So? If their products flunked in the marketplace it's their fault -- it's because of their management, marketing, reputation and so on. That doesn't entitle them to patent trolling their competitors.
Is it more logical to say "We've done lots of unrelated R&D, so we are entitled to profit from other people's successes"? If you look further down in the comments you'll see what sort of patents Microsoft is suing with and you can decide for yourself who the thieves are.
You didn't refute my argument that competition is the main driver of innovation. Whatever those companies do, be it having trade secrets, getting patents, lobbying etc, is to out-compete their rivals and make more money for themselves.
However, it's a sad reality that the vast majority of patents published today don't contain enough information to replicate their claims (in many cases because they are patenting ideas instead of inventions), so other that a huge mess of government-granted monopolies and fat lawyers, I'm not sure how else the current system differs from the medieval glass makers.
Also, while your statement that "Without patent the only incentive is to research things that the other guy can't steal" rings true to me, I must remark that that would also be the solution to companies laying claim over obvious inventions that hold progress back! In other words, companies concentrating on researching less obvious inventions would be a good thing.
That's precisely what troubles me: patents grant exclusive rights to things that may be "questionable" non-inventions, which are routinely used by big companies and trolls to block competition and extort money. While I'm not one to say the patent system never worked, I think it's so unhealthy right now that abolition may be its only cure.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, but as far as I'm concerned the problem is, a patent does not mean anyone innovated, even the original owner of the patent. Patents are just a way to block competition and extract rents for trivial and vague "generalities" (like you say in your comments). This can't be good for anyone except the big-business rent-seekers; certainly not good for new entrants and the consumer.
Ripping off competitors is what the patent trolls do -- they can't do, so they sue -- just like Microsoft is doing in this case. As for copying IP and waiting to be sued, there's a deeper reason why that happens: it's almost impossible to bring a product to market without infringing dozens upon dozens of completely random patents. Even if you try to play it safe and license some of the patents likely to be used against you, the licensing fees you'd have to pay would almost certainly exceed your entire product development budget! How we can expect small startups to survive in this environment is totally beyond me.
I thought competition was what provided incentive to research. You copy the competition and innovate to get an edge, the competition copies you and also innovates to get an edge over you, repeat forever. With patents, you artificially wedge a "wait 20 years" step between those statements. More profits for the monopoly holders? Yes. Promoting the progress? More like slowing it down.
I do understand business, but I couldn't care less about entertaining big business's patent trolling activities. I also understand that patents (and particularly software patents) have nothing to do with invention or innovation and need to be abolished -- something you illustrated perfectly in your comment.
What's the point of making Linux GPL if people aren't meant to fork it and make something new out of it? This is Linux and the GPL working exactly as they should, I think.
This is quite well made, and I recommend it. Note that it's not technically a film, as this appears to be the first episode of a mini-series, with the second episode coming in a few weeks. That said, my favourite movie on Vodo is still by far The Tunnel.
Forget the War on Piracy. There's a new War in town: the War on Pets is finally here. If you are really quiet, you can hear millions of crazy cat ladies screaming in despair.
Ubuntu has it right: have a version that is bringing in through new features and tries new stuff but has a short lifetime, and also a long-time support version that provides stability for those who need it.
Close enough, actually. I've read something like that before. Here's the top link from Google.
Long story short, Michael Chertoff, former chief of the DHS under Bush, is the guy who initially advocated the installation of the scanners. It now turns out his private lobbying company has Rapiscan (the gov't rape scanner supplier) as a client.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if they did, isn't it anti-competitive?
It looks like you are writing a ransom note. The authorities have already been called, please remain where you are.
So? If their products flunked in the marketplace it's their fault -- it's because of their management, marketing, reputation and so on. That doesn't entitle them to patent trolling their competitors.
Is it more logical to say "We've done lots of unrelated R&D, so we are entitled to profit from other people's successes"? If you look further down in the comments you'll see what sort of patents Microsoft is suing with and you can decide for yourself who the thieves are.
Basically, those politicians are a more fundamental problem to our society than patents will ever be...
You didn't refute my argument that competition is the main driver of innovation. Whatever those companies do, be it having trade secrets, getting patents, lobbying etc, is to out-compete their rivals and make more money for themselves.
However, it's a sad reality that the vast majority of patents published today don't contain enough information to replicate their claims (in many cases because they are patenting ideas instead of inventions), so other that a huge mess of government-granted monopolies and fat lawyers, I'm not sure how else the current system differs from the medieval glass makers.
Also, while your statement that "Without patent the only incentive is to research things that the other guy can't steal" rings true to me, I must remark that that would also be the solution to companies laying claim over obvious inventions that hold progress back! In other words, companies concentrating on researching less obvious inventions would be a good thing.
That's precisely what troubles me: patents grant exclusive rights to things that may be "questionable" non-inventions, which are routinely used by big companies and trolls to block competition and extort money. While I'm not one to say the patent system never worked, I think it's so unhealthy right now that abolition may be its only cure.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, but as far as I'm concerned the problem is, a patent does not mean anyone innovated, even the original owner of the patent. Patents are just a way to block competition and extract rents for trivial and vague "generalities" (like you say in your comments). This can't be good for anyone except the big-business rent-seekers; certainly not good for new entrants and the consumer.
Ripping off competitors is what the patent trolls do -- they can't do, so they sue -- just like Microsoft is doing in this case. As for copying IP and waiting to be sued, there's a deeper reason why that happens: it's almost impossible to bring a product to market without infringing dozens upon dozens of completely random patents. Even if you try to play it safe and license some of the patents likely to be used against you, the licensing fees you'd have to pay would almost certainly exceed your entire product development budget! How we can expect small startups to survive in this environment is totally beyond me.
I thought competition was what provided incentive to research. You copy the competition and innovate to get an edge, the competition copies you and also innovates to get an edge over you, repeat forever. With patents, you artificially wedge a "wait 20 years" step between those statements. More profits for the monopoly holders? Yes. Promoting the progress? More like slowing it down.
I do understand business, but I couldn't care less about entertaining big business's patent trolling activities. I also understand that patents (and particularly software patents) have nothing to do with invention or innovation and need to be abolished -- something you illustrated perfectly in your comment.
If their R&D is so awesome, why can't they make their own products and not resort to ripping off other businesses to make money?
And publicly-funded colonoscopy exams by the TSA. Rawr, the terrorists must be really scared now!
It gives the USA incentive to bully the EU into changing its rules, yes. Wait for a relevant Wikileaks release in a year or two.
What's the point of making Linux GPL if people aren't meant to fork it and make something new out of it? This is Linux and the GPL working exactly as they should, I think.
I'm pretty sure it's a "criminal union".
This is quite well made, and I recommend it. Note that it's not technically a film, as this appears to be the first episode of a mini-series, with the second episode coming in a few weeks. That said, my favourite movie on Vodo is still by far The Tunnel.
I thought Seal Team Six took out Obama in Disneyland?
Are they promoting the progress or hindering it?
Forget the War on Piracy. There's a new War in town: the War on Pets is finally here. If you are really quiet, you can hear millions of crazy cat ladies screaming in despair.
Ubuntu has it right: have a version that is bringing in through new features and tries new stuff but has a short lifetime, and also a long-time support version that provides stability for those who need it.
Close enough, actually. I've read something like that before. Here's the top link from Google.
Long story short, Michael Chertoff, former chief of the DHS under Bush, is the guy who initially advocated the installation of the scanners. It now turns out his private lobbying company has Rapiscan (the gov't rape scanner supplier) as a client.
Sure, but that doesn't look like an overly hyperbolic statement. In a sense, it's the very definition of totalitarianism.
Toss a few chairs and you'll get over it.
"Fairt use" was introduced with the Clean Air Act 1993.