No company has the right to an income and if they can't profit in 6 years and are net loss making, maybe they should fuck off then.
That's a pretty broad statement to make. Are you implying that Tucker (of automobile fame) should have had no patent protection from the big automakers because he failed to make a profit on his own? Obviously his ideas were worthless if he failed to profit from them. Right?
The case in question sounds fishy, but let's not go off the deep end with the sweeping generalizations...
Does anyone know what the patents in question are for? While this certainly sounds like yet-another-case of someone exploiting the brain dead USPTO examiners and then extorting other companies, isn't it POSSIBLE that the patents are the result of somebody's hard work? Maybe some finance wizard spent years in his basement perfecting an algorithm (something like Black-Scholes) but he didn't have the resources to start his own futures trading firm, so he's just trying to get paid for an invention that everybody uses.
Ok, I'll admit that I'd be surprised if this was the case, but the point I'm trying to make is that the problem isn't software patents (or business process patents, or algorithm patents, or patents in general). The problem is just that it's too easy to get patents for trivial stuff.
I think if the USPTO would simply enforce the "non-obvious" requirement, and use it to mean "non-obvious to experts in the field, not just to the short-bus escapees we hire for examiners" then we wouldn't have as much of a problem.
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever? 'Cause that's what it will be.
I think what's going on is that we're fed up with the DSL/Cable duopoly, which is entirely understandable because they're doing a bad job with bad customer service at high prices. There are few companies I hate more passionately than Time Warner Cable. And, yes, I'm including Microsoft. But to then go running off to mommy and da....oops, I mean government officials...crying "Fix it! Fix it!" is a little short sighted.
Isn't what we really want just more competition? I guess I'd rather see government, whether local, state, or federal, offering various non-permanent subsidies to businesses that wanted to offer competing broadband capabilities. Perhaps only making those subsidies available in communities where current providers failed to meet certain service/price targets.
Huh? What about his back-handed compliment answering the question "What do you like about Linux?" His answer ("real men can tinker more") was a roundabout way of saying "Linux has no real advantage over Windows for 99.999% of the population."
Napster runs these ads about the relative cost of buying 10,000 songs, but I wonder if they bothered to find out how many songs people actually buy. What are the current numbers? 10 million iPods sold, and a couple hundred million songs? So about 20 songs per iPod. I personally have bought maybe $100 worth of music of iTunes, and the rest of my music is either ripped from CDs or left over from the good old days of the original Napster. In the 18 months since iTunes has been around I would have spent $270 on Napster, and if I stopped paying tomorrow I'd lose those 100 songs.
It's funny how MSFT and Napster keep saying "What people really want is a subscription service" but what they mean is "What WE really want is recurring revenues, so we've deluded ourselves into thinking that's what people want without bothering to ask them."
I think this thread is probably dead, but I'll clarify anyway that I wasn't talking about the engineering of the TiBook (I had the same paint chipping problem) but the design/aesthetics/feel of the thing. I wish they could have fixed the engineering flaws without modifying the dimensions/layout/design.
I bought an aluminum G4 PowerBook 15" to replace my TiBook, mostly for the faster processor, backlit keyboard, and acceptable WiFi reception. But I still use the old unit sometimes, and whenever I do I'm immediately struck with how beautifully made it is. It's slightly smaller, the keyboard and trackpad feel nicer...it's really a design masterpiece. It just makes me happy to be using it. The new enclosure gets the job done but Jonathan Ives really took a step back with it.
How do you figure taking a $500 machine, dropping the optical drive and hard drive, then quadrupling (or octupling?) the RAM and upgrading to gigE is going to lower the price "easily" to below $100? Because they'll save $400 worth of plastic on a smaller case, maybe?
Maybe you're expecting the dollar to make a huge comeback.
So let me get this straight...a guy suggests that maybe we shouldn't automatically conclude that gender differences in math/science might not be cultural and that perhaps we should shine the light of scientific inquiry on the problem, and a bunch of women go ballistic and don't want to challenge this sacred notion.
I realize this thread is pretty much dead, but this is the single stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot (and that's saying something) so I can't resist calling attention to it:
"IF NO ONE ASKED YOU TO CREATE SOMETHING, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT TO GET PAID FOR DOING SO!"
Not only that but he admits having said it before. Amazing.
The author claims that an increasingly rich wealthy class is able to "smooth their way" into Ivy schools (via top boarding schools, SAT coaches, etc.) Except that every year the "old boy network" that paved the way into the Ivys for children of the wealthy becomes less effective. For example, George W. probably wouldn't even get into Andover or Yale these days. The top schools also exert a lot more effort recruiting from poor neighborhoods and the inner city. So it would almost make more sense to argue (and I'm not arguing this point, just presenting it as an alternative to show how silly the author's hypothesis is) that it's the increasing number of poor inner city kids at the top schools who are there because of affirmative action and then fail to perform in the real world who are dragging down the numbers at the F100.
Between the text of the original post and all the responses, I sense a certain hostility to Monsanto. Everyone cries about "what if the seeds blow across the road" and "how could it be a crime to plant seeds that I grow?". Ok, two facts:
1) You sign a license when you buy the seeds and you agree not to replant. Simple.
2) If you haven't signed a license, and seeds blow across the road, Monsanto can't sue you because you never signed a license.
I know at first glance Monsanto sounds like the RIAA, and Slashdotters are apparently all too willing to villify them, but they spend a lot of money developing these crops and they have a right to decide how they're licensed.
I quote:
"...promoting open standards that can allow companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, as well as other types of software and other types of technologies to work together and still co-exist in a competitive environment."
What seems to be missing here is "...and small, new companies that challenge the assumptions of these established players."
I like this example because Red vs. Blue (and machinima in general) is an emergent "threat" to established content producers, and P2P makes it possible for a low-budget group to disseminate their original creations.
..and if we don't pay off the robot designers they'll lure our kids off, never to be seen again. YAWWWWWWN. Haven't we heard this plot before?
No, seriously, the interesting part of this will be to see how quickly cockroaches evolve to counter the robots. And the ensuing arms race twixt nature & engineers will be endlessly amusing.
The problem with terms like "Intellectual Property" and "Copyright" is that we start to think of it as some kind of natural law, i.e. that we have inalienable and exclusive moral right to an idea just because we thought of it first.
No.
We have a legal right because some government has granted us monopoly. Why? Because said government has deemed it beneficial to Commerce, in the belief/hope that it would stimulate innovation.
Unfortunately the prevailing attitude seems to be that Intellectual Property is a natural right. That's why the system has become skewed so badly. Governments should get back to thinking about what actually promotes innovation and adjusting the laws accordingly. Or, more specfically, how they are interpreted/enforced. The "non-obvious" condition should be enough to get things back on track, if only the USPTO and it's sibling organizations would actually give it some weight.
While this is a tactical victory, it does mean that it will be harder to completely overturn the DMCA. We (or the EFF...give them money please) will no longer be able to use these sorts of flagrant abuse cases for grounds of rethinking the whole thing.
Lenin was opposed to trade unions because he was afraid their successes would appease the workers enough that they would lose interest in full revolution. Similar case here, methinks.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a pretty broad statement to make. Are you implying that Tucker (of automobile fame) should have had no patent protection from the big automakers because he failed to make a profit on his own? Obviously his ideas were worthless if he failed to profit from them. Right?
The case in question sounds fishy, but let's not go off the deep end with the sweeping generalizations...
Ok, I'll admit that I'd be surprised if this was the case, but the point I'm trying to make is that the problem isn't software patents (or business process patents, or algorithm patents, or patents in general). The problem is just that it's too easy to get patents for trivial stuff.
I think if the USPTO would simply enforce the "non-obvious" requirement, and use it to mean "non-obvious to experts in the field, not just to the short-bus escapees we hire for examiners" then we wouldn't have as much of a problem.
I think what's going on is that we're fed up with the DSL/Cable duopoly, which is entirely understandable because they're doing a bad job with bad customer service at high prices. There are few companies I hate more passionately than Time Warner Cable. And, yes, I'm including Microsoft. But to then go running off to mommy and da....oops, I mean government officials...crying "Fix it! Fix it!" is a little short sighted.
Isn't what we really want just more competition? I guess I'd rather see government, whether local, state, or federal, offering various non-permanent subsidies to businesses that wanted to offer competing broadband capabilities. Perhaps only making those subsidies available in communities where current providers failed to meet certain service/price targets.
Huh? What about his back-handed compliment answering the question "What do you like about Linux?" His answer ("real men can tinker more") was a roundabout way of saying "Linux has no real advantage over Windows for 99.999% of the population."
It's funny how MSFT and Napster keep saying "What people really want is a subscription service" but what they mean is "What WE really want is recurring revenues, so we've deluded ourselves into thinking that's what people want without bothering to ask them."
This would be a lot more useful with bar charts rather than numbers.
On second thought, I think the answer IS the same.
Or write a EULA that says "I won't sue Google for using any of the ad words I'm bidding on."
Posted to the wrong story....
Did anyone else notice that the RIAA spokesman's name is "Lamy"?
Here's the inside scoop.
I think this thread is probably dead, but I'll clarify anyway that I wasn't talking about the engineering of the TiBook (I had the same paint chipping problem) but the design/aesthetics/feel of the thing. I wish they could have fixed the engineering flaws without modifying the dimensions/layout/design.
I bought an aluminum G4 PowerBook 15" to replace my TiBook, mostly for the faster processor, backlit keyboard, and acceptable WiFi reception. But I still use the old unit sometimes, and whenever I do I'm immediately struck with how beautifully made it is. It's slightly smaller, the keyboard and trackpad feel nicer...it's really a design masterpiece. It just makes me happy to be using it. The new enclosure gets the job done but Jonathan Ives really took a step back with it.
How do you figure taking a $500 machine, dropping the optical drive and hard drive, then quadrupling (or octupling?) the RAM and upgrading to gigE is going to lower the price "easily" to below $100? Because they'll save $400 worth of plastic on a smaller case, maybe? Maybe you're expecting the dollar to make a huge comeback.
(cough)
Does anybody else see the irony here?
"IF NO ONE ASKED YOU TO CREATE SOMETHING, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT TO GET PAID FOR DOING SO!"
Not only that but he admits having said it before. Amazing.
Hmmm...or maybe I AM making that argument.
1) You sign a license when you buy the seeds and you agree not to replant. Simple.
2) If you haven't signed a license, and seeds blow across the road, Monsanto can't sue you because you never signed a license.
I know at first glance Monsanto sounds like the RIAA, and Slashdotters are apparently all too willing to villify them, but they spend a lot of money developing these crops and they have a right to decide how they're licensed.
What seems to be missing here is "...and small, new companies that challenge the assumptions of these established players."
Or do they still use BitTorrent....?
So THAT'S where Saddam hid those UMDs.
..and if we don't pay off the robot designers they'll lure our kids off, never to be seen again. YAWWWWWWN. Haven't we heard this plot before? No, seriously, the interesting part of this will be to see how quickly cockroaches evolve to counter the robots. And the ensuing arms race twixt nature & engineers will be endlessly amusing.
No.
We have a legal right because some government has granted us monopoly. Why? Because said government has deemed it beneficial to Commerce, in the belief/hope that it would stimulate innovation.Unfortunately the prevailing attitude seems to be that Intellectual Property is a natural right. That's why the system has become skewed so badly. Governments should get back to thinking about what actually promotes innovation and adjusting the laws accordingly. Or, more specfically, how they are interpreted/enforced. The "non-obvious" condition should be enough to get things back on track, if only the USPTO and it's sibling organizations would actually give it some weight.
Lenin was opposed to trade unions because he was afraid their successes would appease the workers enough that they would lose interest in full revolution. Similar case here, methinks.
Intentionally spreading FUD about their _own_ products?