The sharer violated US license, and you participate in violation of the same license by downloading the music from them.
Wrong. There is no "license." This is a law you have bought into. When I buy a song....I own it. If I give a copy of it to someone, that person has committed no crime. Arguably, neither have I.
"Verify your source"? Apparently you don't understand how this whole "underground market" thing works. There are no sources, only facts. The fact is poor, dumb, or ignorant people smoke Mexican weed anymore. Not only is California blown up with their own high grade weed as the GP said, but due to improved communication and sharing of knowledge, smokers across the nation want the good stuff too. Mexican brick just doesn't cut it anymore.
Exactly. Half of Microsoft's problems are caused by trying to keep everything under the Windows banner. It's another symptom of the total lack of innovation at this company.
If you want pharmaceuticals to be developed by private industry, then patents are essential.
Bullshit.
You're saying that patents are required in order for drugs to be produced. False. Drugs will be produced regardless of whether they're patented. As long as humanity has diseases, people will try to cure them.
Having a cap on the number of patents that are actually issued doesn't fix the problem of the patent office being overloaded by the number of applications.
Sure it does. How many "computer code that evaluates data structure" patents do you think the trolls are going to bother issuing, if only the top 500 best and most clever patents are going to receive a patent, and everyone else is just going to lose their fee and have their "work" published free for the public to read and profit from?
How easy do you think it is to compare the novelty, utility, and non-obviousness of a new drug with the novelty, utility, and non-obviousness of a better mousetrap? Or a new metal alloy? Or a new kind of medical imaging device? Or a new method for making smaller integrated circuits? These are completely unquantifiable and highly subjective comparisons.
Exactly like the current patent system. Highly subjective and flawed.
I'll assume you have a legally rigorous definition of "novel, useful, and non-obvious" whose objectivity would survive the generations-long entrenchment of entitled old white people with money they can spend frivolously on lawyers hungry for blood in an attempt to convince the judges and congresscritters they bribed to maintain their power, then?
Just cap the number of patents issued each year (to say, 2000), and develop a much more thorough review process to ensure that only the most novel, useful and non-obvious applications are approved. Every patent we issue represents an increased burden on our legal system and a roadblock to other inventors who need to worry about infringing upon it, so it makes sense that the government shouldn't be making an open-ended offer to protect everything that can be protected.
Actually, this strikes me as a brilliant approach to the problem. Make it a competition, and maybe narrow it down even further: the top 1000, or top 500, get awarded patent protection. The other applicants' entries are published openly for everyone to learn and benefit from.
See, this "entitlement mentality" way of issuing patents was flawed from the get-go. Just because somebody comes up with a good idea, does not and should not entitle him to a damn thing. Good ideas, and good products come and go. The smart survive, and the weak lose; that's how the world works, no matter how many laws you try to pass to try and make it otherwise, because the smart will always learn the system and use it to benefit themselves while the weak just suffer, due to stupidity or ignorance. The end result is exactly what we have now: a fiefdom, ruled by corporate overlords and tended by serfs.
Even now I have an idea for a fantastic invention. It's a new type of phone that would clearly be unique. Already I'm thinking......what patent landmines are there waiting for me to stumble on, and wind up getting sued and losing everything in a lawsuit after years of hard work? Should I even bother releasing this product in the United States? Why, when I can sell it in Europe 10x easier, and their money is just as green? (for the moment...) or how about South America, or China, or any number of places where there is a market for it?
Do I expect my product to last forever and be on top of the market forever? No, of course not....it will do as well as my planning enables it to do, and will remain on top only until others inevitably catch up. You can't stop progress....but patent and copyright laws sure do try their damnedest. In a truly free market, one has to work to stay on top, not expect protection from government thugs.
The newness and uniqueness of the invention is what counts
What if the entrepreneur who produces a product has never met the "inventor", and developed this "invention" separately and completely on his own? You're saying the inventor should be entitled to part of the entrepreneur's profits just because he's a smart guy and happened to fill out the right paperwork with the state?
The Judge suggests we return to the requirement to implement the idea in a patentable form, and further to do this within a set period of time (a period that may very depending on the industry).
I suggest instead we return to this point of view:
If you want to own an idea, never disclose it to anyone, and only use it shielded from public view.
What you talk about as "inventions".....are fundamentally IDEAS.
I'm not convinced the horse and buggy industry will want to implement cars for this very reason. Why is Henry Ford leading the research rather than Wilfred and Sylvester's Coach Company?
Try driving on 141 here in gerogia, there are numerous fucks who get their rocks off going 7 below; and sticking right next to another fuck who is also going 7 below. Yes I want fucking auto-drive.
Some surface-to-surface missiles would be even better...
I swear, every guy who is speeding like a maniac doing like 90 on the interstate, also happens to be in one of those DAMNED euro imports like a BMW or a Mercedes. Since only rich assholes drive those
How do you define "rich"? Surely you don't mean wealthy, or millionaires. Statistically, most American millionaires drive American cars.
Because I really don't know many working age adults who enjoy driving their daily commute on congested highways.
Well, there's the root of your problem. Your idea of "working age adult" is my idea of a hampster of a wheel, or a slave in the fields. No wonder you don't enjoy driving.
Provided the car broadcasts its position locally and thus has information about most of the other cars around it, it will be able to intelligently adapt to situations like the ones you describe. If the car in front of you is a self-driver then your car is free to tailgate it because they're working in unison.
Sure you are. You're best of pals. Meanwhile you're blissfully unaware that one car among you is secretly not a team player. This one has some extra subroutines inserted which trigger at the right moment, causing a massive accident. Why? I don't know, what motivates terrorists, assassins, and murderers?
Look at London: expensive daily tax to drive downtown + no parking + even skyscraper have a maximum and ridiculously small number of subterranean parking space allowed: that is not surprising for a modern building with more than 2000 people working in it to only have a few loading bay and 5-10 service parking place.
So basically, in London only the rich can afford to drive; everyone else just has to make do somehow.
Exactly. To assassinate someone you won't even have to put a bomb in their car anymore, just put a bug in someone else's car that causes them to run you off the road or get right in front of you and slam on the brakes.
If Toyota can't even design a non-automated car that is safe to drive, and if Airbus is designing airplanes with totally fucked, poorly-thought-through computerized designs, you know what, you guys can be the one to test out these fancy new automated cars.....have fun. Can't say I'll be surprised the first time I hear about some 100-car pileup caused by a software glitch.
Slashdot Mirror
The tax is pretty high (since you're now paying for the privilege of having government enforce your copyright).
Tell me, how is adding even more onto the tax burden going to stimulate our economy?
The sharer violated US license, and you participate in violation of the same license by downloading the music from them.
Wrong. There is no "license." This is a law you have bought into. When I buy a song....I own it. If I give a copy of it to someone, that person has committed no crime. Arguably, neither have I.
"Verify your source"? Apparently you don't understand how this whole "underground market" thing works. There are no sources, only facts. The fact is poor, dumb, or ignorant people smoke Mexican weed anymore. Not only is California blown up with their own high grade weed as the GP said, but due to improved communication and sharing of knowledge, smokers across the nation want the good stuff too. Mexican brick just doesn't cut it anymore.
Fuck yeah
Exactly. Half of Microsoft's problems are caused by trying to keep everything under the Windows banner. It's another symptom of the total lack of innovation at this company.
If you want pharmaceuticals to be developed by private industry, then patents are essential.
Bullshit.
You're saying that patents are required in order for drugs to be produced. False. Drugs will be produced regardless of whether they're patented. As long as humanity has diseases, people will try to cure them.
The version you downloaded will be open source, but nothing prevents the authors from adding features and releasing it with a different license.
So?
Having a cap on the number of patents that are actually issued doesn't fix the problem of the patent office being overloaded by the number of applications.
Sure it does. How many "computer code that evaluates data structure" patents do you think the trolls are going to bother issuing, if only the top 500 best and most clever patents are going to receive a patent, and everyone else is just going to lose their fee and have their "work" published free for the public to read and profit from?
How easy do you think it is to compare the novelty, utility, and non-obviousness of a new drug with the novelty, utility, and non-obviousness of a better mousetrap? Or a new metal alloy? Or a new kind of medical imaging device? Or a new method for making smaller integrated circuits? These are completely unquantifiable and highly subjective comparisons.
Exactly like the current patent system. Highly subjective and flawed.
I'll assume you have a legally rigorous definition of "novel, useful, and non-obvious" whose objectivity would survive the generations-long entrenchment of entitled old white people with money they can spend frivolously on lawyers hungry for blood in an attempt to convince the judges and congresscritters they bribed to maintain their power, then?
No, I don't.
Do you?
Just cap the number of patents issued each year (to say, 2000), and develop a much more thorough review process to ensure that only the most novel, useful and non-obvious applications are approved. Every patent we issue represents an increased burden on our legal system and a roadblock to other inventors who need to worry about infringing upon it, so it makes sense that the government shouldn't be making an open-ended offer to protect everything that can be protected.
Actually, this strikes me as a brilliant approach to the problem. Make it a competition, and maybe narrow it down even further: the top 1000, or top 500, get awarded patent protection. The other applicants' entries are published openly for everyone to learn and benefit from.
See, this "entitlement mentality" way of issuing patents was flawed from the get-go. Just because somebody comes up with a good idea, does not and should not entitle him to a damn thing. Good ideas, and good products come and go. The smart survive, and the weak lose; that's how the world works, no matter how many laws you try to pass to try and make it otherwise, because the smart will always learn the system and use it to benefit themselves while the weak just suffer, due to stupidity or ignorance. The end result is exactly what we have now: a fiefdom, ruled by corporate overlords and tended by serfs.
Even now I have an idea for a fantastic invention. It's a new type of phone that would clearly be unique. Already I'm thinking......what patent landmines are there waiting for me to stumble on, and wind up getting sued and losing everything in a lawsuit after years of hard work? Should I even bother releasing this product in the United States? Why, when I can sell it in Europe 10x easier, and their money is just as green? (for the moment...) or how about South America, or China, or any number of places where there is a market for it?
Do I expect my product to last forever and be on top of the market forever? No, of course not....it will do as well as my planning enables it to do, and will remain on top only until others inevitably catch up. You can't stop progress....but patent and copyright laws sure do try their damnedest. In a truly free market, one has to work to stay on top, not expect protection from government thugs.
The newness and uniqueness of the invention is what counts
What if the entrepreneur who produces a product has never met the "inventor", and developed this "invention" separately and completely on his own? You're saying the inventor should be entitled to part of the entrepreneur's profits just because he's a smart guy and happened to fill out the right paperwork with the state?
The Judge suggests we return to the requirement to implement the idea in a patentable form, and further to do this within a set period of time (a period that may very depending on the industry).
I suggest instead we return to this point of view:
If you want to own an idea, never disclose it to anyone, and only use it shielded from public view.
What you talk about as "inventions".....are fundamentally IDEAS.
For the vast majority of people, the webmail interface is more than fine--it's the best option for them.
Cool story bro. What about me, though?
I'll stick with Thunderbird--thanks.
I'm not convinced the horse and buggy industry will want to implement cars for this very reason. Why is Henry Ford leading the research rather than Wilfred and Sylvester's Coach Company?
Try driving on 141 here in gerogia, there are numerous fucks who get their rocks off going 7 below; and sticking right next to another fuck who is also going 7 below. Yes I want fucking auto-drive.
Some surface-to-surface missiles would be even better...
No, it's correlated with frequency of being pulled over for speeding, which is not the same thing.
I swear, every guy who is speeding like a maniac doing like 90 on the interstate, also happens to be in one of those DAMNED euro imports like a BMW or a Mercedes. Since only rich assholes drive those
How do you define "rich"? Surely you don't mean wealthy, or millionaires. Statistically, most American millionaires drive American cars.
+6 Informative
Because I really don't know many working age adults who enjoy driving their daily commute on congested highways.
Well, there's the root of your problem. Your idea of "working age adult" is my idea of a hampster of a wheel, or a slave in the fields. No wonder you don't enjoy driving.
Yes. You are correct. There is a strong correlation between wealth and being targeted by, pulled over, and ticketed by the police.
Now think about why that is.
Provided the car broadcasts its position locally and thus has information about most of the other cars around it, it will be able to intelligently adapt to situations like the ones you describe. If the car in front of you is a self-driver then your car is free to tailgate it because they're working in unison.
Sure you are. You're best of pals. Meanwhile you're blissfully unaware that one car among you is secretly not a team player. This one has some extra subroutines inserted which trigger at the right moment, causing a massive accident. Why? I don't know, what motivates terrorists, assassins, and murderers?
Look at London: expensive daily tax to drive downtown + no parking + even skyscraper have a maximum and ridiculously small number of subterranean parking space allowed: that is not surprising for a modern building with more than 2000 people working in it to only have a few loading bay and 5-10 service parking place.
So basically, in London only the rich can afford to drive; everyone else just has to make do somehow.
Got it.
Totally a model for the US to emulate.
Exactly. To assassinate someone you won't even have to put a bomb in their car anymore, just put a bug in someone else's car that causes them to run you off the road or get right in front of you and slam on the brakes.
If Toyota can't even design a non-automated car that is safe to drive, and if Airbus is designing airplanes with totally fucked, poorly-thought-through computerized designs, you know what, you guys can be the one to test out these fancy new automated cars.....have fun. Can't say I'll be surprised the first time I hear about some 100-car pileup caused by a software glitch.
You cannot reasonably design a vehicle that will be more efficient at 60 mph than it is at 45.
Sure you can.
One word: Gearing.