That's roughly how it should work in regards to a question about the validity of a legitimate patent. The insane amounts of money being spent on patents (and patent defense) are a direct result of the Patent Office granting invalid patents and expecting the courts to sort it out later, and companies determined to suppress competition by legal action backed by invalid patents. That is not how it is supposed to work! The reason that we even have Patent Examiners is to try and avoid this very problem: a well-written and properly-reviewed patent should be solid and hardly worth attacking. It's the Examiner's job to make sure that's the case. Put it this way: if you're just going to let anyone claim anything and have lawyers handle the determination of validity you might as well just abolish the Patent Office right now and get it over with.
The unfortunate truth is that the USPTO has fallen down on the job, and blame for that can be laid squarely at Congress' feet.
Yes, indeed, we should bitchslap the lawmakers. Maybe have Hulk Hogan teach them a few new moves, preferably painful ones that leave bruises.
I disagree that corporations should be given a free pass on unethical or illegal behavior just because it's in the interests of the stockholders. If you think about it, it is just that attitude that has brought corporate America to it's knees. "Go ahead, Mr. CEO, use every weapon available to you so long as the stock price doesn't drop, and don't worry about that 'ethics' thing, because if you get too concerned about wrongdoing we'll just fire your ass and bring in someone less scrupulous." How is that beneficial to anyone but the stockholder? In fact, long term, it's not beneficial to anyone, including the stockholders. Well, other than upper management, that is, who are generally so insulated from the effects of their actions that it doesn't much matter to them.
Worse yet, the reason that U.S. patent law is up the creek is Amazon's fault! Amazon and all the rest of the corporations that went to Washington and bought changes to patent law, and the funding changes to the USPTO itself. Those were things that Congress would never have thought up on its own: they were pushed into it by corporations that wanted to gain even more control over America's intellectual capital.
So far as I'm concerned, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, and all the other companies run by sociopaths can go to Hell. Create, invent, and compete on your merits: if you can't do that you don't deserve to be in business. The granting of, and enforcement of, utterly baseless patents doesn't do anything but force the transfer of our wealth to people that have no right to it.
Jeff Bezos should be fired for being an antisocial jackass with criminal tendencies. He, and those like him, are running the United States into the ground, because they aren't leaving any room in their thought processes for anyone but themselves.
Look up the term "enlightened capitalism" sometime, look at the positive effects that it brought to Western civilization, and think for yourself how little it applies to Bezos and people of his caliber.
They guy is right... Amazon does deserve to be smacked down, for this and for other things. And you can lay the rest of corporate America right out there alongside them.
Still, if this works, if Amazon's infamous patent is revoked by the efforts of a single individual unaided by professional legal representation, then there's hope that a load of other crap can be invalided the same way. Of course, the behavior of Amazon's own lawyers probably isn't hurting his case either.
Most of them enable sharing by default, which behavior seems to be what has enabled most of the RIAA lawsuits. Turning it off is a good idea, all things considered, if you live in the U.S.
ShareMonkey is a service for those p2p users that download copyrighted files in a "try before you buy" capacity and is an attempt to bridge the gap between copyright infringement and subsequent purchasing of a product.
Doesn't matter. They'll either get the crap sued out of them, or be forced to give up their logs to the RIAA, which will just result in another round of "settlements."
That's a busload of energy, all right: guess they must be using the newly-discovered "greyhoundon" particles. Well, we did beat the aliens in the first Independence Day movie, it's true, but it would be wise to get the collider up and running as soon as possible. That way, we'll have something to shoot back with when the really big ships come.
had tethers, presumably for power since the controls seemed to be RF. I'd be more impressed if the things were flying under their own power carrying a payload.
Why is it that saying anything negative about another country is always turned into a discussion about racism and bigotry? It immediately poisons further dialog when it is applied without reason. If you have some reason to think the OP is prejudiced I'd like to hear it, because I didn't read that into his comment. I hear a lot of negative comments about the United States on Slashdot (yours, for one, which is interesting) but I don't immediately conclude that prejudice is the root of it. Sometimes it is, but it's nice to find that out first before jumping to any conclusions.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that China's government and industry are completely unconcerned about the source of the technology that they mass-produce and sell to everyone. They just don't care, period, and I suppose when you get right down to it there's no reason they should. On the other hand, that just means there's no reason why we should respect their "intellectual property" either, and when their scientists and engineers come up with something good they damn well shouldn't expect us to concern ourselves over their rights either. If Google did indeed rip off their Chinese counterparts my feeling is... more power to 'em.
So, it's not a statement of prejudice (e.g. "I dislike Chinese people because they are Chinese, or have yellow skin, or slanted eyes, or talk funny") but a legitimate observation on the state of affairs in that country.
Just watch it when you start playing the race card without a good reason... it prejudices any argument you make after that point.
Strange how you wouldn't have said this if it was Microsoft.
You're definitely new here. We complain about Microsoft pinching other people's work continuously here on Slashdot, mainly because Microsoft does, continuously. We also regularly bitch about how the current patent and copyright systems here in the United States are seriously flawed. And the OP is correct in pointing out that China has always been, shall we say, less than respectful of others' rights in this regard ("blatantly ripping them off" is as good a description as any.)
The other big example of that kind of influence would be the pharmaceutical outfits. They've been using such tactics on doctors and hospitals for decades.
Of course, the USA couldn't possibly conceive of an entity that could provide a decent service because it wasn't shoving handfuls of cash into its CEOs pockets instead of investing it in infrastructure.
That's not really fair. Our phone system under AT&T was the best in the world, with massive investment in infrastructure and actual quality of service standards with teeth, and a common carrier regulatory structure that required access for all. So we did understand that for a long time. Wasn't the cheapest system by a long shot, but then again it pretty much just always worked. Granted, AT&T knew how to manipulate Washington like nobody else, but nevertheless the build-out was there, the investment in new technology was there, and the system did its job.
It was recognized by our government a century ago that government wasn't the best entity to build such a system (too inefficient, too corrupt), and that the private sector couldn't be trusted to handle it on its own since reliability and universal coverage were important goals. So a tightly-regulated but still private-sector corporation was formed to handle it. They had a government-granted monopoly, they could make money, but there were conditions attached. And honestly, that worked pretty well for a long time. The job got done, AT&T served its purpose.
The real problem with adding taxes for specific purposes is that, once the revenue stream is established, Congress, State legislatures and anyone else wanting a handout will immediately try to dip their hands into the flow. Very little of the monies collected would go anywhere near building out or maintaining the network or creating content. Worse yet, the government would want control of that content... could you imagine how much Congress or the Bush Administration would like to control the production of our TV programming? They're doing enough damage to scientific research in this country just because they hold the purse strings to so much of it. No thanks. No way.
What we really need is to re-establish the quality of service and universal coverage standards that we had under the Bell System, which means making all service providers (for there really is little distinction between data and phone service anymore, in spite of the legal fictions to the contrary) common carriers and subjecting them to regulation. They don't want that, of course: the Comcasts and the rest would like the legal protections afforded to common carriers but they don't want the regulatory burden that might keep them from sticking it to us so hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignorance is bliss.
That's roughly how it should work in regards to a question about the validity of a legitimate patent. The insane amounts of money being spent on patents (and patent defense) are a direct result of the Patent Office granting invalid patents and expecting the courts to sort it out later, and companies determined to suppress competition by legal action backed by invalid patents. That is not how it is supposed to work! The reason that we even have Patent Examiners is to try and avoid this very problem: a well-written and properly-reviewed patent should be solid and hardly worth attacking. It's the Examiner's job to make sure that's the case. Put it this way: if you're just going to let anyone claim anything and have lawyers handle the determination of validity you might as well just abolish the Patent Office right now and get it over with.
The unfortunate truth is that the USPTO has fallen down on the job, and blame for that can be laid squarely at Congress' feet.
So how similar are Debian and Ubuntu, these days?
Yes, indeed, we should bitchslap the lawmakers. Maybe have Hulk Hogan teach them a few new moves, preferably painful ones that leave bruises.
I disagree that corporations should be given a free pass on unethical or illegal behavior just because it's in the interests of the stockholders. If you think about it, it is just that attitude that has brought corporate America to it's knees. "Go ahead, Mr. CEO, use every weapon available to you so long as the stock price doesn't drop, and don't worry about that 'ethics' thing, because if you get too concerned about wrongdoing we'll just fire your ass and bring in someone less scrupulous." How is that beneficial to anyone but the stockholder? In fact, long term, it's not beneficial to anyone, including the stockholders. Well, other than upper management, that is, who are generally so insulated from the effects of their actions that it doesn't much matter to them.
Worse yet, the reason that U.S. patent law is up the creek is Amazon's fault! Amazon and all the rest of the corporations that went to Washington and bought changes to patent law, and the funding changes to the USPTO itself. Those were things that Congress would never have thought up on its own: they were pushed into it by corporations that wanted to gain even more control over America's intellectual capital.
So far as I'm concerned, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, and all the other companies run by sociopaths can go to Hell. Create, invent, and compete on your merits: if you can't do that you don't deserve to be in business. The granting of, and enforcement of, utterly baseless patents doesn't do anything but force the transfer of our wealth to people that have no right to it.
Jeff Bezos should be fired for being an antisocial jackass with criminal tendencies. He, and those like him, are running the United States into the ground, because they aren't leaving any room in their thought processes for anyone but themselves.
Look up the term "enlightened capitalism" sometime, look at the positive effects that it brought to Western civilization, and think for yourself how little it applies to Bezos and people of his caliber.
I believe that was the patent on a method of generating vast quantities of methane for use as an alternate vehicle fuel.
They guy is right ... Amazon does deserve to be smacked down, for this and for other things. And you can lay the rest of corporate America right out there alongside them.
Still, if this works, if Amazon's infamous patent is revoked by the efforts of a single individual unaided by professional legal representation, then there's hope that a load of other crap can be invalided the same way. Of course, the behavior of Amazon's own lawyers probably isn't hurting his case either.
What would probably happen is that Putin would keep the site up ... and pull the plug on the site operators.
Or, to paraphrase Lewis Black, "it'd be better if he just came to your house and pissed on your foot."
Of course Russia is a modern Western nation, modeled directly upon the United Sta ... oh wait. I forgot. We're not so modern anymore.
I think it's the difference between "kernel of truth" and "total horseshit." Something along those lines.
but how can this guy get a patent on technology from 1958 and claim it as new?
If it's patented in the United States the thing could have been invented in ancient Egypt and the USPTO would accept it.
And the UK has stealth planes?
... how would we know?
Well, if they are stealth planes
You think that's bad, I got a +4 Insightful. Sheesh.
Most of them enable sharing by default, which behavior seems to be what has enabled most of the RIAA lawsuits. Turning it off is a good idea, all things considered, if you live in the U.S.
ShareMonkey is a service for those p2p users that download copyrighted files in a "try before you buy" capacity and is an attempt to bridge the gap between copyright infringement and subsequent purchasing of a product.
Doesn't matter. They'll either get the crap sued out of them, or be forced to give up their logs to the RIAA, which will just result in another round of "settlements."
No thanks.
That's a busload of energy, all right: guess they must be using the newly-discovered "greyhoundon" particles. Well, we did beat the aliens in the first Independence Day movie, it's true, but it would be wise to get the collider up and running as soon as possible. That way, we'll have something to shoot back with when the really big ships come.
had tethers, presumably for power since the controls seemed to be RF. I'd be more impressed if the things were flying under their own power carrying a payload.
When the goal is to maintain technical superiority, I guess it's worth the cost, seems to work for google.
... technically.
Which just means that you end up maintaining superiority
Where's the NewYorkCountryLawyer when you need him.
Why is it that saying anything negative about another country is always turned into a discussion about racism and bigotry? It immediately poisons further dialog when it is applied without reason. If you have some reason to think the OP is prejudiced I'd like to hear it, because I didn't read that into his comment. I hear a lot of negative comments about the United States on Slashdot (yours, for one, which is interesting) but I don't immediately conclude that prejudice is the root of it. Sometimes it is, but it's nice to find that out first before jumping to any conclusions.
... more power to 'em.
... it prejudices any argument you make after that point.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that China's government and industry are completely unconcerned about the source of the technology that they mass-produce and sell to everyone. They just don't care, period, and I suppose when you get right down to it there's no reason they should. On the other hand, that just means there's no reason why we should respect their "intellectual property" either, and when their scientists and engineers come up with something good they damn well shouldn't expect us to concern ourselves over their rights either. If Google did indeed rip off their Chinese counterparts my feeling is
So, it's not a statement of prejudice (e.g. "I dislike Chinese people because they are Chinese, or have yellow skin, or slanted eyes, or talk funny") but a legitimate observation on the state of affairs in that country.
Just watch it when you start playing the race card without a good reason
Strange how you wouldn't have said this if it was Microsoft.
You're definitely new here. We complain about Microsoft pinching other people's work continuously here on Slashdot, mainly because Microsoft does, continuously. We also regularly bitch about how the current patent and copyright systems here in the United States are seriously flawed. And the OP is correct in pointing out that China has always been, shall we say, less than respectful of others' rights in this regard ("blatantly ripping them off" is as good a description as any.)
What was your complaint again?
The other big example of that kind of influence would be the pharmaceutical outfits. They've been using such tactics on doctors and hospitals for decades.
Of course, the USA couldn't possibly conceive of an entity that could provide a decent service because it wasn't shoving handfuls of cash into its CEOs pockets instead of investing it in infrastructure.
... could you imagine how much Congress or the Bush Administration would like to control the production of our TV programming? They're doing enough damage to scientific research in this country just because they hold the purse strings to so much of it. No thanks. No way.
That's not really fair. Our phone system under AT&T was the best in the world, with massive investment in infrastructure and actual quality of service standards with teeth, and a common carrier regulatory structure that required access for all. So we did understand that for a long time. Wasn't the cheapest system by a long shot, but then again it pretty much just always worked. Granted, AT&T knew how to manipulate Washington like nobody else, but nevertheless the build-out was there, the investment in new technology was there, and the system did its job.
It was recognized by our government a century ago that government wasn't the best entity to build such a system (too inefficient, too corrupt), and that the private sector couldn't be trusted to handle it on its own since reliability and universal coverage were important goals. So a tightly-regulated but still private-sector corporation was formed to handle it. They had a government-granted monopoly, they could make money, but there were conditions attached. And honestly, that worked pretty well for a long time. The job got done, AT&T served its purpose.
The real problem with adding taxes for specific purposes is that, once the revenue stream is established, Congress, State legislatures and anyone else wanting a handout will immediately try to dip their hands into the flow. Very little of the monies collected would go anywhere near building out or maintaining the network or creating content. Worse yet, the government would want control of that content
What we really need is to re-establish the quality of service and universal coverage standards that we had under the Bell System, which means making all service providers (for there really is little distinction between data and phone service anymore, in spite of the legal fictions to the contrary) common carriers and subjecting them to regulation. They don't want that, of course: the Comcasts and the rest would like the legal protections afforded to common carriers but they don't want the regulatory burden that might keep them from sticking it to us so hard.
... and Theo blew up instead of trying to fix things. *shrug*
Now that I can believe.
The joke may have been pitiful but it wasn't mine and pity points or not they still count so there.
Besides, I'm not that old.