I will be specific. If we were to reduce those rights to 30 years, would that be theft from the holders of these copyrights? After all, they produced this music and were promised 50 years, and reducing that to 30 years would be theft, right? Their rights would be taken away without compensation, right?
How is the public any different? Or is your claim that only "Artists" (i.e. the code word for Big Corporate Content) have rights that can be stolen?
Nothing changes by pointing out that some insignificant percentage of those benefited by this are artists. The fact is the only significant beneficiaries here are Record Labels and a handful of hugely wealthy artists. Again, if this was about the artists, then it would be a law requiring clear and honest Record Label accounting for payment of royalties under copyright. But this is no such law.
This ripping of 20 years of rights from the public domain and handed to Big Content is NOT intended to benefit "artists". That is just how this theft from the public domain is justified, but it isn't what handing 20 more years to Big Content is going to do.
theft
noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
This is *wrong*. It is literally taking the rights to these recordings from the public.
Infringement isn't theft because it doesn't take away the rights of music from those that own it. Infringement may be wrong, and certainly illegal, but it isn't theft. But this *IS* taking something, denying the use of this music by the public. Some music would have been legal for the public to share and use as this term expires, and now it won't. Rights have been *taken*. No compensation has been *given* in return.
How is this not theft? You might think it is *good* theft, of the Robin Hood sort, but even Robin Hood never claimed what he did wasn't theft. It was, and Robin Hood admitted it. Why his own banner ad read "Steals from the Rich and gives to the Poor!" The same sort of theft is going on here, only the *public* isn't the "Rich", and the Record Labels and the Beatles and the rest are not the "Poor".
This isn't about "the artists". If it was, then it would be a law against Record Label Accounting. Pass *THAT* one, and I will believe it is about "the artists". Sans that one, it is about milking the public for more dollars for a few rich bands and the Record Labels. Theft that goes against the *Public Interest*.
"... Step into the cell, and face the wall," the officer commanded. Virtual Reality did so, and the officer moved behind him and roughly released the cuffs.
"Do NOT turn around until I say so!" the officer barked, and the officer flinched a bit as he thought he saw movement in Virtual Reality's shoulder. The officer's hand flew to the tazzer on his belt, and he glared at Virtual Reality for a long moment.
Then the officer suddenly back peddled quickly and slammed the cell door shut. The electromagnetic lock snapped securely.
"You are lucky, really!" the officer smirked. "You get credit, as your sentence started in 2006. You only have to stay locked up for 15 years!"
There was a long pause, as Virtual Reality's forehead softly struck the wall. Somewhat muffled, he asked:
The paper itself sets up some straw man arguments, really on both sides, then goes about collecting data that is really beside the point. Here are the questions it addresses:
A. Are Litigious NPEs a Recent Phenomenon? I say, who cares? And the author's definition of "recent" is just strange. The oldest troll is about 25 years old. Isn't that recent relative to patents themselves which have been around for a couple of hundred years more or less?
B. Are NPE Patents All Business Methods? Again, who cares? Software patents are worse, but any patent will do. The mix is interesting, but not part of the debate.
C. Are NPE Patents Low Quality? Let's say they are all high quality. A NPE (non practicing entity) is still sucking from the system without producing anything, no matter the quality of the patents.
D. Do NPE Patents Come From Nonproductive Endeavors? This is like asking if the knife that killed you was properly purchased from a store? Homemade? Stolen? Seems to me you are dead regardless. Likewise, Trolls are trolls regardless of where they got their weapons.
F. Do NPEs Really Wait for an Industry to Develop? The paper itself points out that Trolls will still be called trolls if they sue immediately upon receiving a patent or wait 10 years to sue. So what difference does it make?
A. Do NPEs Promote Investment in Startups? A good question, but not answered here.
B. Are Small Companies Crushed by Larger Infringers? They determine that by and large they are not. But I question their logic, as they make this determination based on where patents used by trolls come from.
C. Do NPEs Provide Better Enforcement Avenues for Individuals? Key question not answered: Do individuals themselves *profit* via trolls? Obviously organizations with lawyers funded to sue will do a better job. But do any of these efforts benefit the individual inventor? Silence in this paper. They just answer the easy question, that lawyers are better at lawsuits that inventors. Duh.
All in all, I wasted my time reading this thing. Seriously, if you are going to address the "debate" then it should be defined properly, economically. Do patents help us innovate, or are they primarily a barrier to innovation? That is the debate. Picking the questions that you find that you can answer, then claiming that is the debate, this is rather silly.
... That is what has happened to every other whistle blower under this administration. And the worse the corruption exposed, the worse the sentence.
If the SEC is guilty of total fraud sheltering billions of dollars in Wall Street theft, then expect the DOJ to go for the death sentence for Darcy Flynn.
Because you have more privacy with AT&T? Verizon? Comcast? Time-Warner?
Seriously, I understand the privacy thing, but don't kid yourself. Google isn't the worst, just the best.
Grrrr.... Left out the step where you flash your routers with DD-WRT firmware (http://www.dd-wrt.com).
But I guess that is obvious from the title.... I hope....
Get a few routers (I like Linksys), set them up as repeaters, and find strategic places to set them to get the coverage you need. Set up each with an easy to remember password (which will allow anyone "in the know" to use the network).
And you are pretty much done. If you want to do something more fancy for logging in, DD-WRT has many options. I have no personal experience with them, however.
The only reason I kept Windows 7 on my laptop (which came with Windows like most laptops still do) was because I need it for work (I work with dinosaurs). I dual boot to Linux, and have had the opportunity to test performance on both systems. Linux performs most Java based tasks 30 percent faster.
Linux: Free, Free upgrades, large, knowledgeable community, hosts of applications.
Windows; $$$, Free updates, but $$$ to upgrade; Large *user* community, but very, very few know the system; hosts of paid and free applications, but the best free applications are ports from Linux.
Why would I pay for Windows 8? or Windows anything else?
"So if I understand you correctly, your recommendation is that we let one company innovate and take risks..."
Coming back to your post, this struck me as being an amazing assumption. Let's explore what you are implying:
Apple bore all the risks and costs of developing the tablet concept?
Apple bore all the risks and costs of inventing software that could run on a tablet?
Apple bore all the risks and costs of developing the manufacturing technology to build a tablet?
Apple bore all the risks and costs of developing the look and feel of icons used in a tablet?
Apple bore all the risks and costs of playing multimedia on a tablet?
Apple bore all the risks and costs of building circuit boards and microprocessors and flash memory for use in a tablet?
I could go on, but in fact it is clear that by FAR most of the technology Apple used to build their products they neither invented, nor licensed. They were not alone in taking the risk to develop the technology. In fact, most of the technology Apple uses was developed by others. They didn't invent computers, programming, debugging environments, graphical interfaces, touch screens, gestures, LCD's, glass, aluminum computer cases, or most of the other technologies fundamental to their products.
They did something innovative by putting the emerging technologies into a product, but that in and of itself isn't invention and should not be covered by a patent.
If I paint a beautiful picture with a unique combination of tools, paints, and canvas, I am deserving of a copyright, but not a patent. Others should be allowed to be inspired by what I put together, and express those ideas in paintings of their own without paying me anything.
Really what Apple produces with their use of existing and new technologies is much more like a painting, putting together existing technology together with their uniquely artistic take. But if we admit that their products are really artistic expressions using existing technology, then they should be able to copyright their exact expression. That does not limit other companies from being inspired, and also put together technology in new and different ways. Apple should not be allowed to suppress others from using technology to "paint" their own products, even if those products compete with Apple.
I would suggest that with 250,000 patents covering smart phones (and I am sure as many patents covering tablets and computers) you are insane if you think Apple doesn't infringe, and in fact every company producing a product infringes.
But this isn't the point. Apple can innovate, take risks, and as long as they continue to do so, they can make money. Should they pause, should they fail to innovate, or should they fail to provide their innovations and cheaply and efficiently as another company, then that other company should also prosper. We should not have to wait TWENTY YEARS before another company can legally pressure Apple to make the next innovation, simply because Apple gets to remove competitors from the market.
Patents are not needed to protect Apple's place in the market. It is silly to think that just anyone can produce an Apple product. There are many things that go into an Apple product above and beyond what can be placed in a set of patents. Just because you see an Apple product in the market doesn't mean you can duplicate that thing.
Let the market decide who wins and who loses. You are not encouraging risk-taking and innovation when you allow Apple and others to remove other products from the market. Furthermore, Apple infringes on the patents of others. If we removed all infringing products we would have NOTHING to buy. Not from Apple, Motorola, not from Samsung, not from Google. Nothing. Is that seriously the right way to go? Should we spend 10x for every product to pay all the companies that have patents that apply?
We get innovation DESPITE patents, not because of them. Even in the case of Apple.
I don't want to be accused of hacking my senator's account. I would have to quit my day job and devote my self to writing emails 18 hours a day to protest everything I feel deserves a protest message, and it now seems that even if I could do this, it would be against the law....
I'm no fan of patents, but this is the exact sort of innovation the patent system was designed to protect in the first place. Regardless of the particular patents Apple has chosen to fight with in these battles, can't reasonable people agree that Apple ought to have some protection on their R&D investments?
Uh... No.
You CANNOT patent great execution, and great ideas. You are ONLY allowed to patent actual inventions.
This is the problem with patents today. People think you should be able to patent great ideas like the configuration of technology Apple put into their products. But the fact is that prior to Apple shipping the IPhone and the IPad, people were having to build products out of pre-2009 technology. How much of Apple's success is due to the fact that they thought "Hey, Let's build something small, light, useful, with a great display and great battery life!" and how much was due to the fact that technology improved and suddenly they COULD build such a device?
Just because they built these devices first, and was popular first, does not mean we should hand them the market and artificially shield them from competition.
Instead, we should allow companies to also build great products, and force Apple to CONTINUE to innovate if they want to hold the market. Patents are supposed to ENCOURAGE innovation, but the idea that we should shield Apple from competition just because they got to the top of the current technological peak first is short sided, and frankly scary.
I agree with everything you said, with the exception that Google is more guilty of violating patents than the rest. The fact is, Google produces FEWER products (like cameras, phones, computers) than Apple or Kodak, or LG. By definition then, they are going to be violating FEWER patents than this crowd.
In fact, as they mostly just produce software, I'd argue they haven't violated any patents, as I highly question the validity of software patents to begin with, and it is far from certain that SCOTUS will uphold software patents should they being given a case that forces them to settle the issue.
"apple blocks lawsuit from troll inc with their patent..."
That isn't how patents work. You can have fifty patents that say you invented something, but if one troll has one patent that you infringe upon, then you infringe. A Patent never gives you the right to build something. A Patent ONLY gives you the right to block someone else from building something.
That is what is wrong with patents, and what is kinda nifty about this idea is that once the button has been pushed, Google doesn't have any way to protect Apple even if they wanted to. Apple can sue Google, but it doesn't help them stop the attack of these little "Troll Inc." companies.
Just consider them intercontinental patent missiles. Once fired, there isn't any negotiation with Google that is going to help.
This really only works for Google if
1) there is a ready supply of law firms willing to take on this somewhat nasty but likely profitable task
2) Google has enough interesting patents to fire one or two of these attacks to make its point.
3) Google has enough interesting patents to fire off dozens of these attacks if Apple and Oracle don't get the message.
4) Google doesn't mind being evil for a good cause.
"apple blocks lawsuit from troll inc with their patent..."
That isn't how patents work. You can have fifty patents that say you invented something, but if one troll has one patent that you infringe upon, then you infringe. A Patent never gives you the right to build something. A Patent ONLY gives you the right to block someone else from building something.
That is what is wrong with patents, and what is kinda nifty about this idea is that once the button has been pushed, Google doesn't have any way to protect Apple even if they wanted to. Apple can sue Google, but it doesn't help them stop the attack of these little "Troll Inc." companies.
Just consider them intercontinental patent missiles. Once fired, there isn't any negotiation with Google that is going to help.
This really only works for Google if
1) there is a ready supply of law firms willing to take on this somewhat nasty but likely profitable task
2) Google has enough interesting patents to fire one or two of these attacks to make its point.
3) Google has enough interesting patents to fire off dozens of these attacks if Apple and Oracle don't get the message.
4) Google doesn't mind being evil for a good cause.
Why not ask the guy what it is. Let him explain why it is there, what it does. Maybe bring in someone with some engineering experience.
If the guy is a suicide bomber, you are already dead. If he isn't, then you have every reason to listen to him. If you can't find any place for explosives to be hiding, then it isn't dangerous.
Wires alone are poor indicators that you have a bomb. Thousands of times of devices have wires and are not bombs than devices with wires that are bombs. Maybe even millions of times as many devices as a TSA agent is going to encounter.
Bombs can be made to look totally innocent. Even if you open them and look at them.
The Intelligent thing to do is to do a bit of training as to what might really be a bomb, and who might really be a bomber, and how to call in someone to evaluate a situation quickly before thousands and thousands of dollars are spent and people's lives are disrupted by something that can be safely evaluated quickly by someone with training.
Sell a few selected patents to an independent shell company. That company, which neither creates or sells products and is out of the control of Google, will be free to sue Apple and Oracle (and any other threat to the Android market) freely for patent infringement, but not Google (due to a contract that went along with the sell). This independent company cannot be targeted for patent infringement no matter how many patents Apple and company might have. Any funds can flow to filing more patents and buying more patents in order to maintain their attacks.
Or better yet, funds collected might be used to fund patent reform efforts (again by contract).
1000 patents is plenty to launch a number of these companies, which could cause Apple huge amounts of damage, while Google itself (not really making phones directly) would be largely immune from this sort of attach.
I have been thinking about this for a while, and can't really see a flaw in the approach, other than it is really Evil.
I remember when bits were made of actual stone, hand crafted, and strung by hand into computational frames. Today's kids don't even understand that this is what we are referring to when we talk about "Frame Works" today. Those Frames were tons of work, let me tell you.
Computational systems used these frames so that sometimes you had to go through several of them to get to your goal (These were the early AND gates), and other times you allowed users to pick which one to pass through (OR gates). When you forced people into exclusive choices (such as gates to bathrooms) these frames were referred to as exclusive gates (use this one if male OR use this wone if female, or XOR gates).
We used simple trip wires in our frame works to implement inverters, Very effective at reducing time wasted with managers. (Generally once a manager has been inverted a few times, they leave you mostly alone.)
Knot gates were generally frameworks made from pine.
I could go on about heat sinks (Hot rocks used to warm water) and other early computational technologies. But all of this is lost on this young crowd who don't even remember Java used to be drunk black for a nickle.
intent - noun
1. something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.
What is intended by this clause is to promote progress. There is no stated intent for the government to protect the economic welfare of authors or inventors. In fact, no citizenship requirements are attached, so we have applied these protections universally, not just to American inventors and authors, because, again, the intent is to promote progress.
If we can promote progress better by reducing Intellectual property rights, doing so would exactly match the constitutional clause here. If increasing intellectual property rights can be shown to fail to promote progress (or in fact limits progress as many studies have shown) then regardless of how much reducing protections of IP might negatively impact authors and inventors, we should reduce those protections.
This clause in the constitution cannot be used to defend laws that do not promote progress. That would not be consistent with this clause, because (and again this isn't semantics, but just reading what the constitution says) the goal is to promote progress.
Nothing I have stated against patents should be construed as an argument against regulation of business. Nothing here should be taken to mean business should be allowed to do anything they want in the name of competition. Patents are assigned by the government to whoever files them, granting a "monopoly" on that invention to the filer for 20 years from the filing date. This allows companies to control supply and set prices. This is why I am against the patent system. Anti-trust laws and regulations to level the market for competition is a good thing, but that is another conversation.
Don't get wound about the axle by using a misaligned analogy.
Without patents, companies and people that wish to produce products can do so, and can compete based on the quality/timeliness/price of their products.
With patents, companies and people that wish to produce products do so under the cover of lawyers, and leverage those lawyers to stomp out smaller, less established competition.
There isn't any proof that competition without patents is in any way more brutal than competition using patents. In fact, there are many examples of the latter.
I am going to hope that citing the constitution is good enough.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution)
See? Nothing there about a goal of protecting ANYBODY'S economic interests, whether big corporation or individual inventor. The ONLY goal is to promote progress. In as far as the patent system fails to promote progress (and it does in every actual study of the system) it should be reformed if not out right abandoned.
And you are wrong. Patents are not intended to protect the interests of individual inventors either. You are confusing the MECHANISM with the GOAL. Read carefully
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution)
Promote progress. That is the goal. When you have a goal, then you may use some strategy to reach that goal, i.e. provide for a limited time inventors and authors exclusive rights...). But nothing in the constitution provides congress with the right to promote the welfare of Authors and Inventors. In fact, nothing in the constitution indicates that congress has the right to allow an inventor or author to assign their rights to another individual or to a corporation!!!
But let us keep our focus. Do we REALLY need to provide authors and inventors with these exclusive rights to promote progress of Science and the useful Arts?
With ample corporate funding for the research to improve products, and with ample corporate funding to copy the improvements others make, progress will proceed quite happily without patents. This is because competition is FAR more important than monopoly rights in promoting progress.
There is nothing new in my position here. Benjamin Franklin, while famous for pursuing ways to make money, refused to file patents. He spent time in his autobiography discussing at least one fellow that copied his stove invention and patented it in England and made a fortune. Did the patent system in this case increase progress, or just drop a windfall into the hands of a leach? After all, B. F. had ALREADY invented the stove, and had ALREADY published how to build the stove for anyone to implement. Patents in this case merely CONSTRICTED the use of his technology in the market place.
And if Patents are so necessary for progress, I wonder why Benjamin Franklin wasn't stopped from inventing things and promoting progress, given that he ignored the option of patenting his many inventions? Thomas Jefferson was equally skeptical of the value of patents on philosophical grounds. Look these guys up. From the beginning many questioned the wisdom of going this route, and yet we continue down the rabbit hole as if we can't learn from history.
In the end, if progress is what you are after, competition is the means of making progress accelerate. I know of no study whatsoever where government granted monopolies do a better job of promoting progress than competition. If you have ANY concrete counter examples where patents promoted progress, well, I am all ears.
=== As a matter of background, I submitted 6 patents while working for IBM thinking that my ideas might get implemented if I did this. They didn't, and only two of the patents ended up being granted as I had left IBM. As an "inventor" I only sought to see things made. Patents didn't make that happen. ===
A kidney removal tool as a concept or idea isn't bad either. But should the wide spread application of kidney removal tools on random healthy young children be adopted in the interest of profit by large corporations.... Well, that might certainly contribute the impression that such tools would be "bad".
You can understand the confusion one might have about patents which can only remove products from the market, regardless of the total lack of intention or knowledge of infringement on the part of productive companies. Companies that actually produce products should not be held hostage to established companies seeking to limit competition, or troll companies that don't produce products.
If government is bad and competition is good, then patents are evil.
If you believe in a managed economy where favors are handed to particular companies to control the markets, and a managed political system where corporate cash and influence can appoint government officials to run government in a way that suits corporate interests, then patents have a good side.
Honestly, I see no value in a system that makes a group of high tech companies sink 4.5 billion dollars into paper so they can restrict the choices of consumers rather than invest 4.5 billion dollars into jobs and research.
Slashdot Mirror
I will be specific. If we were to reduce those rights to 30 years, would that be theft from the holders of these copyrights? After all, they produced this music and were promised 50 years, and reducing that to 30 years would be theft, right? Their rights would be taken away without compensation, right?
How is the public any different? Or is your claim that only "Artists" (i.e. the code word for Big Corporate Content) have rights that can be stolen?
Nothing changes by pointing out that some insignificant percentage of those benefited by this are artists. The fact is the only significant beneficiaries here are Record Labels and a handful of hugely wealthy artists. Again, if this was about the artists, then it would be a law requiring clear and honest Record Label accounting for payment of royalties under copyright. But this is no such law.
This ripping of 20 years of rights from the public domain and handed to Big Content is NOT intended to benefit "artists". That is just how this theft from the public domain is justified, but it isn't what handing 20 more years to Big Content is going to do.
theft
noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
This is *wrong*. It is literally taking the rights to these recordings from the public.
Infringement isn't theft because it doesn't take away the rights of music from those that own it. Infringement may be wrong, and certainly illegal, but it isn't theft. But this *IS* taking something, denying the use of this music by the public. Some music would have been legal for the public to share and use as this term expires, and now it won't. Rights have been *taken*. No compensation has been *given* in return.
How is this not theft? You might think it is *good* theft, of the Robin Hood sort, but even Robin Hood never claimed what he did wasn't theft. It was, and Robin Hood admitted it. Why his own banner ad read "Steals from the Rich and gives to the Poor!" The same sort of theft is going on here, only the *public* isn't the "Rich", and the Record Labels and the Beatles and the rest are not the "Poor".
This isn't about "the artists". If it was, then it would be a law against Record Label Accounting. Pass *THAT* one, and I will believe it is about "the artists". Sans that one, it is about milking the public for more dollars for a few rich bands and the Record Labels. Theft that goes against the *Public Interest*.
"... Step into the cell, and face the wall," the officer commanded. Virtual Reality did so, and the officer moved behind him and roughly released the cuffs.
"Do NOT turn around until I say so!" the officer barked, and the officer flinched a bit as he thought he saw movement in Virtual Reality's shoulder. The officer's hand flew to the tazzer on his belt, and he glared at Virtual Reality for a long moment.
Then the officer suddenly back peddled quickly and slammed the cell door shut. The electromagnetic lock snapped securely.
"You are lucky, really!" the officer smirked. "You get credit, as your sentence started in 2006. You only have to stay locked up for 15 years!"
There was a long pause, as Virtual Reality's forehead softly struck the wall. Somewhat muffled, he asked:
"....Can I turn around now?"
Am I the only one that read this paper?
The paper itself sets up some straw man arguments, really on both sides, then goes about collecting data that is really beside the point. Here are the questions it addresses:
A. Are Litigious NPEs a Recent Phenomenon? I say, who cares? And the author's definition of "recent" is just strange. The oldest troll is about 25 years old. Isn't that recent relative to patents themselves which have been around for a couple of hundred years more or less?
B. Are NPE Patents All Business Methods? Again, who cares? Software patents are worse, but any patent will do. The mix is interesting, but not part of the debate.
C. Are NPE Patents Low Quality? Let's say they are all high quality. A NPE (non practicing entity) is still sucking from the system without producing anything, no matter the quality of the patents.
D. Do NPE Patents Come From Nonproductive Endeavors? This is like asking if the knife that killed you was properly purchased from a store? Homemade? Stolen? Seems to me you are dead regardless. Likewise, Trolls are trolls regardless of where they got their weapons.
F. Do NPEs Really Wait for an Industry to Develop? The paper itself points out that Trolls will still be called trolls if they sue immediately upon receiving a patent or wait 10 years to sue. So what difference does it make? A. Do NPEs Promote Investment in Startups? A good question, but not answered here.
B. Are Small Companies Crushed by Larger Infringers? They determine that by and large they are not. But I question their logic, as they make this determination based on where patents used by trolls come from.
C. Do NPEs Provide Better Enforcement Avenues for Individuals? Key question not answered: Do individuals themselves *profit* via trolls? Obviously organizations with lawyers funded to sue will do a better job. But do any of these efforts benefit the individual inventor? Silence in this paper. They just answer the easy question, that lawyers are better at lawsuits that inventors. Duh.
All in all, I wasted my time reading this thing. Seriously, if you are going to address the "debate" then it should be defined properly, economically. Do patents help us innovate, or are they primarily a barrier to innovation? That is the debate. Picking the questions that you find that you can answer, then claiming that is the debate, this is rather silly.
... That is what has happened to every other whistle blower under this administration. And the worse the corruption exposed, the worse the sentence. If the SEC is guilty of total fraud sheltering billions of dollars in Wall Street theft, then expect the DOJ to go for the death sentence for Darcy Flynn.
Because you have more privacy with AT&T? Verizon? Comcast? Time-Warner? Seriously, I understand the privacy thing, but don't kid yourself. Google isn't the worst, just the best.
Grrrr.... Left out the step where you flash your routers with DD-WRT firmware (http://www.dd-wrt.com). But I guess that is obvious from the title.... I hope....
Get a few routers (I like Linksys), set them up as repeaters, and find strategic places to set them to get the coverage you need. Set up each with an easy to remember password (which will allow anyone "in the know" to use the network).
And you are pretty much done. If you want to do something more fancy for logging in, DD-WRT has many options. I have no personal experience with them, however.
The only reason I kept Windows 7 on my laptop (which came with Windows like most laptops still do) was because I need it for work (I work with dinosaurs). I dual boot to Linux, and have had the opportunity to test performance on both systems. Linux performs most Java based tasks 30 percent faster. Linux: Free, Free upgrades, large, knowledgeable community, hosts of applications. Windows; $$$, Free updates, but $$$ to upgrade; Large *user* community, but very, very few know the system; hosts of paid and free applications, but the best free applications are ports from Linux. Why would I pay for Windows 8? or Windows anything else?
"So if I understand you correctly, your recommendation is that we let one company innovate and take risks..."
Coming back to your post, this struck me as being an amazing assumption. Let's explore what you are implying:
Apple bore all the risks and costs of developing the tablet concept? Apple bore all the risks and costs of inventing software that could run on a tablet? Apple bore all the risks and costs of developing the manufacturing technology to build a tablet? Apple bore all the risks and costs of developing the look and feel of icons used in a tablet? Apple bore all the risks and costs of playing multimedia on a tablet? Apple bore all the risks and costs of building circuit boards and microprocessors and flash memory for use in a tablet?
I could go on, but in fact it is clear that by FAR most of the technology Apple used to build their products they neither invented, nor licensed. They were not alone in taking the risk to develop the technology. In fact, most of the technology Apple uses was developed by others. They didn't invent computers, programming, debugging environments, graphical interfaces, touch screens, gestures, LCD's, glass, aluminum computer cases, or most of the other technologies fundamental to their products.
They did something innovative by putting the emerging technologies into a product, but that in and of itself isn't invention and should not be covered by a patent.
If I paint a beautiful picture with a unique combination of tools, paints, and canvas, I am deserving of a copyright, but not a patent. Others should be allowed to be inspired by what I put together, and express those ideas in paintings of their own without paying me anything.
Really what Apple produces with their use of existing and new technologies is much more like a painting, putting together existing technology together with their uniquely artistic take. But if we admit that their products are really artistic expressions using existing technology, then they should be able to copyright their exact expression. That does not limit other companies from being inspired, and also put together technology in new and different ways. Apple should not be allowed to suppress others from using technology to "paint" their own products, even if those products compete with Apple.
I would suggest that with 250,000 patents covering smart phones (and I am sure as many patents covering tablets and computers) you are insane if you think Apple doesn't infringe, and in fact every company producing a product infringes.
But this isn't the point. Apple can innovate, take risks, and as long as they continue to do so, they can make money. Should they pause, should they fail to innovate, or should they fail to provide their innovations and cheaply and efficiently as another company, then that other company should also prosper. We should not have to wait TWENTY YEARS before another company can legally pressure Apple to make the next innovation, simply because Apple gets to remove competitors from the market.
Patents are not needed to protect Apple's place in the market. It is silly to think that just anyone can produce an Apple product. There are many things that go into an Apple product above and beyond what can be placed in a set of patents. Just because you see an Apple product in the market doesn't mean you can duplicate that thing.
Let the market decide who wins and who loses. You are not encouraging risk-taking and innovation when you allow Apple and others to remove other products from the market. Furthermore, Apple infringes on the patents of others. If we removed all infringing products we would have NOTHING to buy. Not from Apple, Motorola, not from Samsung, not from Google. Nothing. Is that seriously the right way to go? Should we spend 10x for every product to pay all the companies that have patents that apply? We get innovation DESPITE patents, not because of them. Even in the case of Apple.
I don't want to be accused of hacking my senator's account. I would have to quit my day job and devote my self to writing emails 18 hours a day to protest everything I feel deserves a protest message, and it now seems that even if I could do this, it would be against the law....
I'm no fan of patents, but this is the exact sort of innovation the patent system was designed to protect in the first place. Regardless of the particular patents Apple has chosen to fight with in these battles, can't reasonable people agree that Apple ought to have some protection on their R&D investments?
Uh... No.
You CANNOT patent great execution, and great ideas. You are ONLY allowed to patent actual inventions.
This is the problem with patents today. People think you should be able to patent great ideas like the configuration of technology Apple put into their products. But the fact is that prior to Apple shipping the IPhone and the IPad, people were having to build products out of pre-2009 technology. How much of Apple's success is due to the fact that they thought "Hey, Let's build something small, light, useful, with a great display and great battery life!" and how much was due to the fact that technology improved and suddenly they COULD build such a device?
Just because they built these devices first, and was popular first, does not mean we should hand them the market and artificially shield them from competition.
Instead, we should allow companies to also build great products, and force Apple to CONTINUE to innovate if they want to hold the market. Patents are supposed to ENCOURAGE innovation, but the idea that we should shield Apple from competition just because they got to the top of the current technological peak first is short sided, and frankly scary.
I agree with everything you said, with the exception that Google is more guilty of violating patents than the rest. The fact is, Google produces FEWER products (like cameras, phones, computers) than Apple or Kodak, or LG. By definition then, they are going to be violating FEWER patents than this crowd. In fact, as they mostly just produce software, I'd argue they haven't violated any patents, as I highly question the validity of software patents to begin with, and it is far from certain that SCOTUS will uphold software patents should they being given a case that forces them to settle the issue.
"apple blocks lawsuit from troll inc with their patent..."
That isn't how patents work. You can have fifty patents that say you invented something, but if one troll has one patent that you infringe upon, then you infringe. A Patent never gives you the right to build something. A Patent ONLY gives you the right to block someone else from building something.
That is what is wrong with patents, and what is kinda nifty about this idea is that once the button has been pushed, Google doesn't have any way to protect Apple even if they wanted to. Apple can sue Google, but it doesn't help them stop the attack of these little "Troll Inc." companies.
Just consider them intercontinental patent missiles. Once fired, there isn't any negotiation with Google that is going to help.
This really only works for Google if
1) there is a ready supply of law firms willing to take on this somewhat nasty but likely profitable task
2) Google has enough interesting patents to fire one or two of these attacks to make its point.
3) Google has enough interesting patents to fire off dozens of these attacks if Apple and Oracle don't get the message.
4) Google doesn't mind being evil for a good cause.
"apple blocks lawsuit from troll inc with their patent..." That isn't how patents work. You can have fifty patents that say you invented something, but if one troll has one patent that you infringe upon, then you infringe. A Patent never gives you the right to build something. A Patent ONLY gives you the right to block someone else from building something. That is what is wrong with patents, and what is kinda nifty about this idea is that once the button has been pushed, Google doesn't have any way to protect Apple even if they wanted to. Apple can sue Google, but it doesn't help them stop the attack of these little "Troll Inc." companies. Just consider them intercontinental patent missiles. Once fired, there isn't any negotiation with Google that is going to help. This really only works for Google if 1) there is a ready supply of law firms willing to take on this somewhat nasty but likely profitable task 2) Google has enough interesting patents to fire one or two of these attacks to make its point. 3) Google has enough interesting patents to fire off dozens of these attacks if Apple and Oracle don't get the message. 4) Google doesn't mind being evil for a good cause.
Why not ask the guy what it is. Let him explain why it is there, what it does. Maybe bring in someone with some engineering experience.
If the guy is a suicide bomber, you are already dead. If he isn't, then you have every reason to listen to him. If you can't find any place for explosives to be hiding, then it isn't dangerous.
Wires alone are poor indicators that you have a bomb. Thousands of times of devices have wires and are not bombs than devices with wires that are bombs. Maybe even millions of times as many devices as a TSA agent is going to encounter.
Bombs can be made to look totally innocent. Even if you open them and look at them.
The Intelligent thing to do is to do a bit of training as to what might really be a bomb, and who might really be a bomber, and how to call in someone to evaluate a situation quickly before thousands and thousands of dollars are spent and people's lives are disrupted by something that can be safely evaluated quickly by someone with training.
Well, take a page from Intellectual Ventures.
Sell a few selected patents to an independent shell company. That company, which neither creates or sells products and is out of the control of Google, will be free to sue Apple and Oracle (and any other threat to the Android market) freely for patent infringement, but not Google (due to a contract that went along with the sell). This independent company cannot be targeted for patent infringement no matter how many patents Apple and company might have. Any funds can flow to filing more patents and buying more patents in order to maintain their attacks.
Or better yet, funds collected might be used to fund patent reform efforts (again by contract).
1000 patents is plenty to launch a number of these companies, which could cause Apple huge amounts of damage, while Google itself (not really making phones directly) would be largely immune from this sort of attach.
I have been thinking about this for a while, and can't really see a flaw in the approach, other than it is really Evil.
I remember when bits were made of actual stone, hand crafted, and strung by hand into computational frames. Today's kids don't even understand that this is what we are referring to when we talk about "Frame Works" today. Those Frames were tons of work, let me tell you.
Computational systems used these frames so that sometimes you had to go through several of them to get to your goal (These were the early AND gates), and other times you allowed users to pick which one to pass through (OR gates). When you forced people into exclusive choices (such as gates to bathrooms) these frames were referred to as exclusive gates (use this one if male OR use this wone if female, or XOR gates).
We used simple trip wires in our frame works to implement inverters, Very effective at reducing time wasted with managers. (Generally once a manager has been inverted a few times, they leave you mostly alone.)
Knot gates were generally frameworks made from pine.
I could go on about heat sinks (Hot rocks used to warm water) and other early computational technologies. But all of this is lost on this young crowd who don't even remember Java used to be drunk black for a nickle.
intent - noun
1. something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.
What is intended by this clause is to promote progress. There is no stated intent for the government to protect the economic welfare of authors or inventors. In fact, no citizenship requirements are attached, so we have applied these protections universally, not just to American inventors and authors, because, again, the intent is to promote progress.
If we can promote progress better by reducing Intellectual property rights, doing so would exactly match the constitutional clause here. If increasing intellectual property rights can be shown to fail to promote progress (or in fact limits progress as many studies have shown) then regardless of how much reducing protections of IP might negatively impact authors and inventors, we should reduce those protections.
This clause in the constitution cannot be used to defend laws that do not promote progress. That would not be consistent with this clause, because (and again this isn't semantics, but just reading what the constitution says) the goal is to promote progress.
Nothing I have stated against patents should be construed as an argument against regulation of business. Nothing here should be taken to mean business should be allowed to do anything they want in the name of competition. Patents are assigned by the government to whoever files them, granting a "monopoly" on that invention to the filer for 20 years from the filing date. This allows companies to control supply and set prices. This is why I am against the patent system. Anti-trust laws and regulations to level the market for competition is a good thing, but that is another conversation.
Don't get wound about the axle by using a misaligned analogy.
Without patents, companies and people that wish to produce products can do so, and can compete based on the quality/timeliness/price of their products.
With patents, companies and people that wish to produce products do so under the cover of lawyers, and leverage those lawyers to stomp out smaller, less established competition.
There isn't any proof that competition without patents is in any way more brutal than competition using patents. In fact, there are many examples of the latter.
I have no hope....
I am going to hope that citing the constitution is good enough.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution)
See? Nothing there about a goal of protecting ANYBODY'S economic interests, whether big corporation or individual inventor. The ONLY goal is to promote progress. In as far as the patent system fails to promote progress (and it does in every actual study of the system) it should be reformed if not out right abandoned.
And you are wrong. Patents are not intended to protect the interests of individual inventors either. You are confusing the MECHANISM with the GOAL. Read carefully
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution)
Promote progress. That is the goal. When you have a goal, then you may use some strategy to reach that goal, i.e. provide for a limited time inventors and authors exclusive rights...). But nothing in the constitution provides congress with the right to promote the welfare of Authors and Inventors. In fact, nothing in the constitution indicates that congress has the right to allow an inventor or author to assign their rights to another individual or to a corporation!!! But let us keep our focus. Do we REALLY need to provide authors and inventors with these exclusive rights to promote progress of Science and the useful Arts? With ample corporate funding for the research to improve products, and with ample corporate funding to copy the improvements others make, progress will proceed quite happily without patents. This is because competition is FAR more important than monopoly rights in promoting progress.
There is nothing new in my position here. Benjamin Franklin, while famous for pursuing ways to make money, refused to file patents. He spent time in his autobiography discussing at least one fellow that copied his stove invention and patented it in England and made a fortune. Did the patent system in this case increase progress, or just drop a windfall into the hands of a leach? After all, B. F. had ALREADY invented the stove, and had ALREADY published how to build the stove for anyone to implement. Patents in this case merely CONSTRICTED the use of his technology in the market place.
And if Patents are so necessary for progress, I wonder why Benjamin Franklin wasn't stopped from inventing things and promoting progress, given that he ignored the option of patenting his many inventions? Thomas Jefferson was equally skeptical of the value of patents on philosophical grounds. Look these guys up. From the beginning many questioned the wisdom of going this route, and yet we continue down the rabbit hole as if we can't learn from history.
In the end, if progress is what you are after, competition is the means of making progress accelerate. I know of no study whatsoever where government granted monopolies do a better job of promoting progress than competition. If you have ANY concrete counter examples where patents promoted progress, well, I am all ears.
=== As a matter of background, I submitted 6 patents while working for IBM thinking that my ideas might get implemented if I did this. They didn't, and only two of the patents ended up being granted as I had left IBM. As an "inventor" I only sought to see things made. Patents didn't make that happen. ===
A kidney removal tool as a concept or idea isn't bad either. But should the wide spread application of kidney removal tools on random healthy young children be adopted in the interest of profit by large corporations.... Well, that might certainly contribute the impression that such tools would be "bad".
You can understand the confusion one might have about patents which can only remove products from the market, regardless of the total lack of intention or knowledge of infringement on the part of productive companies. Companies that actually produce products should not be held hostage to established companies seeking to limit competition, or troll companies that don't produce products.
If government is bad and competition is good, then patents are evil.
If you believe in a managed economy where favors are handed to particular companies to control the markets, and a managed political system where corporate cash and influence can appoint government officials to run government in a way that suits corporate interests, then patents have a good side.
Honestly, I see no value in a system that makes a group of high tech companies sink 4.5 billion dollars into paper so they can restrict the choices of consumers rather than invest 4.5 billion dollars into jobs and research.