In addition to what SkimTony said, handing out business cards (or even visiting cards) is simply one piece of evidence that he was operating a business. The intent of distributing those cards appears to be driving potential business to his website. The real question is does the totality of evidence (including handing out business cards) demonstrate that he is operating a business. If so, then he has a new set of rules to follow.
Are you suggesting that a person's lack of knowledge about business licensing laws degrades their ability to troubleshoot computer problems? I am not seeing the connection.
I would be ok with this so long as they were forced to pay for each video improperly filtered. Then Google, and everyone else would have an incentive to upload non-infringing videos. At 250,000 euros per incident, I don' think GEMA would last too long.
While I agree that the AC's post was a bit "over the top", your reply wasn't entirely accurate either. For one, "here's a video of my dog with some music" is indeed covered by fair use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
The problem is not the person uploading the video. Advertisement dollars earned by Google on the work is the problem.
No, my greed too. I could have walked away sooner than I did. I had came to the realization that the company (perhaps the industry) was setup to systematically screw the little guy.
Capitalism runs on greed. It is not particularly a bad thing, but we need to recognize it and put into place barriers to prevent and contain the worst of it. The only thing that experience convinced me of was the need for regulation. I was an anti-government conservative when I started in finance and a pro-government liberal when I left.
The truly wealthy don't care what the income tax rate is. Why? Because they don't have significant earned incomes. The only thing they care about is the capital gains taxes and estate taxes. The reason Romney (and Buffett, etc.) pay such ridiculously low taxes is because most of their income is counted as capital gains.
The problem with sales, excise, import taxes, etc. is that we live in a global world. Companies and rich individuals can pick and choose where to invest, where to purchase, etc. If America increases the costs of the goods they want, then they will simply buy it somewhere else.
Crafting a fair tax policy in a global, internet connected world is a difficult thing (but we certainly could do better).
The politicians, funded by the investment bankers, made it possible. It was a really bad idea to tie investment banking to retail banking in the 1920's and a bad idea today. The investment bankers created investments out of the mortgage pools and sold them off by risk (with the top being AAA). This meant that more groups could buy shoddy mortgages (some organizations required AAA investments) and get a higher return. More money flooding into the system meant pressure to make more loans (and more fees). Without any vested interest in the loans (the banks were just going to sell them anyway), oversight became lax. Once that wall was broken down between investment and retail banking in the 1990's, bubbles with traditional retail banking assets were inevitable.
I worked for a large finance company during that time (just a harmless middle manager, so don't blame me). We had all our clients money market assets in "AAA" mortgage backed securities. We made 6% and paid 0.25% return to our clients. Life was good (until it all came crashing down). So, I guess greed is what really made it possible.
The reason Apple gives to the judge is that the repair only applied to 2.4 Ghz cpu systems and his was 2.6 Ghz. Therefore, it wasn't eligible for repair. Seems strange considering he didn't overclock it or anything. Strange case all the way around.
The problem with the GPU's, as I understand it, is excess heat due to insufficient cooling (bad specs by Nvidia). It seems to me that excess heat could cause other electronic components to fail as well. So, just because the GPU did not itself fail, doesn't mean that the GPU wasn't the cause of the failure.
I did a Google search on it (I know, not exactly thorough), but I can't find any reference to Dell abandoning their ODM relationships and going it alone. For example, it seems that all the current Alienware (Dell) laptops are built by Compal). I know Dell used to have a big relationship with Quanta for laptops as well. If they have abandoned the ODM's, did they buy their own factories, where? It was also my understanding that they outsourced design to the ODM's as well, has this changed?
(obviously, I have been out of this area for some years)
According to Groklaw, Google's lawyer was kind enough to show Mr.Ellison a tape of his deposition where he answered the same questions "That's correct." Alzheimer's perhaps?
The problem in this case is that they have used the power of government to stop others from going into business for themselves and allowing companies to pick and choose its prices based on the wealth of its customers.
Think about it this way. In your town or city, imagine that shops in the richer neighborhoods charged ten times the price for all goods than the same stores in the poor neighborhoods (this would be more efficient for the companies to maximize their profits). Of course, this would not work because people from the rich neighborhoods would shop in the poor stores. Now, imagine that the companies got a law passed that said the everyone would have to show ID and if you lived in the rich areas, then you could not buy from the poor areas. Also, it would be illegal for a poor person buy goods for you. Would this situation be tolerable to you?
Strangely, I see this as a right wing issue. For one, the government is dictating what you can do with your property. Two, the government is forcing people to pay higher prices (perhaps even to left wing publishers and universities). Third, the government regulations are impeding the free market.
First off, I like Go and while it takes some getting used to, I think it could become a fantastic language. That said, I don't think it is ready for something like Android yet.
I agree that Monsanto should not have been granted a patent on these seeds for the same reasons you do (they didn't take an inventive non-obvious step). At most I would grant them a patent on the process of creating their seeds, but not on the seeds themselves. However, I disagree that the seeds are not de facto self-replicating. With each generation they pass on the gene. Yes, it takes some outside intervention, but without the first seed, the second generation having that specific mutation is exceedingly small.
As for the car analogy, I would replace the mud with a golf ball like cratered coating, engineered to cause greater fuel efficiency (one of the best Mythbusters ever!). Then when someone else exactly duplicated your coating you could claim to already own the patent on that coating (but not the concept). Now, if removing the coating would ruin the car, then I guess they own royalties for the coating if they want to drive the car. The point is that they did some engineering and the farmer in this case was testing the seeds to make certain he was planting only the second generation Monsanto seeds (as opposed to the non-engineered seeds they mixed with). If you hold that the seeds used their DNA to replicate themselves (even imperfectly), then I think the court's logic holds. I can certainly see the argument that procreation != replication and that does muddy it.
Totally agree with you. I hope the Supreme Court has a chance to hear a case on that (this one doesn't address your arguments). If you extend the Prometheus ruling, which basically said that if you take something natural and do nothing more than act upon using it widely known techniques, then there is nothing to patent (in their case it was the process that was being patented, but I think the logic could translate). For Monsanto, they took something of nature and modified it in an obvious way. At most, the process they use to modify the seeds could be patented, but I don't see the end result, which is still just a seed, being patent eligible. I guess that is why I don't work for the USPTO.
You think you have it rough now, wait a few years until the Monsanto genetically modified birds start appearing at your window (deposit royalties into the beak on a per song basis).
My point was that it didn't seem like we were arguing the same things. My point was narrowly directed to the logic and arguments used in this case. Your seemed to be arguing something much bigger. If you read beyond the headline (which is unfortunately misleading), will find that the case is deciding a pretty narrow point. Namely, are seeds self-replicating and if so, does that nullify patent exhaustion.
First off, it is the Court that suggested the Monsanto built a self-replicating machine. My analogy was to bring out the basic principle they were arguing. Again, this case is not about whether or not Monsanto's seeds can be patented. It is not about whether or not Monsanto can force people to pay them royalties.
Just to reiterate for all the slashdotters who did nothing more than read the headline, It is not about whether Monsanto can patent seeds.
It is about whether or not a seed is self-replicating and if so, whether or not patent exhaustion applies.
Now, as for your arguments, just because a replicating machine requires outside materials does not diminish the act of replication. If I built a machine to replicate anything, it would still presumably need raw materials. The other arguments wouldn't apply to this case. For what it's worth, I agree with you that Monsanto should be stripped of these patents.
How about just invalidating their patent. The Supremes just ruled in Prometheus that you can't take a naturally occurring object, use a widely known technique on it, and patent it, since there is no creative step. I don't know all the details of the Monsanto seeds, but if all they are doing is taking a soybean and splicing the genes with roundup using widely available techniques, then the argument could be made the there are no grounds for a patent in the first place.
I am not entirely certain if we are arguing against or past each other, but I will respond. This case is about if Monsanto seeds are eligible for patent exhaustion due to self-replication, not if they should be able to get away with patenting these things in the first place, nor if they can force anyone who accidentally grows them to pay royalties. The court is in a tricky situation concerning self-replicating patentable objects. I can see why they ruled the way they did (expressed in my example above). Given the recent ruling in Prometheus, I could see the Supreme court invalidating Monsanto's patents and would have no problem with that. That is not what this case is about though.
If I built a machine that could replicate anything, then the first person that bought it could just use it to replicate the machine itself and my patent would be worthless. Instead, they could replicate anything but my machine (violating others patents no doubt) without violating my patent. This is not the same case as the farmer that finds stray Monsanto crops in his field and then has to pay Monsanto (which I think is ridiculous and evil).
My problem with this case is not the racial undertones (manufactured or not) but the use of the "Stand My Ground" law. Since Zimmerman initiated the contact, while armed and knowing a confrontation was possible, he should not be able to claim the "Stand My Ground" defense. That said, I believe Zimmerman should still have self-defense as an option.
Your contention was that AT&T achieved its monopoly because of government action. I would agree that government inaction certainly aided in creating their position, but the impetus originated from a company bent on forming a monopoly. The government did sue AT&T under the Sherman Act, but unlike Standard Oil, they did cut a deal instead of dismantling the company. The deal they struck did force AT&T to divest itself of the telegraph business, as well as, concessions to independent long distance companies and oversight of any additional acquisitions.
The Economist is arguing that wealth concentration in excess is a bad thing, the U.S. free market healthcare system is a bad thing, etc. These are considered left wing policies in the U.S. In other words, the Economist seems to agree with Dems more than Repubs these days.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to what SkimTony said, handing out business cards (or even visiting cards) is simply one piece of evidence that he was operating a business. The intent of distributing those cards appears to be driving potential business to his website. The real question is does the totality of evidence (including handing out business cards) demonstrate that he is operating a business. If so, then he has a new set of rules to follow.
Are you suggesting that a person's lack of knowledge about business licensing laws degrades their ability to troubleshoot computer problems? I am not seeing the connection.
I would be ok with this so long as they were forced to pay for each video improperly filtered. Then Google, and everyone else would have an incentive to upload non-infringing videos. At 250,000 euros per incident, I don' think GEMA would last too long.
While I agree that the AC's post was a bit "over the top", your reply wasn't entirely accurate either. For one, "here's a video of my dog with some music" is indeed covered by fair use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
The problem is not the person uploading the video. Advertisement dollars earned by Google on the work is the problem.
No, my greed too. I could have walked away sooner than I did. I had came to the realization that the company (perhaps the industry) was setup to systematically screw the little guy.
Capitalism runs on greed. It is not particularly a bad thing, but we need to recognize it and put into place barriers to prevent and contain the worst of it. The only thing that experience convinced me of was the need for regulation. I was an anti-government conservative when I started in finance and a pro-government liberal when I left.
The truly wealthy don't care what the income tax rate is. Why? Because they don't have significant earned incomes. The only thing they care about is the capital gains taxes and estate taxes. The reason Romney (and Buffett, etc.) pay such ridiculously low taxes is because most of their income is counted as capital gains.
The problem with sales, excise, import taxes, etc. is that we live in a global world. Companies and rich individuals can pick and choose where to invest, where to purchase, etc. If America increases the costs of the goods they want, then they will simply buy it somewhere else.
Crafting a fair tax policy in a global, internet connected world is a difficult thing (but we certainly could do better).
The politicians, funded by the investment bankers, made it possible. It was a really bad idea to tie investment banking to retail banking in the 1920's and a bad idea today. The investment bankers created investments out of the mortgage pools and sold them off by risk (with the top being AAA). This meant that more groups could buy shoddy mortgages (some organizations required AAA investments) and get a higher return. More money flooding into the system meant pressure to make more loans (and more fees). Without any vested interest in the loans (the banks were just going to sell them anyway), oversight became lax. Once that wall was broken down between investment and retail banking in the 1990's, bubbles with traditional retail banking assets were inevitable.
I worked for a large finance company during that time (just a harmless middle manager, so don't blame me). We had all our clients money market assets in "AAA" mortgage backed securities. We made 6% and paid 0.25% return to our clients. Life was good (until it all came crashing down). So, I guess greed is what really made it possible.
The reason Apple gives to the judge is that the repair only applied to 2.4 Ghz cpu systems and his was 2.6 Ghz. Therefore, it wasn't eligible for repair. Seems strange considering he didn't overclock it or anything. Strange case all the way around.
The problem with the GPU's, as I understand it, is excess heat due to insufficient cooling (bad specs by Nvidia). It seems to me that excess heat could cause other electronic components to fail as well. So, just because the GPU did not itself fail, doesn't mean that the GPU wasn't the cause of the failure.
I did a Google search on it (I know, not exactly thorough), but I can't find any reference to Dell abandoning their ODM relationships and going it alone. For example, it seems that all the current Alienware (Dell) laptops are built by Compal). I know Dell used to have a big relationship with Quanta for laptops as well. If they have abandoned the ODM's, did they buy their own factories, where? It was also my understanding that they outsourced design to the ODM's as well, has this changed?
(obviously, I have been out of this area for some years)
According to Groklaw, Google's lawyer was kind enough to show Mr.Ellison a tape of his deposition where he answered the same questions "That's correct." Alzheimer's perhaps?
Dell has never really been in hardware. They are a resale/brand company.
The problem in this case is that they have used the power of government to stop others from going into business for themselves and allowing companies to pick and choose its prices based on the wealth of its customers.
Think about it this way. In your town or city, imagine that shops in the richer neighborhoods charged ten times the price for all goods than the same stores in the poor neighborhoods (this would be more efficient for the companies to maximize their profits). Of course, this would not work because people from the rich neighborhoods would shop in the poor stores. Now, imagine that the companies got a law passed that said the everyone would have to show ID and if you lived in the rich areas, then you could not buy from the poor areas. Also, it would be illegal for a poor person buy goods for you. Would this situation be tolerable to you?
Strangely, I see this as a right wing issue. For one, the government is dictating what you can do with your property. Two, the government is forcing people to pay higher prices (perhaps even to left wing publishers and universities). Third, the government regulations are impeding the free market.
First off, I like Go and while it takes some getting used to, I think it could become a fantastic language. That said, I don't think it is ready for something like Android yet.
I agree that Monsanto should not have been granted a patent on these seeds for the same reasons you do (they didn't take an inventive non-obvious step). At most I would grant them a patent on the process of creating their seeds, but not on the seeds themselves. However, I disagree that the seeds are not de facto self-replicating. With each generation they pass on the gene. Yes, it takes some outside intervention, but without the first seed, the second generation having that specific mutation is exceedingly small.
As for the car analogy, I would replace the mud with a golf ball like cratered coating, engineered to cause greater fuel efficiency (one of the best Mythbusters ever!). Then when someone else exactly duplicated your coating you could claim to already own the patent on that coating (but not the concept). Now, if removing the coating would ruin the car, then I guess they own royalties for the coating if they want to drive the car. The point is that they did some engineering and the farmer in this case was testing the seeds to make certain he was planting only the second generation Monsanto seeds (as opposed to the non-engineered seeds they mixed with). If you hold that the seeds used their DNA to replicate themselves (even imperfectly), then I think the court's logic holds. I can certainly see the argument that procreation != replication and that does muddy it.
Totally agree with you. I hope the Supreme Court has a chance to hear a case on that (this one doesn't address your arguments). If you extend the Prometheus ruling, which basically said that if you take something natural and do nothing more than act upon using it widely known techniques, then there is nothing to patent (in their case it was the process that was being patented, but I think the logic could translate). For Monsanto, they took something of nature and modified it in an obvious way. At most, the process they use to modify the seeds could be patented, but I don't see the end result, which is still just a seed, being patent eligible. I guess that is why I don't work for the USPTO.
You think you have it rough now, wait a few years until the Monsanto genetically modified birds start appearing at your window (deposit royalties into the beak on a per song basis).
My point was that it didn't seem like we were arguing the same things. My point was narrowly directed to the logic and arguments used in this case. Your seemed to be arguing something much bigger. If you read beyond the headline (which is unfortunately misleading), will find that the case is deciding a pretty narrow point. Namely, are seeds self-replicating and if so, does that nullify patent exhaustion.
First off, it is the Court that suggested the Monsanto built a self-replicating machine. My analogy was to bring out the basic principle they were arguing. Again, this case is not about whether or not Monsanto's seeds can be patented. It is not about whether or not Monsanto can force people to pay them royalties.
Just to reiterate for all the slashdotters who did nothing more than read the headline, It is not about whether Monsanto can patent seeds.
It is about whether or not a seed is self-replicating and if so, whether or not patent exhaustion applies.
Now, as for your arguments, just because a replicating machine requires outside materials does not diminish the act of replication. If I built a machine to replicate anything, it would still presumably need raw materials. The other arguments wouldn't apply to this case. For what it's worth, I agree with you that Monsanto should be stripped of these patents.
Just because you give plans for a patentable object to the patent office, it doesn't grant anyone else a license to build it and profit off it.
How about just invalidating their patent. The Supremes just ruled in Prometheus that you can't take a naturally occurring object, use a widely known technique on it, and patent it, since there is no creative step. I don't know all the details of the Monsanto seeds, but if all they are doing is taking a soybean and splicing the genes with roundup using widely available techniques, then the argument could be made the there are no grounds for a patent in the first place.
I am not entirely certain if we are arguing against or past each other, but I will respond. This case is about if Monsanto seeds are eligible for patent exhaustion due to self-replication, not if they should be able to get away with patenting these things in the first place, nor if they can force anyone who accidentally grows them to pay royalties. The court is in a tricky situation concerning self-replicating patentable objects. I can see why they ruled the way they did (expressed in my example above). Given the recent ruling in Prometheus, I could see the Supreme court invalidating Monsanto's patents and would have no problem with that. That is not what this case is about though.
I hate to side with Monsanto here, but...
If I built a machine that could replicate anything, then the first person that bought it could just use it to replicate the machine itself and my patent would be worthless. Instead, they could replicate anything but my machine (violating others patents no doubt) without violating my patent. This is not the same case as the farmer that finds stray Monsanto crops in his field and then has to pay Monsanto (which I think is ridiculous and evil).
My problem with this case is not the racial undertones (manufactured or not) but the use of the "Stand My Ground" law. Since Zimmerman initiated the contact, while armed and knowing a confrontation was possible, he should not be able to claim the "Stand My Ground" defense. That said, I believe Zimmerman should still have self-defense as an option.
Your contention was that AT&T achieved its monopoly because of government action. I would agree that government inaction certainly aided in creating their position, but the impetus originated from a company bent on forming a monopoly. The government did sue AT&T under the Sherman Act, but unlike Standard Oil, they did cut a deal instead of dismantling the company. The deal they struck did force AT&T to divest itself of the telegraph business, as well as, concessions to independent long distance companies and oversight of any additional acquisitions.
The Economist is arguing that wealth concentration in excess is a bad thing, the U.S. free market healthcare system is a bad thing, etc. These are considered left wing policies in the U.S. In other words, the Economist seems to agree with Dems more than Repubs these days.