"I can't help feeling that our legal system just missed an opportunity to reign in patent abuse."
Try to help it, because the proper role of the Supreme Court (your agreement/disagreement with any other rulings notwithstanding) is not to legislate but to test the legality of rulings.
Although this fine point may be missed by some, it is nevertheless a key point.
Remember the legality of the patent system is not the core issue in this case, but rather the extent to which patents can be interpreted in resolving intellectual property disputes.
Summary for the "Law for Dummies" crowd: Just because the case is topically related to an issue close to your heart, doesn't mean it's the court's job to solve every perceived inequity within the subject range. The courts primarily serve as an interpretive body and not a legislative body.
The Supreme Court in this case rightly rejected the lower court's illegal provision which based the consideration of equivalents on a technical matter of modifications made during the application process.
It is not for the Supreme Court to sniff out law-making opportunities out of an issue-related case, but rather, to deal with each case as it comes to them through the court system.
Yes but you see, that's the trouble with centrally organized and planned economies. Because economic power gets centralized in the hands of government instead of decentralized in private hands, it becomes a honey magnet for all sorts of fascist riff-raff.
There is of course a redress process called anti-trust law when power is unduly centralized in private hands, and a redress process called elections when power is unduly centralized in government. However, a central government obsessed with social organization and control will tend to disinform its citizens because socialism is more about coercion than about voluntary association.
Socialism fails in places where the moral environment doesn't permit it to succeed, and where private citizens are willing to sacrifice their important self-interest for the sake of an abstract social good that is more often seized upon by opportunists than is scrutinized and examined by honest people.
Such is the nature of people who desire central control over economies -- they may think they're morally superior and/or technically more agile, but in the end, both the human desire for self-determination and certain cultural traditions demand a distributed architecture and voluntary association as inalienable roots of freedom.
If, as the poster above suggests, there has "never been a socialist country in the history of the world" this just goes to show how totally impracticable socialism truly is. If an idea sits in the clouds and can never take root, it's not much of a philosophy in the real world... just wishful thinking.
If only wishful thinking were so benign.
From that well-intentioned wishful thinking classes of gullible people frequently emerge who are willing to sacrifice their self interests and rights for the mere sake of anyone claiming good intentions; standards of performance are held as a lower priority to rightful thinking.
So powerful is the illusion to some people that they begin to think in extremes that suggest nearly all "selfishness" is bad and nearly all "selflessness" is good. Some, in fact, discard the merits of specific arguments altogether in favor of a litmus test that measures people and ideas in terms of their claims of selflessness or selfishness.
In accepting this twisted value system, such people begin to accept the absolute destruction of self, for the sake of an abstract fiction of "greater good," which is itself poorly delineated and which has no definitive definition except for the whims of people who dare lay claim to represent the "will of the masses."
It is by these relatively quiet and simple thought processes that fertile ground emerges for dictatorships.
The reason it's profitable to make crap is because it's *un*profitable to make quality products, which require people who are willing to *pay* hard-earned cash to finance their development.
In a world where everyone wants everything for free, that's precisely why we get crap. Granted there are companies that seem to specialize in making crap products and make their quid that way, but people who buy such products deserve what they get.
If the demand for good products is really so great, there's no point in standing around complaining about crap companies that aren't going to change. Change ISPs already.
Generally speaking, the idea that people lose jobs because things actually work is shortsighted. When things work, society as a whole is wealthier and healthier, and people move on to higher order activities and jobs emerge from that (even as old jobs disappear). There's no sense in deciding that economics is somehow advanced by breaking things.
This is best illustrated in the capitalist method of productizing services. Over time, services that rely on inconsistent human process are quantified and delivered as products, which bear more regularized methods of production and the risks of which can be borne by the manufacturer with greater reliability.
Why then is it unprofitable to make high quality products? Two possible reasons: 1) people are uneducated about their choices, 2) an unfilled market opportunity exists, and/or 3) the market in general has an unrealistic expectation of what can be delivered for the price they're willing to pay.
None of the three options above really warrant a lot of complaining. That's why choices exist. In theory, the real problem here is the fact that the market has not been deregulated sufficiently to allow peer competitors to cable and phone company monopolies. More competition, not plantation mentality (which results from being stuck with only one ISP in your market) is the answer.
In case anyone hasn't checked lately, might be a good moment to look up your local high bandwidth providor's financial filings for the last few quarters. If anyone thinks they're being "gouged" to pad some corporate coffers, think again... there's not a whole lotta profit going on out there.
Building large networks and maintaining them (especially in the last mile segment, and even in the "last chair" segment where many users require a lot of hand holding and special labor intensive setup) is a pretty expensive business. You can be sure that these networks in many cases do, however, have a vested interest in delivering high bandwidth content to their users (Time Warner is a perfect example). I suspect users won't have to spearhead the complaint department regarding per-use charges. Wait and watch the fireworks when TW's content divisions realize that their audience is being gutted by their ISP division. That will be interesting, indeed.
A prognosis on that: Look for networks to begin the process of developing verticalization schemes, wherein TW cable modem subscribers receive bandwidth limit exemptions for viewing content from the TW family of media companies. Think it won't happen?
This is the window through which everything will be shoved, and you will find yourself using high bandwidth Internet version of "Network" content (much like the early efforts of the Yahoos, MSNs, AOLs of the world).
I really hope I'm wrong, but unfortunately I rarely am!;-)
-silly
Re:running away from the world
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It may be you took my post as responding to you in particular, when I was referring to the general character of posts -- not yours per se. Yours inspired a response, but I realize you see more than the single-minded vision of America being at the root of all problems.
However, there are some problems with your response.
You write: "It's probably as incomprehensible to you as to most Americans that believe that innocent civilians should not be the targets of political violence. But there it is. It's real. They believe something different, even if you think it's a crock."
Go back and read my post -- I think you didn't read my understanding correctly. I am not deying that ignorant and violent people exist or that they have different points of view (this seems to be your impression of my post): JUST the opposite.
I'm not saying it's incomprehensible; in fact I'm saying you misjudge people when you accuse them of being "suprised" in a manner that lacks apprehension. The shock people experienced on 9/11 was overwhelmingly shock at the horror of the event, and the nature of the target. It's one thing to see a military target attacked, but when a civilian target is hit, yes indeed, that represents surprise: not an act of violence has occurred, but that it has been carried out against civilians.
I may grant you that this punctured some sense of safety many Americans have felt, but that does not change the simple fact that *most Americans do understand that some people hate America.* One would have to have been blind in the last half century to not understand that.
Your theory that Americans don't know or care what's going on in the world is simply untrue. Americans may not be interested in getting involved in every conflict that you want them to get involved in, but I can assure you that when they do, some of the same people who protest lack of involvement (not necessarily you in this case) will be right there to criticize that interest and involvement. The arguments about involvement or non-involvement are generally hollow and have no serious consequence. In the international, arena, America is criticized for being involved; and then, for not being involved. A difference of principle or opinion is considered ignorance, rather than a difference of opinion. I tell you many times, this perception by outsiders is itself a shallow kind of ignorance. This is not my prognosis for how the whole world operates, but I highlight it here because it is an arrogance that is often overlooked.
Some people can never be made happy, no matter what choices America makes. The fact of my personal experience in this lifetime is that most Americans are good hearted people and do care about others, and are interested. Is everyone an intellectual pyramid about what's going on in the world? No more than in other places in the world -- why measure people according to nations in this regard? Is there a nation in the world that you can single out as being particulary informed about America? Do you see why I might find failure in this point?
Whether most Americans speak more than one language or not may deprive them of some cultural breadth, but that is more than made up for in the rich tapestry of immigrant culture that has helped build America over the generations. Language is a feature of culture but it's not the only feature. Furthermore, 10% of the U.S. population is foreign born, and these influences do contribute to what people understand about the world. How many nations can say that? Yes, there are people who don't appreciate that instruction and influence, but the tact of blaming people en masse for what they don't understand and with the flimsiest of explanations is a completely ineffective method of instruction. The aggregate effect of that in media and public discourse conditions people to listen less to criticism, not more.
I'm not denying flaws -- certainly they exist (who can say that's not true of any nation?). But there are some people in America and elsewhere who will deny the virtues of America or deny the flaws of other nations out of hand -- as a reflexive movement. That's the only thing I have a problem with -- not you or your post (and please remember the liberty I've taken to express some general comments here that are not tied to what you said -- this is not aimed at you per se).
As for what happened on 9/11, it's not a matter of being incomprehensible to me. I comprehend it exactly: it's *reprehensible* to me. Somehow, although it may not suit your definition, I manage myself to be aghast at what I find reprehensible. However it does not indicate a lack of understanding or previous expectation on my part. There's a difference.
In short, I fully expect more horrible terrorist attacks against innocents to occur in the world, and quite possibly in America again in the future. If you pursue the mathematical odds, history would suggest this is inevitable on one scale or another. I would say other Americans equally share that understanding. However people will still be shocked and aghast when such things happen. It is not a sound basis for criticizing the level of understanding of what differences in opinion exist in the world.
On another point: Yes, some people think they did a good thing, but it's morally and ethically unjustifiable. I understand some people have a different point of view but that doesn't compel me to pander to it as being a view worthy of equal treatment. The celebration of and actual death of innocent people purely on the basis of nationality, race, gender, or any other accepted social classification you can think of is wrong. Period. If you wish you can write it off as an existential equality, but I'm not an existentialist and perhaps you are not either, but if you are we shall forever differ on this point!
I fully understand there are many and varied viewpoints in the world. If you begin from the vantage point that I don't understand this, you fail to see the nuance I am trying to illustrate here. The point is not that I can't see that nuance. I can, and I fully appreciate the presence of that ignorance in many parts of the world -- an ignorance that suggests to people that they can use violence against innocent people as a means to protest or solve a problem. There are people in every part of the world who have that misguided view -- I take no position on which nation has or has not ignorance. They all have a share.
In your recent post you write, "I think America is more than that, but I harbor no illusions that just because we are good, that the rest of the world will automatically know it just as we know it."
If you have this patience for the world, perhaps you should take a step back and exercise the same patience -- or at least positive effort -- for America. You may recall in your earler post, you write:
"That's why most Americans were aghast and surprised by the 9/11 attack, because most of them didn't have any clue about the ideas that circulating in the rest of the world."
If you "harbor no illusions" about the rest of the world "automatically" understanding America, then why do you 'blame' Americans for not automatically understanding the rest of the world?
I see this as a double standard.
-silly
Re:running away from the world
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Many of the knee-jerk rabidly anti-American arguments here are prejudiced if not simply incompetent. Americans were not "surprised" at being attacked because they have some sort of fantasy about everyone in the world liking them. People are "surprised" that anyone would have the utter lack of decency and humanity required to carry off such a horrific attack against innocent people. In short, Americans tend to expect the best from people -- they tend to hope and expect that other people are moral and just. This is the characteristic American openness that in some ways helped make 9/11 possible. Don't get me wrong -- I like that openness, though I dislike when people exploit it.
Saying that America is at the same time insular and has profound reach and influence in the world is a convenient argument of fiction designed to drag America's name through the mud either way you go. No nation is perfect and all nations are guilty by their collective natures.
I would agree with you that the free movement of corporations amongst nations can represent a risk, but it can also represent a protection. Nations must be able to compete with each other for the benefits that corporations can bring. The consistent basis for protection against abuse of that flexibility is norms of international law that protect individuals as well as corporations from harmful and illegal influences.
It's really tiring to hear the old line though of "it's America's fault" when either a) barely a shred of discussion is offered to support the argument, or b) no contrary examples are offered to explain the horrible actions perpetrated by other nations.
The problem is not that the world is overrun by American influence and culture. The problem is that the world needs to stop being so obsessed with America and get on with the business of minding their own business, with a healthy understanding that both 1) extreme attachments to nationalism and 2) knee-jerk accusations of nationalism represent the same kind of prejudice.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world.
Nothing will satisfy such people. They argue toward self-defamation, and not toward the truth.
Obviously Reuters hasn't yet "mutated" into a real news organization. They are constantly issuing basic factual errors like this... they and abcnews.com are both becoming huge embarrassments to themselves. Journalism is dead.
Actually all they have to do is remarket the iPod as a generic storage device or a platform, and make software optional (but readily available). This does raise some interesting questions as to what constitutes storage media and/or an MP3 player.
Slashdot Mirror
"I can't help feeling that our legal system just missed an opportunity to reign in patent abuse."
Try to help it, because the proper role of the Supreme Court (your agreement/disagreement with any other rulings notwithstanding) is not to legislate but to test the legality of rulings.
Although this fine point may be missed by some, it is nevertheless a key point.
Remember the legality of the patent system is not the core issue in this case, but rather the extent to which patents can be interpreted in resolving intellectual property disputes.
Summary for the "Law for Dummies" crowd: Just because the case is topically related to an issue close to your heart, doesn't mean it's the court's job to solve every perceived inequity within the subject range. The courts primarily serve as an interpretive body and not a legislative body.
The Supreme Court in this case rightly rejected the lower court's illegal provision which based the consideration of equivalents on a technical matter of modifications made during the application process.
It is not for the Supreme Court to sniff out law-making opportunities out of an issue-related case, but rather, to deal with each case as it comes to them through the court system.
-silly
Ah, but it's really much simpler... ... one would not exist without the other.
What about Disney-CapCities-ABC-etc.
What about AOL-Time-Warner-RoadRunner-Turner-CNN-etc.
There are a few more megas than you think...
There is of course a redress process called anti-trust law when power is unduly centralized in private hands, and a redress process called elections when power is unduly centralized in government. However, a central government obsessed with social organization and control will tend to disinform its citizens because socialism is more about coercion than about voluntary association.
Socialism fails in places where the moral environment doesn't permit it to succeed, and where private citizens are willing to sacrifice their important self-interest for the sake of an abstract social good that is more often seized upon by opportunists than is scrutinized and examined by honest people.
Such is the nature of people who desire central control over economies -- they may think they're morally superior and/or technically more agile, but in the end, both the human desire for self-determination and certain cultural traditions demand a distributed architecture and voluntary association as inalienable roots of freedom.
If, as the poster above suggests, there has "never been a socialist country in the history of the world" this just goes to show how totally impracticable socialism truly is. If an idea sits in the clouds and can never take root, it's not much of a philosophy in the real world... just wishful thinking.
If only wishful thinking were so benign.
From that well-intentioned wishful thinking classes of gullible people frequently emerge who are willing to sacrifice their self interests and rights for the mere sake of anyone claiming good intentions; standards of performance are held as a lower priority to rightful thinking.
So powerful is the illusion to some people that they begin to think in extremes that suggest nearly all "selfishness" is bad and nearly all "selflessness" is good. Some, in fact, discard the merits of specific arguments altogether in favor of a litmus test that measures people and ideas in terms of their claims of selflessness or selfishness.
In accepting this twisted value system, such people begin to accept the absolute destruction of self, for the sake of an abstract fiction of "greater good," which is itself poorly delineated and which has no definitive definition except for the whims of people who dare lay claim to represent the "will of the masses."
It is by these relatively quiet and simple thought processes that fertile ground emerges for dictatorships.
Don't be surprised when it happens to you.
-sillyopolis
In a world where everyone wants everything for free, that's precisely why we get crap. Granted there are companies that seem to specialize in making crap products and make their quid that way, but people who buy such products deserve what they get.
If the demand for good products is really so great, there's no point in standing around complaining about crap companies that aren't going to change. Change ISPs already.
Generally speaking, the idea that people lose jobs because things actually work is shortsighted. When things work, society as a whole is wealthier and healthier, and people move on to higher order activities and jobs emerge from that (even as old jobs disappear). There's no sense in deciding that economics is somehow advanced by breaking things.
This is best illustrated in the capitalist method of productizing services. Over time, services that rely on inconsistent human process are quantified and delivered as products, which bear more regularized methods of production and the risks of which can be borne by the manufacturer with greater reliability.
Why then is it unprofitable to make high quality products? Two possible reasons: 1) people are uneducated about their choices, 2) an unfilled market opportunity exists, and/or 3) the market in general has an unrealistic expectation of what can be delivered for the price they're willing to pay.
None of the three options above really warrant a lot of complaining. That's why choices exist. In theory, the real problem here is the fact that the market has not been deregulated sufficiently to allow peer competitors to cable and phone company monopolies. More competition, not plantation mentality (which results from being stuck with only one ISP in your market) is the answer.
In case anyone hasn't checked lately, might be a good moment to look up your local high bandwidth providor's financial filings for the last few quarters. If anyone thinks they're being "gouged" to pad some corporate coffers, think again... there's not a whole lotta profit going on out there.
Building large networks and maintaining them (especially in the last mile segment, and even in the "last chair" segment where many users require a lot of hand holding and special labor intensive setup) is a pretty expensive business. You can be sure that these networks in many cases do, however, have a vested interest in delivering high bandwidth content to their users (Time Warner is a perfect example). I suspect users won't have to spearhead the complaint department regarding per-use charges. Wait and watch the fireworks when TW's content divisions realize that their audience is being gutted by their ISP division. That will be interesting, indeed.
A prognosis on that: Look for networks to begin the process of developing verticalization schemes, wherein TW cable modem subscribers receive bandwidth limit exemptions for viewing content from the TW family of media companies. Think it won't happen?
This is the window through which everything will be shoved, and you will find yourself using high bandwidth Internet version of "Network" content (much like the early efforts of the Yahoos, MSNs, AOLs of the world).
I really hope I'm wrong, but unfortunately I rarely am! ;-)
-silly
It may be you took my post as responding to you in particular, when I was referring to the general character of posts -- not yours per se. Yours inspired a response, but I realize you see more than the single-minded vision of America being at the root of all problems.
However, there are some problems with your response.
You write: "It's probably as incomprehensible to you as to most Americans that believe that innocent civilians should not be the targets of political violence. But there it is. It's real. They believe something different, even if you think it's a crock."
Go back and read my post -- I think you didn't read my understanding correctly. I am not deying that ignorant and violent people exist or that they have different points of view (this seems to be your impression of my post): JUST the opposite.
I'm not saying it's incomprehensible; in fact I'm saying you misjudge people when you accuse them of being "suprised" in a manner that lacks apprehension. The shock people experienced on 9/11 was overwhelmingly shock at the horror of the event, and the nature of the target. It's one thing to see a military target attacked, but when a civilian target is hit, yes indeed, that represents surprise: not an act of violence has occurred, but that it has been carried out against civilians.
I may grant you that this punctured some sense of safety many Americans have felt, but that does not change the simple fact that *most Americans do understand that some people hate America.* One would have to have been blind in the last half century to not understand that.
Your theory that Americans don't know or care what's going on in the world is simply untrue. Americans may not be interested in getting involved in every conflict that you want them to get involved in, but I can assure you that when they do, some of the same people who protest lack of involvement (not necessarily you in this case) will be right there to criticize that interest and involvement. The arguments about involvement or non-involvement are generally hollow and have no serious consequence. In the international, arena, America is criticized for being involved; and then, for not being involved. A difference of principle or opinion is considered ignorance, rather than a difference of opinion. I tell you many times, this perception by outsiders is itself a shallow kind of ignorance. This is not my prognosis for how the whole world operates, but I highlight it here because it is an arrogance that is often overlooked.
Some people can never be made happy, no matter what choices America makes. The fact of my personal experience in this lifetime is that most Americans are good hearted people and do care about others, and are interested. Is everyone an intellectual pyramid about what's going on in the world? No more than in other places in the world -- why measure people according to nations in this regard? Is there a nation in the world that you can single out as being particulary informed about America? Do you see why I might find failure in this point?
Whether most Americans speak more than one language or not may deprive them of some cultural breadth, but that is more than made up for in the rich tapestry of immigrant culture that has helped build America over the generations. Language is a feature of culture but it's not the only feature. Furthermore, 10% of the U.S. population is foreign born, and these influences do contribute to what people understand about the world. How many nations can say that? Yes, there are people who don't appreciate that instruction and influence, but the tact of blaming people en masse for what they don't understand and with the flimsiest of explanations is a completely ineffective method of instruction. The aggregate effect of that in media and public discourse conditions people to listen less to criticism, not more.
I'm not denying flaws -- certainly they exist (who can say that's not true of any nation?). But there are some people in America and elsewhere who will deny the virtues of America or deny the flaws of other nations out of hand -- as a reflexive movement. That's the only thing I have a problem with -- not you or your post (and please remember the liberty I've taken to express some general comments here that are not tied to what you said -- this is not aimed at you per se).
As for what happened on 9/11, it's not a matter of being incomprehensible to me. I comprehend it exactly: it's *reprehensible* to me. Somehow, although it may not suit your definition, I manage myself to be aghast at what I find reprehensible. However it does not indicate a lack of understanding or previous expectation on my part. There's a difference.
In short, I fully expect more horrible terrorist attacks against innocents to occur in the world, and quite possibly in America again in the future. If you pursue the mathematical odds, history would suggest this is inevitable on one scale or another. I would say other Americans equally share that understanding. However people will still be shocked and aghast when such things happen. It is not a sound basis for criticizing the level of understanding of what differences in opinion exist in the world.
On another point: Yes, some people think they did a good thing, but it's morally and ethically unjustifiable. I understand some people have a different point of view but that doesn't compel me to pander to it as being a view worthy of equal treatment. The celebration of and actual death of innocent people purely on the basis of nationality, race, gender, or any other accepted social classification you can think of is wrong. Period. If you wish you can write it off as an existential equality, but I'm not an existentialist and perhaps you are not either, but if you are we shall forever differ on this point!
I fully understand there are many and varied viewpoints in the world. If you begin from the vantage point that I don't understand this, you fail to see the nuance I am trying to illustrate here. The point is not that I can't see that nuance. I can, and I fully appreciate the presence of that ignorance in many parts of the world -- an ignorance that suggests to people that they can use violence against innocent people as a means to protest or solve a problem. There are people in every part of the world who have that misguided view -- I take no position on which nation has or has not ignorance. They all have a share.
In your recent post you write, "I think America is more than that, but I harbor no illusions that just because we are good, that the rest of the world will automatically know it just as we know it."
If you have this patience for the world, perhaps you should take a step back and exercise the same patience -- or at least positive effort -- for America. You may recall in your earler post, you write:
"That's why most Americans were aghast and surprised by the 9/11 attack, because most of them didn't have any clue about the ideas that circulating in the rest of the world."
If you "harbor no illusions" about the rest of the world "automatically" understanding America, then why do you 'blame' Americans for not automatically understanding the rest of the world?
I see this as a double standard.
-silly
Many of the knee-jerk rabidly anti-American arguments here are prejudiced if not simply incompetent. Americans were not "surprised" at being attacked because they have some sort of fantasy about everyone in the world liking them. People are "surprised" that anyone would have the utter lack of decency and humanity required to carry off such a horrific attack against innocent people. In short, Americans tend to expect the best from people -- they tend to hope and expect that other people are moral and just. This is the characteristic American openness that in some ways helped make 9/11 possible. Don't get me wrong -- I like that openness, though I dislike when people exploit it.
Saying that America is at the same time insular and has profound reach and influence in the world is a convenient argument of fiction designed to drag America's name through the mud either way you go. No nation is perfect and all nations are guilty by their collective natures.
I would agree with you that the free movement of corporations amongst nations can represent a risk, but it can also represent a protection. Nations must be able to compete with each other for the benefits that corporations can bring. The consistent basis for protection against abuse of that flexibility is norms of international law that protect individuals as well as corporations from harmful and illegal influences.
It's really tiring to hear the old line though of "it's America's fault" when either a) barely a shred of discussion is offered to support the argument, or b) no contrary examples are offered to explain the horrible actions perpetrated by other nations.
The problem is not that the world is overrun by American influence and culture. The problem is that the world needs to stop being so obsessed with America and get on with the business of minding their own business, with a healthy understanding that both 1) extreme attachments to nationalism and 2) knee-jerk accusations of nationalism represent the same kind of prejudice.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world.
Nothing will satisfy such people. They argue toward self-defamation, and not toward the truth.
Obviously Reuters hasn't yet "mutated" into a real news organization. They are constantly issuing basic factual errors like this... they and abcnews.com are both becoming huge embarrassments to themselves. Journalism is dead.
Actually all they have to do is remarket the iPod as a generic storage device or a platform, and make software optional (but readily available). This does raise some interesting questions as to what constitutes storage media and/or an MP3 player.