"I know plenty of people who think this way. I just don't know anyone who acts this way. The people I know are just grateful to have a job and aren't willing to "make a statement" like that."
I was just following along with your analogy... I wouldn't expect *everyone* to do this under all circumstances they didn't quite like (though I've raised my objections a few times myself - my job be damned; I don't want to die from the resulting stress of not fixing what's messed up;) ). But we're not talking about a single employee anyway, it's an organization that's suppose to serve the taxpayers, (and yes I realize this also includes corporations:) ) so I would expect them to make sure things run smoothly. I'm not hell-bent on trashing the PTO, I guess what really ticks me off ("the fuss" for me) is that I consider their lack of changing things thus far to be irresponsible (more than unacceptable, really) in that regard.
"Patent trolls are usually companies that buy (or get) questionable patents....'
One of the things I'd like to see change (besides like having patents treated a bit more like trademarks) is how patents are viewed. I'd rather see them being viewed more like copyright is: get instant coverage once the 'invention' is created, file a description to the PTO, it gets filed - without any needed approval - and conduct your business. Then when an infrigment claim comes in, it gets evaluated by the PTO before any lawsuits are allowed to go forth.
No, that wouldn't clear up the backlog, since I'm sure there would be a flurry of infrigment claims that would need to be processed, but it might help delay the cost of defending an infringment suit to after it's determined to be truely valid, rather than most probably getting sued out of existance trying to defend it, even though the case has no real merit.
"... The existing problem is simply the existence of questionable patents. Those will work themselves out in court."
And therein lies the problem. The little guys have practically no chance against big 'patent trolls'. The deterance you propose might work, but only if the little guys can hang in there.
"If money was the problem it's never too late to add money."
I guess that's true, I'm just not optimistic about it. This is one hell of a mess to clean up.
"First, firing an employee is different from sueing the company"
Granted, but unfortunately we can't 'fire' the pto - reprimand, perhaps, but the point must come across - regardless of the actual method, no slap on the hand like MS keeps getting. When someone/some organization fucks up and causes a whole bunch of problems they must be accountable.
"Second, how many different ways do I have to say that it's unfair to judge the work of somebody who doesn't have time?"
Reread my post carefully. What I'm saying is that they're not brigning this up (resources issues), until now, to fix it. I think that's unacceptable. I wouldn't work with a total lack of resources without making a lot of noise about it, even if it gets me fired - a judge can determine if the lack of resources or my competence for the task was in question.
Besides if you don't have the time, don't do the work. When no work gets done the 'boss' might actually clue in that there's not enough time!
"Imagine your boss gave you a task, a very important one. This task would get you fired if you did it incorrectly...."
Fair enough, if I fuck it up (<*NOTE*"...Now further imagine that you can't possibly do this task in less than 30 hours, but you only have 20 hours to complete it. Oh, and you can't work overtime"
I would complain to the boss instead of frantically trying to do the impossible task. When he fires me after doing some of the work (just uncompleted, not fucked up), I would sue for wrongful dismissal. Then I would make it a point to explain to the judge that I _couldn't_ do work under unreasonable circumstances, and not simply say I _didn't_ do the work so he fired me and expect judgement in my favor.
I'm not suggessting taking a load of crap. I'm saying they've got this problem and not (until now, pretty much once it's already too late) doing anything tangable about it. This has created a mess of a problem others are stuck to deal with, and the PTO pretty much comes out clean as a whistle (I think it's a load of crap that an innovative company is sued out of existance because of a bogus patent).
(I'm not sure who you refer to by 'patent trolls', so I won't comment on that paragraph).
"A law is in Congress as we speak to increase the number of examiners by a very large amount. The problem is being taken seriously."
To me this seems too little, waaaayyyyy to fucking late at this point in time. I think the way the system works needs to be changed too. Adding more examiners might solve some problems, but there's somethings that are fundamentally wrong with patents (with regards to sw patents more than others) that need changes.
Wouldn't you fire an employee that makes a major mistakes (the severity of PTO's "mistakes" is up for discussion of course)? I consider the PTO "employed" by the taxpayers (though corporations might actually be the ones running the show - I don't know), and if they're not doing their job, well.....
I don't know - guess experiences with lazy teachers in HS caused me to be biased against people/organizations that don't do their job right and cause more harm than good in the end. Either way I would certainly expect them bring up any resource defeciencies instead of blindly continuing on with the problem, and especially bring about a solution to it sooner rather than waiting after a point-of-no-return, which seems (to most folks here) to be what's happening now.... I don't buy into the 'speak no evil, hear no evel, see no evil' (the three monkeys?) way of doing things.
(I don't read Dilbert much, but the way I see it, the current situation vs. what I suggest seems just as bad either way)
Like the title of your post states " So many things to talk about ";)
Seems to me the PTO subscribes to that ("we approved 1 bogus patent so we might as well approve them all") LOL:)
My point is that there's always gonna be some bogus litigation that either causes monetary losses for the defendant (regardless of even if the plaintiff might end up paying for it as you suggested), or, much more likely, destroying the defendant, and any actual innovation that had brought (so much for the idea of patents encouraging innovation). And what brought this on in the first place is the the approval of a bogus patent.
I think it would be better to solve the root problem by giving them a strong message (lawsuit, a fine, whatever will do it) instead of other parties having to clean up the mess the pto created and paying for it with wasted money, time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
And how much does the court system/trial cost? Plaintiffs certainly don't pay for that; taxpayers do, so they lose (again) anyways, might as well go all the way.
Besides, maybe doing once would be enough and they'd finally learn their lesson.
"Why not, in those cases where a patent is declared invalid, require that the plaintiff cover legal fees of the defendant?"
I would prefer seeing the patent office being sued/having to cover costs in those instances since it's their approving the invalid patent in the first place that causes the mess.
I can only assume they'll eventually charge some sort of licensing of other kind of fee, and they'll force their way to approval to displace Yahoo's proposed system.
It all comes down to who you submitted it to, and if they can really be trusted.
Some will share your email, and their 'partners' will also honor remove requests.
The really bad offenders I find are those that try to sell prescription drugs (viagra, etc., and other more generic stuff as well), the dept management/morgage spammers, and that id-10-t that thinks I need another diploma. For the morgage stuff I actually let them call me and tell them their lead finder is a spammer and I'll send bill them $100/email (since they're clearly associated to them) for the privilege.
It all comes down to being careful who you submit your address to / post it. Best to have a few emails, the usual 1 for friends, 1 for businesses, and 1 or more for throw-away.
And you can easily track them who is who by using some email services like spamgourmet.com - it's acutally fun somtimes.
Patents are now only for use as a tool for extortion for companies that have no business model, heading towards bankruptcy, or want a monopoly of their respective field of business.
The way I see it, it should be called 'Pulling a GraceNote' - ie steal from contributers and sue frivrously. It seems to me SCO learn a lesson from GraceNote...
Although I'm not sure I would endorse this tool, I do support the idea behind it (using the songs you legally bought how you want, short of massive sharing or copyright infringment)
But I guess these guys could always post it on Freenet - let's see them trying to pull it off then!
When was the last time you really wanted to download a song (hopefully to buy it)?
When was the last time you really wanted to pay for the CD instead?
I know I (and willing to bet just about everyone else) wanted to buy & download a song instead of buying the CD, and wouldn't have bought the CD anyways (CD too expensive or not enough value to it for the price).
So, it's either they make $0.99, or $0.
Now take into account how much people will think is a reasonable price - ie. 5 people willing to buy at, say, $1.10/song, vs 2 @ $2.00. The first they make $5.50, the second only $4.
Bottom line is that people don't want to pay more than they think it's worth, regardless of what the execs tell them it's worth.
And besides, I don't watch videos - if I saw what some of these 'artists' looked like I'd probably think twice before actually buying a song of theirs.
One example of a company (Hostway) doesn't reflect the general state of affairs; none of the domains I've bought we tied to any service whatsoever, and I can do what I wish with them. They all cost me $7 or less, which is a lot cheaper than the $35 that used to be charged (thruthfully can't remember if it was 1 year or 2 though back then...)
Not crap attached to it. Not stuff that'll cost more than it's worth.
I thought they had got this right, and now they come up with this crap.
If they had half a brain they would've realized by now that songs should be sold like domains are now.
Remember when domains cost $35? Now that they've opened it up, everyone and their grandma is selling domains, most of the time very cheaply. And you're not stuck having to buy hosting or other crap like what the music execs want to do now.
Imagine when (if) this will happen for music! Everyone and their grandma sellings songs, for cheap! And unlike domains, you can sell any song more than once!
But, for now, we're stuck with this BS. Oh well...
Slashdot Mirror
But the end result is none of the three...
"I know plenty of people who think this way. I just don't know anyone who acts this way. The people I know are just grateful to have a job and aren't willing to "make a statement" like that."
;) ). But we're not talking about a single employee anyway, it's an organization that's suppose to serve the taxpayers, (and yes I realize this also includes corporations :) ) so I would expect them to make sure things run smoothly. I'm not hell-bent on trashing the PTO, I guess what really ticks me off ("the fuss" for me) is that I consider their lack of changing things thus far to be irresponsible (more than unacceptable, really) in that regard.
I was just following along with your analogy... I wouldn't expect *everyone* to do this under all circumstances they didn't quite like (though I've raised my objections a few times myself - my job be damned; I don't want to die from the resulting stress of not fixing what's messed up
"Patent trolls are usually companies that buy (or get) questionable patents....'
One of the things I'd like to see change (besides like having patents treated a bit more like trademarks) is how patents are viewed. I'd rather see them being viewed more like copyright is: get instant coverage once the 'invention' is created, file a description to the PTO, it gets filed - without any needed approval - and conduct your business. Then when an infrigment claim comes in, it gets evaluated by the PTO before any lawsuits are allowed to go forth.
No, that wouldn't clear up the backlog, since I'm sure there would be a flurry of infrigment claims that would need to be processed, but it might help delay the cost of defending an infringment suit to after it's determined to be truely valid, rather than most probably getting sued out of existance trying to defend it, even though the case has no real merit.
"... The existing problem is simply the existence of questionable patents. Those will work themselves out in court."
And therein lies the problem. The little guys have practically no chance against big 'patent trolls'. The deterance you propose might work, but only if the little guys can hang in there.
"If money was the problem it's never too late to add money."
I guess that's true, I'm just not optimistic about it. This is one hell of a mess to clean up.
damn slashcode fucked up part of it:
....
(*NOTE*: I said "fuck it up", not "did not finish it because of not enough time") then I'm not doing the work I'm paid for. Now...
"....Now
danm slashcode fucked up part of it:
*NOTE*: I said "fuck it up", not "did not finish it because of not enough time") then I'm not doing the work I'm paid for. Now...
"First, firing an employee is different from sueing the company"
Granted, but unfortunately we can't 'fire' the pto - reprimand, perhaps, but the point must come across - regardless of the actual method, no slap on the hand like MS keeps getting. When someone/some organization fucks up and causes a whole bunch of problems they must be accountable.
"Second, how many different ways do I have to say that it's unfair to judge the work of somebody who doesn't have time?"
Reread my post carefully. What I'm saying is that they're not brigning this up (resources issues), until now, to fix it. I think that's unacceptable. I wouldn't work with a total lack of resources without making a lot of noise about it, even if it gets me fired - a judge can determine if the lack of resources or my competence for the task was in question.
Besides if you don't have the time, don't do the work. When no work gets done the 'boss' might actually clue in that there's not enough time!
"Imagine your boss gave you a task, a very important one. This task would get you fired if you did it incorrectly...."
Fair enough, if I fuck it up (<*NOTE*"...Now further imagine that you can't possibly do this task in less than 30 hours, but you only have 20 hours to complete it. Oh, and you can't work overtime"
I would complain to the boss instead of frantically trying to do the impossible task. When he fires me after doing some of the work (just uncompleted, not fucked up), I would sue for wrongful dismissal. Then I would make it a point to explain to the judge that I _couldn't_ do work under unreasonable circumstances, and not simply say I _didn't_ do the work so he fired me and expect judgement in my favor.
I'm not suggessting taking a load of crap. I'm saying they've got this problem and not (until now, pretty much once it's already too late) doing anything tangable about it. This has created a mess of a problem others are stuck to deal with, and the PTO pretty much comes out clean as a whistle (I think it's a load of crap that an innovative company is sued out of existance because of a bogus patent).
(I'm not sure who you refer to by 'patent trolls', so I won't comment on that paragraph).
"A law is in Congress as we speak to increase the number of examiners by a very large amount. The problem is being taken seriously."
To me this seems too little, waaaayyyyy to fucking late at this point in time. I think the way the system works needs to be changed too. Adding more examiners might solve some problems, but there's somethings that are fundamentally wrong with patents (with regards to sw patents more than others) that need changes.
And that's where I learned how rock-paper-scissors worked (seriously!) *embarrased*
I don't know - guess experiences with lazy teachers in HS caused me to be biased against people/organizations that don't do their job right and cause more harm than good in the end. Either way I would certainly expect them bring up any resource defeciencies instead of blindly continuing on with the problem, and especially bring about a solution to it sooner rather than waiting after a point-of-no-return, which seems (to most folks here) to be what's happening now.... I don't buy into the 'speak no evil, hear no evel, see no evil' (the three monkeys?) way of doing things.
(I don't read Dilbert much, but the way I see it, the current situation vs. what I suggest seems just as bad either way)
Like the title of your post states " So many things to talk about "
My point is that there's always gonna be some bogus litigation that either causes monetary losses for the defendant (regardless of even if the plaintiff might end up paying for it as you suggested), or, much more likely, destroying the defendant, and any actual innovation that had brought (so much for the idea of patents encouraging innovation). And what brought this on in the first place is the the approval of a bogus patent.
I think it would be better to solve the root problem by giving them a strong message (lawsuit, a fine, whatever will do it) instead of other parties having to clean up the mess the pto created and paying for it with wasted money, time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
Besides, maybe doing once would be enough and they'd finally learn their lesson.
I would prefer seeing the patent office being sued/having to cover costs in those instances since it's their approving the invalid patent in the first place that causes the mess.
+ Run it a few years
+ At the height of it's popularity: cancel it
---
= Fox Network
Their (even bigger) loss.
I can only assume they'll eventually charge some sort of licensing of other kind of fee, and they'll force their way to approval to displace Yahoo's proposed system.
It all comes down to who you submitted it to, and if they can really be trusted.
Some will share your email, and their 'partners' will also honor remove requests.
The really bad offenders I find are those that try to sell prescription drugs (viagra, etc., and other more generic stuff as well), the dept management/morgage spammers, and that id-10-t that thinks I need another diploma. For the morgage stuff I actually let them call me and tell them their lead finder is a spammer and I'll send bill them $100/email (since they're clearly associated to them) for the privilege.
It all comes down to being careful who you submit your address to / post it. Best to have a few emails, the usual 1 for friends, 1 for businesses, and 1 or more for throw-away.
And you can easily track them who is who by using some email services like spamgourmet.com - it's acutally fun somtimes.
Uh oh....
And those that do are the ones abusing the system, and of course the patent office lets them.
Sorry, no cigar for you.
2. force them to open up their approval process to the public so that these trivial patents won't even get approved as a condition of winning #1.
3. Freedom!
The way I see it, it should be called 'Pulling a GraceNote' - ie steal from contributers and sue frivrously. It seems to me SCO learn a lesson from GraceNote...
But I guess these guys could always post it on Freenet - let's see them trying to pull it off then!
When was the last time you really wanted to pay for the CD instead?
I know I (and willing to bet just about everyone else) wanted to buy & download a song instead of buying the CD, and wouldn't have bought the CD anyways (CD too expensive or not enough value to it for the price).
So, it's either they make $0.99, or $0.
Now take into account how much people will think is a reasonable price - ie. 5 people willing to buy at, say, $1.10/song, vs 2 @ $2.00. The first they make $5.50, the second only $4.
Bottom line is that people don't want to pay more than they think it's worth, regardless of what the execs tell them it's worth.
And besides, I don't watch videos - if I saw what some of these 'artists' looked like I'd probably think twice before actually buying a song of theirs.
Not crap attached to it.
Not stuff that'll cost more than it's worth.
I thought they had got this right, and now they come up with this crap.
If they had half a brain they would've realized by now that songs should be sold like domains are now.
Remember when domains cost $35? Now that they've opened it up, everyone and their grandma is selling domains, most of the time very cheaply. And you're not stuck having to buy hosting or other crap like what the music execs want to do now.
Imagine when (if) this will happen for music! Everyone and their grandma sellings songs, for cheap! And unlike domains, you can sell any song more than once!
But, for now, we're stuck with this BS. Oh well...