The argument is a legal one, and therefore BY DEFINITION is nothing other than a semantic argument.
Have you ever watched a contract negotiation? You would probably be stunned at the amount of very expensive time people spend breaking up sentences with commas and semicolons to get it to read exactly the way they want it to.
The RIAA is making whatever argument they have to to make us believe that whenever we hear sound, we owe them money. Don't ever think they're doing anything else.
The legal perspective is the one that's causing all the trouble.
My feeling is that unless you take the trouble of building a prototype, no patent for you.
When patents are employed to encourage innovation, that's good. When they are used to impede innovation (through unreasonable, obstructionist licensing) then that's bad.
I am certainly arguing a philosophical perspective, not a legal one.
And what would happen if Mr. Curtiss had been an inventor working out of a bike shop, and didn't have the funding to fight the (now successful) Wright brothers legally?
And, finally, the situation wasn't settled by the courts. The Army nationalized ALL the patents and licensed ALL of them freely to anybody who wanted to build airplanes.
Patents exist for the sole purpose of encouraging technological development by rewarding innovation.
Particularly in emerging technologies, a ten-year court battle can make technology development stagnate.
A good book on the subject is supposed to be "Unlocking the Skies" by Seth Schulmann. I have it on hold at my library, but I've yet to read that particular account.
The Wright Brothers tried to patent the notion of powered flight.
When Glenn Curtiss decided to use hinged ailerons instead of wing warping to provide roll control on his aircraft, the Wright Brothers tried to sue him for patent infringement.
So, you've unintentionally demonstrated how harmful patents can be to improving the state of the art. It is not practical to build large airplanes with wing warping (at least, not with current materials) but ailerons work just great. Had it not been for the US Government nationalizing the Wrights' patents, the state of the art would have been set back by decades.
How can you patent something that happens in nature all the time?
Re:Ill get it out of the way
on
Mac OS X Hints
·
· Score: 1
There's an Autoscroll Moz Extension that might scratch your itch. I don't know if it works on MacOSX (my 6100 can't run it. Bummer.)
By that argument, I think we should stop letting people fly.
Or drive.
Because, sometimes, people die when they do those things.
Aviation safety is about managing risks, not eliminating them. If the pilots report that they get wonky responses from instruments when mobile phones are in use, ban them. (Which has already happened) That's fine. But there are dozens of other issues that you've probably never even heard of that introduce risk into civil aviation.
Can I have your phone number so I can make sure that my phone use is "warranted"? I promise I'll call you before I call anybody else.
Without the irony, my question is: Who asked you?
Why do you get annoyed with somebody who is doing something that has nothing to do with you? As the above poster asked, what's the difference between talking to a neighbor and talking to a radio? If they're shouting, sure...that's rude. But having a discreet conversation on the phone doesn't hurt anybody.
Fair enough on the line breaks./. does all kinds of weird stuff.
I loathed handwriting. Penmanship was constantly the dark spot on my report cards until teachers stopped grading me on it. It was not something I was interested in doing, and not something that I thought was worth improving.
You and I disagree on the intrinsic value of handwriting as an art (well, OK, "craft", if you feel like "art" is such a "degradation").
I think there should be more art and less busy work in school, particularly at the primary school level. I also don't think that art has any value apart from the self-expression of the artist. So if somebody doesn't like a particular art form (like handwriting) you shouldn't force the kid to do it.
Dude, just a suggestion, start with spelling and punctuation. Move on to sentence composition and paragraph formation. Normally I'm not one to diss on grammar and spelling, but it really speaks to the heart of your point. I can't see what your handwriting looks like, but your argument does not seem to be well organized.
Handwriting is an art form. Art forms are important. However, art forms should not be compulsory.
So why don't we make a calligraphy class an elective, instead of pretending that you can't be an educated intelligent person unless you can do Palmer method handwriting?
USB cannot do peer-to-peer connections. It needs a fair amount of processing power on the host end in order to do anything.
And you can still buy phones and other devices that don't have BlueTooth. BT is designed to be very, very, very inexpensive to implement. The figures I've seen are $.25 or so per device for additional chips and stuff.
Me, I love my Logitech cordless keyboard. The fact that you do not is totally irrelevant to me.
So, again...why does BT offend you? What's wrong with it, other than the fact that YOU might not think it's useful?
The thing is, because we're talking about a device with a radio and a microprocessor, it's no less expensive to manufacture a phone that just makes calls, than to mfr one that makes calls and plays games and has funny little musical tones &c. Adding features doesn't increas mfr cost, but it does increase profit margin for the phone company.
The phone makers can apparently saturate their manufacturing capacity building phones that they can sell for $150 (although I don't know where you shop...I can't drive to work without seeing a dozen ads for free phones) and they have no profit incentive to sell cheaper ones.
I don't have a phone because I won't pay the exorbitant monthly fees. If you get a plan with a small number of included minutes, you get an ass-raping on the additional minutes. Same goes for pre-paid phones. If I could get a plan that had a fair price for monthly service, and a reasonable price for add'l minutes, I'd probably jump.
But my price point is not being serviced, because other higher-margin price points can saturate the available resources. Sucks to be me. And you.
Same arguments apply to BT. It's faster than IR, and more flexible.
And, USB was going NOWHERE until Apple made it the universal standard for their computers.
Now, I won't argue that the iMac was the sole motivator for USB adoption, but the number of USB devices went through the roof about three to six months after the iMac was released.
Did the Bluetooth group wound you as a child or something? Why does this technology make you so angry? Show me on the doll where they touched you!
When I turn my brain back on, I'll post saying that I meant X-10, not X-11. You'll have to just muddle on on your own until I get around to correcting my oversight.
The only problem 802.11 is trying to solve is being able to move computers around. The only computers it makes real sense to move around are ones that have batteries in them.
Are you talking about X-11? Lots of people use it. By "lots", I mean "enough to make the market viable".
Which brings us around to a silly point: Who cares if only 100,000 people use Bluetooth? If it's profitable to service that market, the market will be serviced. The technology isn't "dead" because people use it and like it.
I'm particularly heartened by Apple's adoption. They accelerated the deployment of USB, wireless LAN, and I'm sure the same will work with BT.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument is a legal one, and therefore BY DEFINITION is nothing other than a semantic argument.
Have you ever watched a contract negotiation? You would probably be stunned at the amount of very expensive time people spend breaking up sentences with commas and semicolons to get it to read exactly the way they want it to.
The RIAA is making whatever argument they have to to make us believe that whenever we hear sound, we owe them money. Don't ever think they're doing anything else.
I invoke Godwin's Law. You're done, skippy.
...huh?
The RIAA drone made a list of baseless assertions longer than my, uh, arm, so I'm going to make one of my own.
No album worth a crap has failed to recoup its production costs due to piracy. Ever.
If you have good music, people will pay for it.
The legal perspective is the one that's causing all the trouble.
My feeling is that unless you take the trouble of building a prototype, no patent for you.
When patents are employed to encourage innovation, that's good. When they are used to impede innovation (through unreasonable, obstructionist licensing) then that's bad.
I am certainly arguing a philosophical perspective, not a legal one.
And what would happen if Mr. Curtiss had been an inventor working out of a bike shop, and didn't have the funding to fight the (now successful) Wright brothers legally?
And, finally, the situation wasn't settled by the courts. The Army nationalized ALL the patents and licensed ALL of them freely to anybody who wanted to build airplanes.
Patents exist for the sole purpose of encouraging technological development by rewarding innovation.
Particularly in emerging technologies, a ten-year court battle can make technology development stagnate.
A good book on the subject is supposed to be "Unlocking the Skies" by Seth Schulmann. I have it on hold at my library, but I've yet to read that particular account.
The Wright Brothers tried to patent the notion of powered flight.
When Glenn Curtiss decided to use hinged ailerons instead of wing warping to provide roll control on his aircraft, the Wright Brothers tried to sue him for patent infringement.
So, you've unintentionally demonstrated how harmful patents can be to improving the state of the art. It is not practical to build large airplanes with wing warping (at least, not with current materials) but ailerons work just great. Had it not been for the US Government nationalizing the Wrights' patents, the state of the art would have been set back by decades.
How can you patent something that happens in nature all the time?
There's an Autoscroll Moz Extension that might scratch your itch. I don't know if it works on MacOSX (my 6100 can't run it. Bummer.)
Good luck!
By that argument, I think we should stop letting people fly.
Or drive.
Because, sometimes, people die when they do those things.
Aviation safety is about managing risks, not eliminating them. If the pilots report that they get wonky responses from instruments when mobile phones are in use, ban them. (Which has already happened) That's fine. But there are dozens of other issues that you've probably never even heard of that introduce risk into civil aviation.
Life can be dangerous. Get over it.
Can I have your phone number so I can make sure that my phone use is "warranted"? I promise I'll call you before I call anybody else.
Without the irony, my question is: Who asked you?
Why do you get annoyed with somebody who is doing something that has nothing to do with you? As the above poster asked, what's the difference between talking to a neighbor and talking to a radio? If they're shouting, sure...that's rude. But having a discreet conversation on the phone doesn't hurt anybody.
So lighten up.
Fair enough on the line breaks. /. does all kinds of weird stuff.
I loathed handwriting. Penmanship was constantly the dark spot on my report cards until teachers stopped grading me on it. It was not something I was interested in doing, and not something that I thought was worth improving.
You and I disagree on the intrinsic value of handwriting as an art (well, OK, "craft", if you feel like "art" is such a "degradation").
I think there should be more art and less busy work in school, particularly at the primary school level. I also don't think that art has any value apart from the self-expression of the artist. So if somebody doesn't like a particular art form (like handwriting) you shouldn't force the kid to do it.
Dude, just a suggestion, start with spelling and punctuation. Move on to sentence composition and paragraph formation. Normally I'm not one to diss on grammar and spelling, but it really speaks to the heart of your point. I can't see what your handwriting looks like, but your argument does not seem to be well organized.
Handwriting is an art form. Art forms are important. However, art forms should not be compulsory.
Good handwriting is beautiful.
So why don't we make a calligraphy class an elective, instead of pretending that you can't be an educated intelligent person unless you can do Palmer method handwriting?
Would you care to put forth an argument, or just an assertion?
Unless by "write" you mean "compose one's arguments in textual form", in which case we have no disagreement.
If by "write" you mean "write in cursive on paper with a pen", I don't agree that it's a critical life skill.
Ummmmm...print?
If you can read, you can print. If you can't read, your typing or handwriting skills are hardly at issue.
USB cannot do peer-to-peer connections. It needs a fair amount of processing power on the host end in order to do anything.
And you can still buy phones and other devices that don't have BlueTooth. BT is designed to be very, very, very inexpensive to implement. The figures I've seen are $.25 or so per device for additional chips and stuff.
Me, I love my Logitech cordless keyboard. The fact that you do not is totally irrelevant to me.
So, again...why does BT offend you? What's wrong with it, other than the fact that YOU might not think it's useful?
Cool...I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
The thing is, because we're talking about a device with a radio and a microprocessor, it's no less expensive to manufacture a phone that just makes calls, than to mfr one that makes calls and plays games and has funny little musical tones &c. Adding features doesn't increas mfr cost, but it does increase profit margin for the phone company.
The phone makers can apparently saturate their manufacturing capacity building phones that they can sell for $150 (although I don't know where you shop...I can't drive to work without seeing a dozen ads for free phones) and they have no profit incentive to sell cheaper ones.
I don't have a phone because I won't pay the exorbitant monthly fees. If you get a plan with a small number of included minutes, you get an ass-raping on the additional minutes. Same goes for pre-paid phones. If I could get a plan that had a fair price for monthly service, and a reasonable price for add'l minutes, I'd probably jump.
But my price point is not being serviced, because other higher-margin price points can saturate the available resources. Sucks to be me. And you.
Same arguments apply to BT. It's faster than IR, and more flexible.
And, USB was going NOWHERE until Apple made it the universal standard for their computers.
Now, I won't argue that the iMac was the sole motivator for USB adoption, but the number of USB devices went through the roof about three to six months after the iMac was released.
Did the Bluetooth group wound you as a child or something? Why does this technology make you so angry? Show me on the doll where they touched you!
When I turn my brain back on, I'll post saying that I meant X-10, not X-11. You'll have to just muddle on on your own until I get around to correcting my oversight.
: )
OK, even accepting your hare-brained scheme, how the HELL does that map onto the dichotomy you suppose?
/VASTLY/, oversimplifying. Conspiracy theories have a funny way of doing that.
You are vastly,
Sweet merciful CRAP. s/than/then. Ugh. I can't believe I did that.
I'm not totally sure what your contentions are.
The only problem 802.11 is trying to solve is being able to move computers around. The only computers it makes real sense to move around are ones that have batteries in them.
Are you talking about X-11? Lots of people use it. By "lots", I mean "enough to make the market viable".
Which brings us around to a silly point: Who cares if only 100,000 people use Bluetooth? If it's profitable to service that market, the market will be serviced. The technology isn't "dead" because people use it and like it.
I'm particularly heartened by Apple's adoption. They accelerated the deployment of USB, wireless LAN, and I'm sure the same will work with BT.
If your hypothesis is correct, than you need look no further than your nearest American newspaper for the answer.
How is the date listed?
Month, Day, Year.
That's the way people (with the conspicuous exception of military personnel) think of dates in this country.
But I still don't believe the date is anything other than a coincidence.
Who's trolling who?