Do you understand what "see" means? Seeing is when light reaches your eyes. You cannot "see" light before it reaches your eyes. Where were you educated?
That's not true. I remove the string "hide," from the sysoc.inf file on the line starting msmgs (windows messenger). After that I removed windows messenger, and outlook express doesn't search for it anymore. You've always been able to do that.
Frankly, even though we may be a little far off technologically, I think as a species a very important thing for us to do is set up a self-sustaining colony on mars. I know you'll say "fix your problems on earth too" but I think by then maybe it'll be too late. I'm not a paranoid guy or anything, but when you consider nuclear weapons, stellar objects, and now some people talk about self-replicated nanobots being a possible source of our doom, you should realize that we should have some sort of a backup solution. Think of it like backing up your hard drive. All this time we've been living here without any backups. A self-sustaining colony on Mars will probably cut the odds in ten of our entire species being wiped out in the next thousand years.
There's a file called sysoc.inf. This file describes what will appear in add/remove programs pane. So what you do is hit ctrl-h (find-replace). Then put,hide in the find box, and leave the other box empty. Hit replace all, and save the file and then you'll be able to remove annoying stuff like Windows messenger, and if you wish, IE. The ones that are not hidden by default.
Basically the ones with two commas in a row are not hidden by default, but when you delete the word hide you have to also delete a comma, so there's only one comma. Don't ask me why this is what works.
Not suprisingly, for IE, it doesn't actually allow you to remove it, it says "remove access to internet explorer". If you open up the file tree browser thing, ("windows explorer") or just any file folder, and type in a URL in the address field, it just turns into IE.
Read the story at the top of the page to see where the Toys reference comes from. I think that supports the parent poster's point of view. Michael is not a hardcore gamer, so he made the connection to Toys and not The Last Starfighter
Re:Cost of reproduction
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Your statement that bandwidth costs money is a non-sequitor. The cost of bandwidth is so negligible that I'm willing to pay for any bandwidth that is required when people take books or movies from my hard drives. It is essentially zero.
Also, you're saying that we shouldn't publicly fund the national enquirer or trashy romance novels. Such things would probably never get funding, and that's an example of something that would use the five year copyright to try to make a profit. I'm sure you'd still find trashy romance novels being written, even with just a five year copyright.
Yeah don't you love the ones that somehow invoke "interstate commerce" in order to justify themselvees? Alcohol should be illegal because someone could be driving in a state other than his residence, on business, and he can crash! Our duty to regulate interstate commerce demands that we make alcohol illegal!
I think he just meant like here's how realism can ruin games: in Medal of Honor Allied Assault, imagine you had to go to the bathroom every once in a while. Doesn't that sound realistic than not ever having to go to the bathroom? Or maybe you should have to eat too. And since you have diabetes you have to maintain a certain blood sugar.....
Realism that just for realism is not fun. But it is nice when certain facets of gameplay can actually parallel real life.
Like most games can be reduced to a basic gameplay "topology". Like the sets of rules and their interaction with each other. Kind of like the Magic card game. The rules kind of make sense water is powerful against fire or something like that, but you can strip out those details and say "element a is powerful against element b". It's much more fun when the gameplay topology actually mirrors real life.
So yea, realism is good, but only when it fits into an already designed gameplay structure. You don't want to add things like going to the bathroom just to be more realistic.
Well, if you think it's morally wrong to have an army that kills people in defense of your country, then it to you, it probably is worse than ads that say "go buy a jeep!" So even though I don't agree with that sentiment, it's not too hard to understand why some people think that army advertising is worse than other advertising. I guess he just feels that the "product" being advertised is more immoral than most other products advertised.
Dump a bunch of mosquitos that have traits that make them good desirable mates into the environment so they bump out all the existing mosquitos. But make sure the mosquitos you dump are sterile. So you end up kill like 95% of all mosquitos. Then you dump these malaria resistant ones in its place to quickly fill in the vacuum that the others left behind. Of course, if it were that easy to just kill off all the mosquitos they probably would've tried that already.
Anyway, I think they should make a mosquito that can transmit HIV. That would be a funky terrorist weapon.
Well, during one video I saw, John Carmack really went out of his way to mention that he used maya to model the characters. He said it in a way, hard to describe, like it didn't seem right as if he went out of his way to mention it. Considering Maya launched an advertising campaign and just lowered the price from 7500 to 1999 dollars, I wouldn't be surprised if getting JC to mention it was just part of their campaign. I wonder how much he got?
Read your own post. Before the DMCA, it didn't matter what it's "primary" use was, all that mattered was that it had "substantial non-infringing uses." Dmitri's ebook thing had substantial non-infringing uses.
I guess the interpretations of these laws is making it clear that they don't want you to be able to read your ebook on any other device, or convert it to braille, and those are *not* substantial non-infringing uses. Oh well.
Felt-tip or not, do we really wanna keep buying new CDS and support the RIAA------used CDs only for my money!
By buying used CDs you are reducing the number of used CDs on the market, thereby forcing someone else, someone with less integrity than you, to buy that CD for retail. Buy indie or download.
For some reason this site won't let you read the article if you don't accept cookies.
"For every frequently asked question (FAQ) there is an answer. And with respect to the question whether FAQs posted on Web sites are deserving of copyright protection, Judge Barbara B. Crabb, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in the case Mist-On Systems, Inc. v. Gilley's European Tan Spa, on May 2 answered "no." Thus, it appears that lawsuits designed to snuff out the competition by seeking to attack Web content such as FAQs may fail, and if anything, may embolden competitors.
THE ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Mist-On Systems alleged that defendant Gilley's European Tan Spa infringed on its exclusive rights under the Copyright Act by preparing and displaying on its Web page a page that mirrored the FAQ page on Mist-On's Web site. Mist-On sought monetary and injunctive relief from Gilley's based on the "irreparable harm" it had suffered.
THE COMPETING WEB SITES
Mist-On's Web page, entitled "Mist-On Tanning Frequently Asked Questions," consisted of a single page of 19 questions about the Mist-On Tanning process and provided other related hints.
Gilley's Web page, entitled Gilley's European Tan Spa "FAQ's Sunless Express Spray Spa," comprised three pages of operating instructions and 16 questions about the Sunless Express Spray Spa.
According to the court, "when the two works are compared side-by-side, similarities are evident." That is because "both web pages utilize the Frequently Asked Questions format," "both web pages use common words to begin each question, such as 'how,' 'can,' 'is,' 'what,' and 'will,'" and because "both web pages focus on a spray-on form of sunless tanning" and "provide similar information."
THE COURT'S RULING
Notwithstanding the foregoing similarities, the court held that "these superficial similarities fall short of proving copying" because they are not the equivalent of copying constituent elements of the work that are original. According to the court and prior case law, regardless of the "original authorship" contained in a work, "the facts and ideas it exposes are free for the taking."
Taking it a step further, the court held that "a business cannot copyright a Frequently Asked Questions page" or the words or phrases that comprise such a page because "the format of a Frequently Asked Questions page is a common idea in our society." Indeed, "the elements of a Frequently Asked Questions page (a list of questions beginning with common words) are stereotypical."
Ultimately, Mist-On agreed that it could not copyright the idea of a FAQ page. However, Mist-On argued that because the Gilley's FAQ page was so similar to the Mist-On FAQ page that there must be some copyright infringement.
The court swatted away this argument by noting the differences between the two Web pages, such as the fact that "the sequence, the wording and the number of the questions are different from each other," "five of defendants' questions are entirely unique to their page," "seven of plaintiff's questions are entirely unique to its page," and "the layout of the web page[s] is different." Moreover, "there is no truth to plaintiff's assertion that many of defendants' questions and answers are 'nearly identical' to plaintiff's."
Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment without the need for a trial in favor of defendant Gilley's.
LESSONS LEARNED
Care must be taken in taking legal steps to deal with business competition. Plainly, this particular lawsuit did not help Mist-On in its efforts to deal with competitor Gilley's. Moreover, bad facts can make bad law. Here, the decision to assert copyright infringement for Internet content such as an FAQ page might not have been wise, especially when there truly are distinctions between the Web pages at issue."
Oh, ok, thanks. I wasn't disagreeing, I just didn't know of any real (as in I didn't know of any details) incidents where the oil industry tried to do sleazy things (aside from the whole artificial shortage thing, to raise prices; that's pretty sleazy.)
Yeah, but we (the slashdot community) did post a story about it, and it their opening the specs will likely boost sales, thereby completing their objective. I'm only saying being cynical, and not instantly forgetting what they did, isn't going to discourage them, if the sales are good.
Re:Linux, GPL and Copyright
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I think the only difference between you and me is that maybe I'm a little more idealistic, or at least I'm talking about what would be ideal, and you're being realistic.
The thing I said about five years I was really talking about copyright, not patents.
Check my post history, I have another post in this story saying a bunch of similar stuff.
As far as copyright I think we need to assess each medium separately and decide how long each medium should be protected. Basically, the only reason I think we need copyright for five years is because if all art were publicly funded, I don't think we'd be seeing the kind of movies we like to see. For example, I think that movies should be protected for five years, that is for five years no one else should be able to play your movie in theatres.
Right now movie studios are working on some pretty slim margins, so you would think cutting any of it away would put them out of business. But the have so much legroom based on what they pay actors. If the entire industry suddenly started making less money, all actors across the board would make less money (at least they'd cut out the extravagant 20million dollar salaries). I'm used to defending actors for how much they make, like the way I defend athletes. They bring in that much money and the studios think it's worth it, so it's fair they make that much money. I'm not saying it isn't fair. I'm just saying movie studios wouldn't just go out of business.
Or like video games. I can't imagine decent videogames being made based on public funding. But, five years is more than enough time to make your money on a videogame. You won't see any video games that are on the shelves right now still on the shelves five years from now.
But patents, I think are even worse than copyright. I'm saying patents should be gone. No patents. Did you know the pharmaceutical industry makes an *average* of 18% return on investment? That's obscene! In any other industry even 8% is ahead of the curve. And millions of people are dying of diseases like AIDS and tuberculosis because these companies own the patents for drugs that were most likely developed on government research anyway (that happens a lot). Science, unlike art in some cases, as I've mentioned above, is always more effective when it's publicly funded. There are no secrets, and that alone increases breakthroughs by like five fold. Plus there's a lot more basic research, which leads to real technological progression. The technology we're getting fat off of now is based on research that is decades old. And we're going to run into a wall.
Considering how powerful, and relentless tech growth is, most people may not even notice tech growth being harmed at all. But I can tell you this: no matter how fast technology grows, it would've been faster and better if it were based on public research. Even the Universities now can "own" their research, and their doing everything they can to reduce the time it takes from research to market (the only real way to do that is to do less basic research and more applied research, something we don't need more of). The lines between universities and corporations are being severely blurred. Some organization that represents American universites was complaining (I'm paraphrasing): "Universites spend 40 billion dollars a year on research, but they only made 800 million dollars on all that research". As if the only reason for university research was to make a profit!
You say "It sucks but logic and rational decisions for the common good, are far removed from the primary driver of the market: profit ( = self interest (read--> greed))" That's precisely why science doesn't belong in the marketplace! I feel like jesus, turning over the trading tables in a holy place.
I'm used to defending the market, but it seems things are going to far in the other direction, and I end up coming off as a communist. I'm applying real world economic principles here, there are many economists who acknowledge and agree with everything I'm saying.
You say we need to distinguish between corporate and individual patents. There should not exist corporate patents. Patents are supposed to be incentive to *innovate* not incentive to *sponsor* research. Anyone can sponsor research, and we don't need corporate sponsorship when it doesn't end up doing anyone any good. Scientists that work for corporations are like scientists anywhere else: they get set salaries. So clearly patents aren't providing incentive to *innovate* they are creating incentive to put up money.
As much as I've written, I don't think I could cover this enormous topic as thoroughly as Steal this idea has. This book is incredible it will change your way of thinking.
All this stuff I'm saying here, it sounds like I'm mincing words, like even though it sounds reasonable, that doesn't make it right. After all, ignoring everything we've been taught since we we're children, communism sounds pretty reasonable, but the fact is, it doesn't work. My point is, try to be receptive to these ideas, and being idealistic never really hurt anyone.
I'm not talking about doing anything that goes against human nature like communism does. I'm not being to idealistic in hoping that all men will be good men. I think that my system can and would work even when everyone acts purely out of self interest. I think the only thing I'm being idealistic about is that I believe (I'm hoping) that we can overthrow this regime of corruption and power. I think once that happens, everything would flow naturally, and the new system wouldn't expect more out of man than he is capable of, or expect him to be "better" than he really is.
As much as I like the term terran, they always refer to earthlings as "humans" Star Trek.
Re:Linux, GPL and Copyright
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Patents are not necessary. Go read Steal This Idea. I've been expressing my problem with IP laws for a while, but before now I only talked about copyright. I didn't have much of a problem with patents. This book changes everything. Patents are so much more evil than copyright, and are causing real social problems, not just stunting culture like some people say copyright does.
An incredible amount of energy is wasted on a)litigating patents b)circumventing patents . To circumvent patents, like say AMD circumventing Intel's patents, this is what they do: AMD gets some engineers to describe the high level functions of a chip, and the engineers relate exactly what the chip does to another set of engineers without telling them how it's done. This second set of engineers has to then create a new chip that does these functions.
Also patents promote secrecy in science and that is the most damaging aspect of all. The money we as a society spend on research would probably be four or five times more productive if it was shared. Now you may ask, why would anyone invest to do research if they couldn't get protection. Well, this is why science should be publicly funded. As much as you probably despise the idea of science being publicly funded, it's been shown that science is just as effective no matter where the money comes from. Since most of the scientists working on these innovations work for a set salary, and are motivated by the prospect recognition and respect, we'd have just as many, if not more, innovations if the money came from the public and not from private corporations. And this research would be many times more powerful since it would be shared with everyone.
Copyrights don't make sense anymore when works can be reproduced for zero cost. Copyrights only made sense when you had to pay money for a book or movie anyway, so why not give the author the exclusive right to sell it. But now that it costs zero to copy a book or film, why charge for it? Only to fund the initial cost of making the book or film. But like a road, there's no reason to charge for it, since it would limit how many people can use it, and why limit something that has no scarcity? So the answer is that we need a new way of funding these projects and that is through public funding.
I'm not suggesting we totally get rid of IP laws, but I think patents need to go, and copyrights reduced to five years. Of course this would be incredibly damaging if we didn't simultaneously fund more public research and art, but if we did so, dollar for dollar we'd all get a lot more.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it. You were modded up to 4, so I'm curious, can you explain that joke?
Do you understand what "see" means? Seeing is when light reaches your eyes. You cannot "see" light before it reaches your eyes. Where were you educated?
That's not true. I remove the string "hide," from the sysoc.inf file on the line starting msmgs (windows messenger). After that I removed windows messenger, and outlook express doesn't search for it anymore. You've always been able to do that.
Frankly, even though we may be a little far off technologically, I think as a species a very important thing for us to do is set up a self-sustaining colony on mars. I know you'll say "fix your problems on earth too" but I think by then maybe it'll be too late. I'm not a paranoid guy or anything, but when you consider nuclear weapons, stellar objects, and now some people talk about self-replicated nanobots being a possible source of our doom, you should realize that we should have some sort of a backup solution. Think of it like backing up your hard drive. All this time we've been living here without any backups. A self-sustaining colony on Mars will probably cut the odds in ten of our entire species being wiped out in the next thousand years.
Basically the ones with two commas in a row are not hidden by default, but when you delete the word hide you have to also delete a comma, so there's only one comma. Don't ask me why this is what works.
Not suprisingly, for IE, it doesn't actually allow you to remove it, it says "remove access to internet explorer". If you open up the file tree browser thing, ("windows explorer") or just any file folder, and type in a URL in the address field, it just turns into IE.
Read the story at the top of the page to see where the Toys reference comes from. I think that supports the parent poster's point of view. Michael is not a hardcore gamer, so he made the connection to Toys and not The Last Starfighter
Your statement that bandwidth costs money is a non-sequitor. The cost of bandwidth is so negligible that I'm willing to pay for any bandwidth that is required when people take books or movies from my hard drives. It is essentially zero.
Also, you're saying that we shouldn't publicly fund the national enquirer or trashy romance novels. Such things would probably never get funding, and that's an example of something that would use the five year copyright to try to make a profit. I'm sure you'd still find trashy romance novels being written, even with just a five year copyright.
Yeah don't you love the ones that somehow invoke "interstate commerce" in order to justify themselvees? Alcohol should be illegal because someone could be driving in a state other than his residence, on business, and he can crash! Our duty to regulate interstate commerce demands that we make alcohol illegal!
I think he just meant like here's how realism can ruin games: in Medal of Honor Allied Assault, imagine you had to go to the bathroom every once in a while. Doesn't that sound realistic than not ever having to go to the bathroom? Or maybe you should have to eat too. And since you have diabetes you have to maintain a certain blood sugar.....
Realism that just for realism is not fun. But it is nice when certain facets of gameplay can actually parallel real life.
Like most games can be reduced to a basic gameplay "topology". Like the sets of rules and their interaction with each other. Kind of like the Magic card game. The rules kind of make sense water is powerful against fire or something like that, but you can strip out those details and say "element a is powerful against element b". It's much more fun when the gameplay topology actually mirrors real life.
So yea, realism is good, but only when it fits into an already designed gameplay structure. You don't want to add things like going to the bathroom just to be more realistic.
Well, if you think it's morally wrong to have an army that kills people in defense of your country, then it to you, it probably is worse than ads that say "go buy a jeep!" So even though I don't agree with that sentiment, it's not too hard to understand why some people think that army advertising is worse than other advertising. I guess he just feels that the "product" being advertised is more immoral than most other products advertised.
I think you're talking about the linux kit. That's totally separate.
Man, you reply like that was a serious comment or something. A joke! A crazy sick idea, but a joke.
Dump a bunch of mosquitos that have traits that make them good desirable mates into the environment so they bump out all the existing mosquitos. But make sure the mosquitos you dump are sterile. So you end up kill like 95% of all mosquitos. Then you dump these malaria resistant ones in its place to quickly fill in the vacuum that the others left behind. Of course, if it were that easy to just kill off all the mosquitos they probably would've tried that already.
Anyway, I think they should make a mosquito that can transmit HIV. That would be a funky terrorist weapon.
And they even link back to Slashdot!
Haha, I noticed that. Using the back function in javascript can sometimes pull a fast one on you.
Well, during one video I saw, John Carmack really went out of his way to mention that he used maya to model the characters. He said it in a way, hard to describe, like it didn't seem right as if he went out of his way to mention it. Considering Maya launched an advertising campaign and just lowered the price from 7500 to 1999 dollars, I wouldn't be surprised if getting JC to mention it was just part of their campaign. I wonder how much he got?
Read your own post. Before the DMCA, it didn't matter what it's "primary" use was, all that mattered was that it had "substantial non-infringing uses." Dmitri's ebook thing had substantial non-infringing uses.
I guess the interpretations of these laws is making it clear that they don't want you to be able to read your ebook on any other device, or convert it to braille, and those are *not* substantial non-infringing uses. Oh well.
By buying used CDs you are reducing the number of used CDs on the market, thereby forcing someone else, someone with less integrity than you, to buy that CD for retail. Buy indie or download.
What makes you think I care about their revenue stream?
For some reason this site won't let you read the article if you don't accept cookies.
"For every frequently asked question (FAQ) there is an answer. And with respect to the question whether FAQs posted on Web sites are deserving of copyright protection, Judge Barbara B. Crabb, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in the case Mist-On Systems, Inc. v. Gilley's European Tan Spa, on May 2 answered "no." Thus, it appears that lawsuits designed to snuff out the competition by seeking to attack Web content such as FAQs may fail, and if anything, may embolden competitors.
THE ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Mist-On Systems alleged that defendant Gilley's European Tan Spa infringed on its exclusive rights under the Copyright Act by preparing and displaying on its Web page a page that mirrored the FAQ page on Mist-On's Web site. Mist-On sought monetary and injunctive relief from Gilley's based on the "irreparable harm" it had suffered.
THE COMPETING WEB SITES
Mist-On's Web page, entitled "Mist-On Tanning Frequently Asked Questions," consisted of a single page of 19 questions about the Mist-On Tanning process and provided other related hints.
Gilley's Web page, entitled Gilley's European Tan Spa "FAQ's Sunless Express Spray Spa," comprised three pages of operating instructions and 16 questions about the Sunless Express Spray Spa.
According to the court, "when the two works are compared side-by-side, similarities are evident." That is because "both web pages utilize the Frequently Asked Questions format," "both web pages use common words to begin each question, such as 'how,' 'can,' 'is,' 'what,' and 'will,'" and because "both web pages focus on a spray-on form of sunless tanning" and "provide similar information."
THE COURT'S RULING
Notwithstanding the foregoing similarities, the court held that "these superficial similarities fall short of proving copying" because they are not the equivalent of copying constituent elements of the work that are original. According to the court and prior case law, regardless of the "original authorship" contained in a work, "the facts and ideas it exposes are free for the taking."
Taking it a step further, the court held that "a business cannot copyright a Frequently Asked Questions page" or the words or phrases that comprise such a page because "the format of a Frequently Asked Questions page is a common idea in our society." Indeed, "the elements of a Frequently Asked Questions page (a list of questions beginning with common words) are stereotypical."
Ultimately, Mist-On agreed that it could not copyright the idea of a FAQ page. However, Mist-On argued that because the Gilley's FAQ page was so similar to the Mist-On FAQ page that there must be some copyright infringement.
The court swatted away this argument by noting the differences between the two Web pages, such as the fact that "the sequence, the wording and the number of the questions are different from each other," "five of defendants' questions are entirely unique to their page," "seven of plaintiff's questions are entirely unique to its page," and "the layout of the web page[s] is different." Moreover, "there is no truth to plaintiff's assertion that many of defendants' questions and answers are 'nearly identical' to plaintiff's."
Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment without the need for a trial in favor of defendant Gilley's.
LESSONS LEARNED
Care must be taken in taking legal steps to deal with business competition. Plainly, this particular lawsuit did not help Mist-On in its efforts to deal with competitor Gilley's. Moreover, bad facts can make bad law. Here, the decision to assert copyright infringement for Internet content such as an FAQ page might not have been wise, especially when there truly are distinctions between the Web pages at issue."
What happened to the popular refrain "If it's open, we'll find the holes and we'll fix it"?
Oh, ok, thanks. I wasn't disagreeing, I just didn't know of any real (as in I didn't know of any details) incidents where the oil industry tried to do sleazy things (aside from the whole artificial shortage thing, to raise prices; that's pretty sleazy.)
Yeah, but we (the slashdot community) did post a story about it, and it their opening the specs will likely boost sales, thereby completing their objective. I'm only saying being cynical, and not instantly forgetting what they did, isn't going to discourage them, if the sales are good.
Yeah, I think the only difference between you and me is that maybe I'm a little more idealistic, or at least I'm talking about what would be ideal, and you're being realistic.
The thing I said about five years I was really talking about copyright, not patents.
Check my post history, I have another post in this story saying a bunch of similar stuff.
As far as copyright I think we need to assess each medium separately and decide how long each medium should be protected. Basically, the only reason I think we need copyright for five years is because if all art were publicly funded, I don't think we'd be seeing the kind of movies we like to see. For example, I think that movies should be protected for five years, that is for five years no one else should be able to play your movie in theatres.
Right now movie studios are working on some pretty slim margins, so you would think cutting any of it away would put them out of business. But the have so much legroom based on what they pay actors. If the entire industry suddenly started making less money, all actors across the board would make less money (at least they'd cut out the extravagant 20million dollar salaries). I'm used to defending actors for how much they make, like the way I defend athletes. They bring in that much money and the studios think it's worth it, so it's fair they make that much money. I'm not saying it isn't fair. I'm just saying movie studios wouldn't just go out of business.
Or like video games. I can't imagine decent videogames being made based on public funding. But, five years is more than enough time to make your money on a videogame. You won't see any video games that are on the shelves right now still on the shelves five years from now.
But patents, I think are even worse than copyright. I'm saying patents should be gone. No patents. Did you know the pharmaceutical industry makes an *average* of 18% return on investment? That's obscene! In any other industry even 8% is ahead of the curve. And millions of people are dying of diseases like AIDS and tuberculosis because these companies own the patents for drugs that were most likely developed on government research anyway (that happens a lot). Science, unlike art in some cases, as I've mentioned above, is always more effective when it's publicly funded. There are no secrets, and that alone increases breakthroughs by like five fold. Plus there's a lot more basic research, which leads to real technological progression. The technology we're getting fat off of now is based on research that is decades old. And we're going to run into a wall.
Considering how powerful, and relentless tech growth is, most people may not even notice tech growth being harmed at all. But I can tell you this: no matter how fast technology grows, it would've been faster and better if it were based on public research. Even the Universities now can "own" their research, and their doing everything they can to reduce the time it takes from research to market (the only real way to do that is to do less basic research and more applied research, something we don't need more of). The lines between universities and corporations are being severely blurred. Some organization that represents American universites was complaining (I'm paraphrasing): "Universites spend 40 billion dollars a year on research, but they only made 800 million dollars on all that research". As if the only reason for university research was to make a profit!
You say "It sucks but logic and rational decisions for the common good, are far removed from the primary driver of the market: profit ( = self interest (read--> greed))" That's precisely why science doesn't belong in the marketplace! I feel like jesus, turning over the trading tables in a holy place.
I'm used to defending the market, but it seems things are going to far in the other direction, and I end up coming off as a communist. I'm applying real world economic principles here, there are many economists who acknowledge and agree with everything I'm saying.
You say we need to distinguish between corporate and individual patents. There should not exist corporate patents. Patents are supposed to be incentive to *innovate* not incentive to *sponsor* research. Anyone can sponsor research, and we don't need corporate sponsorship when it doesn't end up doing anyone any good. Scientists that work for corporations are like scientists anywhere else: they get set salaries. So clearly patents aren't providing incentive to *innovate* they are creating incentive to put up money.
As much as I've written, I don't think I could cover this enormous topic as thoroughly as Steal this idea has. This book is incredible it will change your way of thinking.
All this stuff I'm saying here, it sounds like I'm mincing words, like even though it sounds reasonable, that doesn't make it right. After all, ignoring everything we've been taught since we we're children, communism sounds pretty reasonable, but the fact is, it doesn't work. My point is, try to be receptive to these ideas, and being idealistic never really hurt anyone.
I'm not talking about doing anything that goes against human nature like communism does. I'm not being to idealistic in hoping that all men will be good men. I think that my system can and would work even when everyone acts purely out of self interest. I think the only thing I'm being idealistic about is that I believe (I'm hoping) that we can overthrow this regime of corruption and power. I think once that happens, everything would flow naturally, and the new system wouldn't expect more out of man than he is capable of, or expect him to be "better" than he really is.
As much as I like the term terran, they always refer to earthlings as "humans" Star Trek.
Patents are not necessary. Go read Steal This Idea. I've been expressing my problem with IP laws for a while, but before now I only talked about copyright. I didn't have much of a problem with patents. This book changes everything. Patents are so much more evil than copyright, and are causing real social problems, not just stunting culture like some people say copyright does.
An incredible amount of energy is wasted on a)litigating patents b)circumventing patents . To circumvent patents, like say AMD circumventing Intel's patents, this is what they do: AMD gets some engineers to describe the high level functions of a chip, and the engineers relate exactly what the chip does to another set of engineers without telling them how it's done. This second set of engineers has to then create a new chip that does these functions.
Also patents promote secrecy in science and that is the most damaging aspect of all. The money we as a society spend on research would probably be four or five times more productive if it was shared. Now you may ask, why would anyone invest to do research if they couldn't get protection. Well, this is why science should be publicly funded. As much as you probably despise the idea of science being publicly funded, it's been shown that science is just as effective no matter where the money comes from. Since most of the scientists working on these innovations work for a set salary, and are motivated by the prospect recognition and respect, we'd have just as many, if not more, innovations if the money came from the public and not from private corporations. And this research would be many times more powerful since it would be shared with everyone.
Copyrights don't make sense anymore when works can be reproduced for zero cost. Copyrights only made sense when you had to pay money for a book or movie anyway, so why not give the author the exclusive right to sell it. But now that it costs zero to copy a book or film, why charge for it? Only to fund the initial cost of making the book or film. But like a road, there's no reason to charge for it, since it would limit how many people can use it, and why limit something that has no scarcity? So the answer is that we need a new way of funding these projects and that is through public funding.
I'm not suggesting we totally get rid of IP laws, but I think patents need to go, and copyrights reduced to five years. Of course this would be incredibly damaging if we didn't simultaneously fund more public research and art, but if we did so, dollar for dollar we'd all get a lot more.