And think about it some more: there's nothing odd about a placebo curing a real illness either. The brain is highly connected to the body, and if you believe you are getting cured, there's an obvious pathway for that to have an effect. What would be surprising would be if people who thought they were receiving no treatment, but were being snuck a placebo in some way reacted differently from people who believed they wre receiving no treatment and were not receiving placebo.
Are you kidding (I assumed so, but your moderation is insightful)? What fraction of people do you think move their consoles, ever after the initial placement in the entertainment area? There might be some end-user cause to disc scratching, but i'm fairly sure this isn't the explanation. Personally, I think a more logical guess might be that a certain percentage of the xbox360s have a slight misalignnment in their spin motors. Should the unfortunate owner be required to pay for that, or should they be able to ask microsoft for a replacement of the defective part?
That would be great, but why make von Neumann do all the work? Wouldn't you rather he go back to doing what he does best? Inventing, rather than wasting his time in business meetings? That's exactly what holding companies can do for you... the drudgework!
Number 1 is a problem with the patents, not the holding companies, and I completely agree. That's why they used to require a sample implementation with patents, and is one of the things (unlike holding companies) that is actually wrong with the patent system. Try to apply this same logic to a patent you feel is completely valid.
And again, number 2 is fairly uncommon to nonexistant. Every patent holding company i've ever seen actively works on marketing their patents. That's their business! The notion that they are just lying in wait, hoping someone will stumble into their minefield is blatantly false: the patents are all fully publicized through the patent office, that's one of the requirements of getting a patent.
I agree with most of what you are saying here. Except that the problem is the patents themselves, not the holding companies. Most holding companies are in the business of trying to license their patents, and do in fact shop them around, but of course you don't hear about that, you hear about the sensation when they sue someone. And of course, if someone steals your idea, you really have no other recourse. Neither these people nor any competent holding company just sits on a patent. All of them actively shop the idea around, trying to find someone to take their idea to market for a fair price.
1) yes, i believe absolutely that at least 1% of the US population is as intelligent as gallileo, and probably more so. the scientific training the top 1% gets yields intelligence well beyond what gallileo had. 2) even if you deny 1, it takes more knowledge than intelligence to innovate anyway.
Finally, could your or I figure out that the earth orbits the sun? Sure... I did. Didn't you ever have a physics class that challenged you to prove which was true? It's not that hard.
How many lawsuits, laws, or consitutional ammendments is it going to take to convince you people that man first arose in the garden of eden! Which obviously must have been somewhere in the middle east, given later occurences!
Then you'd find me in complete agreement with you. I don't accept patents at all either. I just don't agree that holding companies are the source of the problem. It's the patents themselves that are the problem.
That's great, but what percentage of the people you've met in life are as ethical as you are? In my life, maybe 5% (being generous) of the people I meet are sufficiently ethical.
My question is: in what way is the holding company worse than what you've described? It's exactly the same outcome. Someone gets sued over a patent by someone else. The patent holding company impacts what happens in no way negatively, and can be seen as a positive in that the inventor himself can transfer the responsibility and not have to deal with the process. As an inventor, do you want to spend your life monitoring for violations? No, you want to get on to the next invention, and let someone else deal with that crap. That someone else is a holding company.
It may not be the ideal solution to the inventor, but it is workable. I know inventors who have sold their patents and been quite happy with the outcome.
As to the profits, I of course mean the sub-licensing or lawsuit profits. (And again: where you read lawsuit here, you must read legitimate, patented invention stealing lawsuit).
Mostly they buy them from the inventors at a fair price. Bankruptcy sales of patents are fairly rare.
To your other point, the more they scoop up to find one that is suit worthy the better: they've paid out money to more inventors, and helped to spread the wealth around, encouraging many even if only one's invention winds up being a big winner.
I think a more likely cause would be the massive rise in the quality and depth of education of the average worker. At least 1% (say 3 million people) and probably close to 10% (say 30 million people) of the US population is as educated as Gallileo was, and in fact knows more in general about how the universe works than he did. Consider what it does to innovation when 10% of your population is that smart. This was enabled mostly by the rise of productivity in farmland from fertilizer and better understanding and dissemination of farming methods.
The patent is bad. Not the patent holding company. Suppose, for a moment, that you believed, completely, that the patent in question was utterly utterly valid, a useful, unique invention. And that in fact, google had stolen this thing of value to make a product and make money off of this invention. Now assuming you believe that patents, in general, encourage inventors to invent, and that this is a good thing for society. Which outcome do you prefer:
a) huge company google screws little guy inventor who is incapable of protecting his patent. b) huge company google faces off against holding company capable of fighting this legal battle, and ultimately has to fork over money for stealing the invention.
I for one believe the patent system is totally foobared. But I do not believe that holding companies are the problem. Bad patents are the problem, and that's what you seem to be arguing 'against' me. Except I totally agree with you. I also think that provable independent invention ought to be a complete defense against patent suits, but that's a totally different topic from whether or not holding companies are bad.
No, that's a problem with the patents being offered, not the holding companies. If the patent is for something that:
a) can easily be invented by someone else b) can't be produced by the inventor
then something is wrong. That's why there's an obviousness clause, and there used to be a requirement to actually deliver an implementation.
Suppose we give credit to von neumann for inventing the computer, and grant him a patent on it. Suppose, further, for a moment that we feel he deserves the patent, and that the patent is completely valid, and that he has in fact built a computer.
Suppose he has not the resources to manufacture computers, and so sells his patent to a holding company. This allows one of 2 things to occur:
1) some other company steals his invention, and starts making computers. now since we agreed that the problem is not with the patent, by your theory, we shouldn't mind when a company steals inventions, and the holding company should not be able to look out for von neumann's interests, von neumann should get screwed.
2) the holding company can approach other companies, offering to sell them the rights to build computers, and thus transferring the rights to someone capable of mass manufacture. but maybe we should just all live without computers for another 17 years because holding companies are bad.
Certainly seems like there are a lot of those businesses around nowadays, huh?
And with good reason. An independent inventor has virtually no way to pursue such claims himself, the cost is far too expensive. Instead, patent holding companies allow an inventor to sell his invention to a holding company, and have the company pursue claims. He may sell outright or receive a portion of the profits.
There are many things wrong with the patent system. Patent holding companies are not among them. If you accept patents at all, licensing companies are vital to the success, fairness, and effectiveness of the system.
From another point of view: even though as an employee, you have your companies interests at heart, you should realize that contractors often dont. Contractors are mainly interested in performing in a way that seems productive, but which improves the profitability or length of the contract. Management will often hire them because they feel they have no other choice, and hope that they get some useful productivity out of them if they are careful enough with the design of the contract. But you, as an employee, should be suspicious of everything a contractor says or does. Are they leading your company down an ineffective path that feeds more money into the contract? Are they trying to waylay you with methodologies that will ultimately lower productivity? There are many many unscrupulous people in the field of contracting, Microsoft is smart to let their employees know who is who.
Slashdot Mirror
And think about it some more: there's nothing odd about a placebo curing a real illness either. The brain is highly connected to the body, and if you believe you are getting cured, there's an obvious pathway for that to have an effect. What would be surprising would be if people who thought they were receiving no treatment, but were being snuck a placebo in some way reacted differently from people who believed they wre receiving no treatment and were not receiving placebo.
Are you kidding (I assumed so, but your moderation is insightful)? What fraction of people do you think move their consoles, ever after the initial placement in the entertainment area? There might be some end-user cause to disc scratching, but i'm fairly sure this isn't the explanation. Personally, I think a more logical guess might be that a certain percentage of the xbox360s have a slight misalignnment in their spin motors. Should the unfortunate owner be required to pay for that, or should they be able to ask microsoft for a replacement of the defective part?
That would be great, but why make von Neumann do all the work? Wouldn't you rather he go back to doing what he does best? Inventing, rather than wasting his time in business meetings? That's exactly what holding companies can do for you ... the drudgework!
Number 1 is a problem with the patents, not the holding companies, and I completely agree. That's why they used to require a sample implementation with patents, and is one of the things (unlike holding companies) that is actually wrong with the patent system. Try to apply this same logic to a patent you feel is completely valid.
And again, number 2 is fairly uncommon to nonexistant. Every patent holding company i've ever seen actively works on marketing their patents. That's their business! The notion that they are just lying in wait, hoping someone will stumble into their minefield is blatantly false: the patents are all fully publicized through the patent office, that's one of the requirements of getting a patent.
I agree with most of what you are saying here. Except that the problem is the patents themselves, not the holding companies. Most holding companies are in the business of trying to license their patents, and do in fact shop them around, but of course you don't hear about that, you hear about the sensation when they sue someone. And of course, if someone steals your idea, you really have no other recourse. Neither these people nor any competent holding company just sits on a patent. All of them actively shop the idea around, trying to find someone to take their idea to market for a fair price.
Come on mods, you gave a 4 funny to the practically identical joke about talking snakes!
and say: Ouch!
Thank you, I'm glad someone got it. Perhaps some other moderators will help correct the problem.
There are two things here:
... I did. Didn't you ever have a physics class that challenged you to prove which was true? It's not that hard.
1) yes, i believe absolutely that at least 1% of the US population is as intelligent as gallileo, and probably more so. the scientific training the top 1% gets yields intelligence well beyond what gallileo had.
2) even if you deny 1, it takes more knowledge than intelligence to innovate anyway.
Finally, could your or I figure out that the earth orbits the sun? Sure
That's pretty much what they're claiming.
How many lawsuits, laws, or consitutional ammendments is it going to take to convince you people that man first arose in the garden of eden! Which obviously must have been somewhere in the middle east, given later occurences!
Then you'd find me in complete agreement with you. I don't accept patents at all either. I just don't agree that holding companies are the source of the problem. It's the patents themselves that are the problem.
That's great, but what percentage of the people you've met in life are as ethical as you are?
In my life, maybe 5% (being generous) of the people I meet are sufficiently ethical.
My question is: in what way is the holding company worse than what you've described? It's exactly the same outcome. Someone gets sued over a patent by someone else. The patent holding company impacts what happens in no way negatively, and can be seen as a positive in that the inventor himself can transfer the responsibility and not have to deal with the process. As an inventor, do you want to spend your life monitoring for violations? No, you want to get on to the next invention, and let someone else deal with that crap. That someone else is a holding company.
It may not be the ideal solution to the inventor, but it is workable. I know inventors who have sold their patents and been quite happy with the outcome.
As to the profits, I of course mean the sub-licensing or lawsuit profits. (And again: where you read lawsuit here, you must read legitimate, patented invention stealing lawsuit).
Mostly they buy them from the inventors at a fair price. Bankruptcy sales of patents are fairly rare.
To your other point, the more they scoop up to find one that is suit worthy the better: they've paid out money to more inventors, and helped to spread the wealth around, encouraging many even if only one's invention winds up being a big winner.
I think a more likely cause would be the massive rise in the quality and depth of education of the average worker. At least 1% (say 3 million people) and probably close to 10% (say 30 million people) of the US population is as educated as Gallileo was, and in fact knows more in general about how the universe works than he did. Consider what it does to innovation when 10% of your population is that smart. This was enabled mostly by the rise of productivity in farmland from fertilizer and better understanding and dissemination of farming methods.
Absolutely, and I demand that the privacy provisions apply to them also!
You're completely arguing in my favor.
The patent is bad. Not the patent holding company. Suppose, for a moment, that you believed, completely, that the patent in question was utterly utterly valid, a useful, unique invention. And that in fact, google had stolen this thing of value to make a product and make money off of this invention. Now assuming you believe that patents, in general, encourage inventors to invent, and that this is a good thing for society. Which outcome do you prefer:
a) huge company google screws little guy inventor who is incapable of protecting his patent.
b) huge company google faces off against holding company capable of fighting this legal battle, and ultimately has to fork over money for stealing the invention.
I for one believe the patent system is totally foobared. But I do not believe that holding companies are the problem. Bad patents are the problem, and that's what you seem to be arguing 'against' me. Except I totally agree with you. I also think that provable independent invention ought to be a complete defense against patent suits, but that's a totally different topic from whether or not holding companies are bad.
No, that's a problem with the patents being offered, not the holding companies. If the patent is for something that:
a) can easily be invented by someone else
b) can't be produced by the inventor
then something is wrong. That's why there's an obviousness clause, and there used to be a requirement to actually deliver an implementation.
Suppose we give credit to von neumann for inventing the computer, and grant him a patent on it. Suppose, further, for a moment that we feel he deserves the patent, and that the patent is completely valid, and that he has in fact built a computer.
Suppose he has not the resources to manufacture computers, and so sells his patent to a holding company. This allows one of 2 things to occur:
1) some other company steals his invention, and starts making computers. now since we agreed that the problem is not with the patent, by your theory, we shouldn't mind when a company steals inventions, and the holding company should not be able to look out for von neumann's interests, von neumann should get screwed.
2) the holding company can approach other companies, offering to sell them the rights to build computers, and thus transferring the rights to someone capable of mass manufacture. but maybe we should just all live without computers for another 17 years because holding companies are bad.
Off by more than 9. Better luck next time!
And with good reason. An independent inventor has virtually no way to pursue such claims himself, the cost is far too expensive. Instead, patent holding companies allow an inventor to sell his invention to a holding company, and have the company pursue claims. He may sell outright or receive a portion of the profits.
There are many things wrong with the patent system. Patent holding companies are not among them. If you accept patents at all, licensing companies are vital to the success, fairness, and effectiveness of the system.
From another point of view: even though as an employee, you have your companies interests at heart, you should realize that contractors often dont. Contractors are mainly interested in performing in a way that seems productive, but which improves the profitability or length of the contract. Management will often hire them because they feel they have no other choice, and hope that they get some useful productivity out of them if they are careful enough with the design of the contract. But you, as an employee, should be suspicious of everything a contractor says or does. Are they leading your company down an ineffective path that feeds more money into the contract? Are they trying to waylay you with methodologies that will ultimately lower productivity? There are many many unscrupulous people in the field of contracting, Microsoft is smart to let their employees know who is who.
No response, this huge financial opportunity is still available to the right buyer!
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htmi tarr.htm
http://www.kevinboone.com/citizens_arrest.html
http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/c
Note: varies from state to state.