware that we spanked Europe in music, having much weaker copyright laws. Yes, copyright and patents are different, but they work under a similar type of incentive and come from the same constitutional clause, so they are one of the best points of comparison. Also, joining WIPO, which is probably the action you are most likely to cite, is not a standalone act. US trade relations are largely shaped by how well another country enforces our IP. Enforcing our IP does nothing for the country, but favorable trade relations does.
Also, patents working in one field do not mean that they work in another, so even if you can prove that patents overall have been beneficial, it doesn't mean they are beneficial to software. Patents act as a coefficient to innovation, and if that coefficient for patents within a certain criteria is below 1, then those patents are harmful.
Finally, I didn't say I don't like you, I said I don't like you enough to uphold an inefficient system for the sake of your maintained employment. The same would hold true even if it were my best friend that was harmed, although there would be a greater degree of conflict for me.
The only difference in the set is goodwill (and trade secrets are generally included in IP as well), and both terms are already vague and nebulous. Accountants already use the term, and it is a neutral term, which IP and IM are not. Assets is a better description IMO because it also includes things that are not property. A skilled employee is an asset, but they are not property.
Before 1992, they were the assignee of only had a handful of patents (your search didn't do that and included some other companies that had Microsoft somewhere in the application), and were doing quite well (enough to engage in anticompetitive behavior against DR-DOS). He's not saying that MS didn't file patents, he's saying that MS dominated markets without filing patents BEFORE they dominated them. The fact that they went on a patenting spree later doesn't change how their initial success happened.
Changing back to issue date would just bring back submarine patents. If the ideal period of software patents is about the same as the period it would take to grant a software patent, then perhaps the benefits of software patents cannot outweigh the cost. If that is the case, then we should just leave them out. I suppose you'll have to find a new job, but I don't like you enough to justify holding back the economy and technological progress.
legal intangibles covers it well already without any emotional bias, although it does also include goodwill, and aggressive defense of other legal intangibles can have a negative effect on goodwill. Protecting your legal intangibles sounds boring and doesn't stir up the same justification that protecting 'intellectual property' does.
And those comparisons are only valid if you start with roughly the same state. Saying America did better than Ethiopia is not a fair fight because they aren't close to being on the same economic plane. The biggest decent experiment was the the century following 1887 where Europe agreed to the Berne Convention's rules on copyright while America didn't. 1887-1988 was a good period for the US, and during that period, the peers of the US (European nations) that did have stronger copyright protections didn't do as well comparatively. Unfortunately, we don't have a good comparison for NO copyright and patents.
That's assuming that slavery is inherently cheaper. Slave owners had to provide a living wage directly, and had a vested interest in the welfare of the slaves to at least the extent of being able to work. If a farm hand is sick, you can hire another farm hand and not pay the old farm hand. If a slave is sick, then you either provide their health care or they die, meaning you have to get another slave. Morality aside, slavery isn't that economically sound for unskilled labor, at least in markets without regulations in other forms of labor contracts. Now, if you have engineer slaves, it would be viable, since engineers are probably going to make significantly more than what it costs to live, although you may find that treating an engineer better is still more productive.
If you submit a patent on software in the form of hundreds of claims with source code, then you can get a patent, but you will have driven the preparer of the patent insane and you will never ever catch anyone infringing. If I build a machine that does the same thing in a functionally different way, it is not patent infringement. Virtually all software more complex than hello world is going to be functionally different if written by a different author, because software is an incredibly complex machine.
The US became the dominant world force in copyright when it had significantly weaker copyright laws than basically all of Europe. We still lack things like 'moral rights' and have some of the most expansive fair use rights in the world (at least before the DMCA, anyway).
As for software, there are several issues. The first is that the functional element and the written element are virtually the same. Variable names, outputs strings, and source code comments are about the only non-functional elements. If you had a specific patent claim held to the same degree of scrutiny as say a pharmaceutical, it would have hundreds of claims for even an elementary program or portion thereof. However, most patents are very broad, and thus prevent alternatives that function in a largely different way, but are similar enough to fall into the patent. Another issue is that compatibility is incredibly important in software, and patents get in the way of compatibility. You can have software that is technically superior to your competitor, but if your competitor's product is already in widespread usage and your product isn't compatible, you will probably lose. A final issue is that the field of software has a lot of problems with competition, and software patents give an even bigger advantage to billion dollar companies over startups.
Also, you seem to not understand the nature of copyright and patent laws in the US. The constitution clause that allows for patents states that
The Congress shall have Power
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Not only do patents and copyright exist for the benefit of the public, they are simply a means to the end, not an ends to themselves. If we can conclude that some other incentive already in place does the job well enough, we could just end our patent and copyright systems. International treaties make it a bit more complicated than that, but it's not as if the US has a problem with acting unilaterally.
As for why Australia would want to do that, they generally don't really have large, established firms, so Australian software companies (and users) are going to be on the losing end of the system with software patents in place.
It's very hard to prove anything either way. Our data on the effects of patents and copyright is quite limited, and some recent articles have suggested that traditional economic motivations suck for creative and innovative thinking. Also, legal exclusivity isn't the only way to secure a return on investments.
Scott McNealy has some extra time on his hands since Oracle acquired Sun and put him out of a job.
Others hoping to bring elements of the Open Source model to the school textbook world include Vinod Khosla (who co-founded Sun with McNealy)
It's amazing what basic reading skills can do. If textbooks weren't so expensive, perhaps your school could have given you those skills or at least the ability to use your browser's built in search feature to search for 'McNealy' and 'Khosla'
Indeed. Half of the reason book prices are so outrageous is because students for all practical purposes have to get the same book the professor demands. If I could shop around, I could get much better prices.
To me, it seems Sun's problem was that they didn't really 'get' how to foster a FOSS project and build a community (it takes more than just hiring Ian Murdock). Sun had other problems, but being smarter and more proactive about FOSS could have helped, although I'm not sure how much of an impact it would have had.
Free market principles only apply to free markets. Intuit relies on copyright (an artificial monopoly granted by the government) to deal with state and federal government, so they are operating in about as free of a free market as Lockheed Martin.
That's already gamed by the lower tax rate for capital gains. The only way a simple system would be gamed more here is if the only kind of tax was income tax, and I don't think anybody here is suggesting that.
There are subtleties in lighting that a machine won't get (I was witness to a few photography majors having a conversation about lighting, and they rambled on like a guitarist does when you mention tone), just as there are subtleties in music that a machine won't get. In this case, it would seem more of the human element is left in the music, as the cast and conductor have not been replaced.
It seems a lot of musicians are weighing in, but I'd love to see a conductor give their two cents. especially if they have quite an ego. The conductor is still employed in this scenario, and may have MORE control in this kind of scenario, especially if the technology evolves to comprehend the conductor's cues in greater detail.
As for your proposal, I don't see how 'sticking to the score' would be helpful (unless the score specifically calls for a human player), since a vanilla rendition would be where the machines are at their biggest advantage. What humans do well is reinterpret works, and I, for one, would love a focus on dramatically different interpretations. The article mentions that classic pieces like West Side Story were 'sacred' and that these changes are 'blasphemous', but I would contend that that is the worst kind of attitude to have, and far more destructive than any automation.
I suppose that a call for a ban could be made, but I'd imagine that it would make the musicians in question look like Luddites, and a lack of very careful wording could knock out various prerecorded or synthesized sound effects and certain high tech instruments.
So, software is going to deliver an inspired performance, breaking new musical territory ala Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Albert Collins, BB King, etc?
Probably not by itself, but it will be used as another tool, just as the electric guitar was used a tool by all of the guitarists you mentioned. Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock were very accomplished jazz musicians, but they ended up using electronics and samples in their music, and I've heard Miles say that electric and electronic instruments made things much better because they had a shorter learning curve (presumably because it put more musicians at his disposal). Many modern musicians and bands are incorporating electronics into their music, and that's where a lot of new ideas are coming from.
As for gigs, I haven't seen a huge change in frequency or pay where I live, but it's a college town, so perhaps it is more well insulated The only place I know of that's quit having musicians hasn't adopted DJs, and I think the troubles may have been ASCAP related. There was a place that had mostly DJs with only occasional bands, but it was shut down, brought back, and shut down again because they were selling too much alcohol and not enough food.
If you are going to play the authenticity card, then I ask you to stick to only singing and body percussion, as everything else is inauthentic. The "real music" card has been played for ages, and the thing that really matters is whether or not there is vision and art in what is being done, not the means by which a work is produced. Human players can and do lack vision in art in their interpretations all the time. Also, if you read, it says the conductor still conducts, leaving a real-time human element in.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that did, although I'd say it would be more common for that view to be taken in general theater or general live entertainment, which possibly might not even have music involved in some cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Pharmaceuticals have the same exclusivity period as anything else (20 years), but it often takes 10-12 years to do enough testing to get it to market. Also, the pharmaceutical industry patents end products, and there is virtually never any infringement cases because the patent is covering a specific chemical, and a slightly different product with just one portion being different is not covered by that patent, which is why they will often release a slightly modified version as a 'new and improved' version of a drug.
That evidence is dubious at best. I'm not as familiar with how the US patent law differed from Europe, but I'm aware that we spanked Europe in music, having much weaker copyright laws. Yes, copyright and patents are different, but they work under a similar type of incentive and come from the same constitutional clause, so they are one of the best points of comparison. Also, joining WIPO, which is probably the action you are most likely to cite, is not a standalone act. US trade relations are largely shaped by how well another country enforces our IP. Enforcing our IP does nothing for the country, but favorable trade relations does. Also, patents working in one field do not mean that they work in another, so even if you can prove that patents overall have been beneficial, it doesn't mean they are beneficial to software. Patents act as a coefficient to innovation, and if that coefficient for patents within a certain criteria is below 1, then those patents are harmful. Finally, I didn't say I don't like you, I said I don't like you enough to uphold an inefficient system for the sake of your maintained employment. The same would hold true even if it were my best friend that was harmed, although there would be a greater degree of conflict for me.
The only difference in the set is goodwill (and trade secrets are generally included in IP as well), and both terms are already vague and nebulous. Accountants already use the term, and it is a neutral term, which IP and IM are not. Assets is a better description IMO because it also includes things that are not property. A skilled employee is an asset, but they are not property.
Our debt to GDP ratio isn't that bad. Luxembourg, on the other hand, has something like 1000% of their GDP in debt.
Before 1992, they were the assignee of only had a handful of patents (your search didn't do that and included some other companies that had Microsoft somewhere in the application), and were doing quite well (enough to engage in anticompetitive behavior against DR-DOS). He's not saying that MS didn't file patents, he's saying that MS dominated markets without filing patents BEFORE they dominated them. The fact that they went on a patenting spree later doesn't change how their initial success happened.
Changing back to issue date would just bring back submarine patents. If the ideal period of software patents is about the same as the period it would take to grant a software patent, then perhaps the benefits of software patents cannot outweigh the cost. If that is the case, then we should just leave them out. I suppose you'll have to find a new job, but I don't like you enough to justify holding back the economy and technological progress.
legal intangibles covers it well already without any emotional bias, although it does also include goodwill, and aggressive defense of other legal intangibles can have a negative effect on goodwill. Protecting your legal intangibles sounds boring and doesn't stir up the same justification that protecting 'intellectual property' does.
And those comparisons are only valid if you start with roughly the same state. Saying America did better than Ethiopia is not a fair fight because they aren't close to being on the same economic plane. The biggest decent experiment was the the century following 1887 where Europe agreed to the Berne Convention's rules on copyright while America didn't. 1887-1988 was a good period for the US, and during that period, the peers of the US (European nations) that did have stronger copyright protections didn't do as well comparatively. Unfortunately, we don't have a good comparison for NO copyright and patents.
That's assuming that slavery is inherently cheaper. Slave owners had to provide a living wage directly, and had a vested interest in the welfare of the slaves to at least the extent of being able to work. If a farm hand is sick, you can hire another farm hand and not pay the old farm hand. If a slave is sick, then you either provide their health care or they die, meaning you have to get another slave. Morality aside, slavery isn't that economically sound for unskilled labor, at least in markets without regulations in other forms of labor contracts. Now, if you have engineer slaves, it would be viable, since engineers are probably going to make significantly more than what it costs to live, although you may find that treating an engineer better is still more productive.
If you submit a patent on software in the form of hundreds of claims with source code, then you can get a patent, but you will have driven the preparer of the patent insane and you will never ever catch anyone infringing. If I build a machine that does the same thing in a functionally different way, it is not patent infringement. Virtually all software more complex than hello world is going to be functionally different if written by a different author, because software is an incredibly complex machine.
What a coincidence. I like 'bewbs' too.
Not only do patents and copyright exist for the benefit of the public, they are simply a means to the end, not an ends to themselves. If we can conclude that some other incentive already in place does the job well enough, we could just end our patent and copyright systems. International treaties make it a bit more complicated than that, but it's not as if the US has a problem with acting unilaterally. As for why Australia would want to do that, they generally don't really have large, established firms, so Australian software companies (and users) are going to be on the losing end of the system with software patents in place.
It's very hard to prove anything either way. Our data on the effects of patents and copyright is quite limited, and some recent articles have suggested that traditional economic motivations suck for creative and innovative thinking. Also, legal exclusivity isn't the only way to secure a return on investments.
It's amazing what basic reading skills can do. If textbooks weren't so expensive, perhaps your school could have given you those skills or at least the ability to use your browser's built in search feature to search for 'McNealy' and 'Khosla'
I see McNealy and Khosla mentioned. That would be founders, and their push for Open Source Education is described.
Indeed. Half of the reason book prices are so outrageous is because students for all practical purposes have to get the same book the professor demands. If I could shop around, I could get much better prices.
To me, it seems Sun's problem was that they didn't really 'get' how to foster a FOSS project and build a community (it takes more than just hiring Ian Murdock). Sun had other problems, but being smarter and more proactive about FOSS could have helped, although I'm not sure how much of an impact it would have had.
You could have Hitler, the KKK, and Cobra Commander in the pictures and the educational value of a math textbook wouldn't be changed.
Free market principles only apply to free markets. Intuit relies on copyright (an artificial monopoly granted by the government) to deal with state and federal government, so they are operating in about as free of a free market as Lockheed Martin.
That's already gamed by the lower tax rate for capital gains. The only way a simple system would be gamed more here is if the only kind of tax was income tax, and I don't think anybody here is suggesting that.
There are subtleties in lighting that a machine won't get (I was witness to a few photography majors having a conversation about lighting, and they rambled on like a guitarist does when you mention tone), just as there are subtleties in music that a machine won't get. In this case, it would seem more of the human element is left in the music, as the cast and conductor have not been replaced.
As for your proposal, I don't see how 'sticking to the score' would be helpful (unless the score specifically calls for a human player), since a vanilla rendition would be where the machines are at their biggest advantage. What humans do well is reinterpret works, and I, for one, would love a focus on dramatically different interpretations. The article mentions that classic pieces like West Side Story were 'sacred' and that these changes are 'blasphemous', but I would contend that that is the worst kind of attitude to have, and far more destructive than any automation.
I suppose that a call for a ban could be made, but I'd imagine that it would make the musicians in question look like Luddites, and a lack of very careful wording could knock out various prerecorded or synthesized sound effects and certain high tech instruments.
Probably not by itself, but it will be used as another tool, just as the electric guitar was used a tool by all of the guitarists you mentioned. Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock were very accomplished jazz musicians, but they ended up using electronics and samples in their music, and I've heard Miles say that electric and electronic instruments made things much better because they had a shorter learning curve (presumably because it put more musicians at his disposal). Many modern musicians and bands are incorporating electronics into their music, and that's where a lot of new ideas are coming from. As for gigs, I haven't seen a huge change in frequency or pay where I live, but it's a college town, so perhaps it is more well insulated The only place I know of that's quit having musicians hasn't adopted DJs, and I think the troubles may have been ASCAP related. There was a place that had mostly DJs with only occasional bands, but it was shut down, brought back, and shut down again because they were selling too much alcohol and not enough food.
If you are going to play the authenticity card, then I ask you to stick to only singing and body percussion, as everything else is inauthentic. The "real music" card has been played for ages, and the thing that really matters is whether or not there is vision and art in what is being done, not the means by which a work is produced. Human players can and do lack vision in art in their interpretations all the time. Also, if you read, it says the conductor still conducts, leaving a real-time human element in.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that did, although I'd say it would be more common for that view to be taken in general theater or general live entertainment, which possibly might not even have music involved in some cases.