It's not the same. You are missing the difference between "available for" (iTunes) and "always present in" (WMP).
As of today I believe there are only two manufacturers that are shipping iTunes (HP/Compaq and now Founder). That's a very small percentage of the overall Windows shipments.
WMP on the other hand is on every single computer with Windows box shipped by every single computer manufacturer in the world.
That's a huge difference and one which you are trivializing.
Yes, there is leverage in the fact that Windows is everywhere. This allows application developers to write for one platform and reach a wide audience. This leverage is shared by Microsoft and all other application developers. What you are wrongfully dismissing is the fact that Microsoft has additional leverage.
And you also seem to be stuck in the rut of assuming that I am arguing against the current situation. I am not arguing that one is OK and the other is not. I simply pointing out how completely wrong you are in equating the two situations.
How do you figure? Isn't Apple leveraging the enormous popularity of Windows and cheap PC prices (as opposed to Apple hardware prices, which I'm guessing don't fly so well in China) to get iTunes installed on as many Chinese computers as possible?
Your logic is still incredibly faulty.
Hopefully these questions will help clarify the matter:
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Apple will be able to install iTunes on all PCs sold with Windows?
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Microsoft will be able to install WMP on all PCs sold with Windows?
For the record, I am not advocating forcing Microsoft to remove WMP from Windows (I would much rather see them forced to open the codecs). I am just explaining how they are leveraging the OS and why the same argument does not apply to others.
If you can't see the difference you're obviously beyond help.
apple computer is not behaving as a music label. they are behaving as a website which acts as a 3rd party for music sales.
From your link: That contract stipulated Apple Computer could use the logo for computers, data processing and telecommunications, while the Beatles could retain it for music, according to documents filed by the pop group's lawyers at the High Court.
They could violate the trademark without acting like a label. However, notice the distinct lack of the Apple logo on the iTMS. Also notice that the iTMS used to be called the Apple Music Store but now is officially known as the iTunes Music Store.
Apple might be the name of the company, but it's clear that they are trying not to use the Apple name or logo in connection with the music store.
Ooops! I read this title the wrong way. I was thinking this would be an article about a generation of people taking pictures of themselves and compositing it with a picture of the WTC jet or the Hindenburg disaster. Isn't that what everyone does with self portraits?
I would complain to the boss instead of frantically trying to do the impossible task. When he fires me after doing some of the work (just uncompleted, not fucked up), I would sue for wrongful dismissal. Then I would make it a point to explain to the judge that I _couldn't_ do work under unreasonable circumstances, and not simply say I _didn't_ do the work so he fired me and expect judgement in my favor.
I know plenty of people who think this way. I just don't know anyone who acts this way. The people I know are just grateful to have a job and aren't willing to "make a statement" like that.
(I'm not sure who you refer to by 'patent trolls', so I won't comment on that paragraph).
Patent trolls are usually companies that buy (or get) questionable patents and then sue, sue, sue (or just threaten to sue to extort money). My original proposal that the loser pays (if a patent is thrown out in court) was to deter patent trolls. If a company knows a patent is unlikely to hold up in court they might be dissuaded from suing if they are going to be stuck with another company's $2 million legal bill.
To me this seems too little, waaaayyyyy to fucking late at this point in time.
If money was the problem it's never too late to add money. The existing problem is simply the existence of questionable patents. Those will work themselves out in court. It's not perfect. But, aside from issues like software patents (which are a parallel issue having nothing to do with questionable patents and overworked examiners) that's really it.
Wouldn't you fire an employee that makes a major mistakes (the severity of PTO's "mistakes" is up for discussion of course)? I consider the PTO "employed" by the taxpayers (though corporations might actually be the ones running the show - I don't know), and if they're not doing their job, well.....
First, firing an employee is different from sueing the company. Second, how many different ways do I have to say that it's unfair to judge the work of somebody who doesn't have time?
Imagine your boss gave you a task, a very important one. This task would get you fired if you did it incorrectly. Now further imagine that you can't possibly do this task in less than 30 hours, but you only have 20 hours to complete it. Oh, and you can't work overtime.
Wouldn't you think that was a load of crap? I sure would. But it sounds like that's what you're suggesting.
Now, as with any company, once the workers are given a fair workload (see below) it is, of course, reasonable to do performance evaluations. But I really don't see how that will help with the problem of patent trolls.
Either way I would certainly expect them bring up any resource defeciencies instead of blindly continuing on with the problem, and especially bring about a solution to it sooner rather than waiting after a point-of-no-return, which seems (to most folks here) to be what's happening now....
A law is in Congress as we speak to increase the number of examiners by a very large amount. The problem is being taken seriously.
Yes, the trial costs money. But the post I was responding to advocated sueing the USPTO *after* a trial where the patent wasn't upheld. So the trial occurs in both cases and is a wash in terms of court costs.
I don't subscribe to all-or-nothing approaches. Saying, "we spent 1 million so we might as well spend 2 million more" doesn't fly with me.
It can be, but so can using general terms. In my example, imagine a patent had the term PDA in there. That's actually a pretty ambiguous term when it comes right down to it.
Remember, the patent office IS the US government which IS the citizens of the US. If the patent office gets sued for $5 million to cover legal costs that comes right out of my pocket and yours. Whereas if a company choses to sue they can pass the costs onto their customers but you don't have to be one of them.
Sorry, I was thinking in terms of the big patent picture (ie. the process) and not just with reference to software patents (ie. what can be patented) even though I know it is near and dear to the hearts of many here:).
I agree with the FTC that something needs to be done to restrict the field of software patents.
Public review for patents. Open source meets patent reform.
Unless a request is made when a patent application is filed, an application will be published 18 months from its effective application date.
At this point members of the public have 2 months to submit publications for review. Perhaps the period should be extended to 4 or 6 months? That would allow more time for the word to spread throughout the industry about a particular application.
I should learn to read the whole post before responding:)
The BETTER way is to make the process work as it is supposed too. With patents being granted based on being unique, after proper investigation, and then easily overturned later if prior art is shown, without a lenghtly and costly cour battle, but merely by filing a petition and having the USPO do it's own investigation.
This is already the way the system works - just not to the desired degree. If you think that a patent is invalid you can file an Ex parte reexamination request submitting evidence of prior art (which would make the patent invalid). The USPTO then can essentially reopen the examination if the submitted evidence is sufficient to raise questions of patentability. The problem, as always, is one of workload.
Well that is pretty much exactly what is happening in the US and it is NOT working.
Can you please provide evidence that it is not working?
Yes, we have overly broad patents being issued. But if that is the way it's supposed to work it obviously can't be evidence of "NOT working."
We do have occasional lawsuits like BT patenting the internet or SBC patenting left frame navigation. It is my understanding that those have been quickly and thoroughly smacked down.
If there is lots of evidence out there I would really like to see it. As someone who is entering the field I really would like to "do it right".
Belgium has solved this problem. They issue patents as easily as we can register copyrights. Got a dispute? Take it to the courts.
That's basically what the US patent system does now. Remember, the USPTO makes no guarantee that the patent they issue is valid. They are doing an initial check for form and to weed out obviously invalid patents. They just don't have the resources to do any more.
Patents are written in generic terms to be as broad as possible. If you use a specific term like PDA you could run into the problem that five years in the future when every PDA is built into a cell phone your patent is now worthless because "PDA" is distinct from "cell phone" even if all the cell phones act like PDAs.
Simply put: being too specific in a patent means that it's easy for a competitor to use your invention simply by changing a minor component or feature.
I don't think those people are engineers. I bet they're mostly zoology majors who saw an ad on tv about "getting certified" and paid some money for credentials.
The notion that pointless patents are somehow new is simply false. It would be nice if we could screen these out better so that examiners weren't wasting valuable time doing work on swingset process applications when they should be working on important business patents.
It's nice to see some optimism that expanding the examiner force should alleviate some of the problem.
And here's a suggestion for eliminating trolls:
Currently a large percentage of patents that go to trial (I remember reading 40-50%) are declared invalid. Why not, in those cases where a patent is declared invalid, require that the plaintiff cover legal fees of the defendant? If that were the case you had really better be sure that your patent was valid. Kind of a specialized "loser pays."
Buried in the article (which I thought was very well written) was this sentiment (echoed in a few other places as well):
The company is addicted to the revenue from these flagship products and is afraid to go in new directions that might initially hurt the bottom line.
Most healthy companies have diverse product lines and aren't afraid to compete internally. Just look at Sony, a company that sells media that it wants to DRM protect as well as devices for copying said media.
Internal competition usually doesn't hurt. But it does hurt Microsoft, at least in the short term. No matter how much of a spectacular success one of its other products is, if it even lowered Windows or Office revenue by 5% it would be a disaster. That's really kept Microsoft from expanding its dominance into areas it should have been able to because of its market position.
The author writes (and many others have written) that Microsoft is paranoid. There's a good kind of paranoia. I think at Microsoft it's become the bad kind. After all, they have a $280B market cap to maintain.
ps. I thought the anecdote about Gates at the bottom was pretty funny. All the anecdotes of Jobs and Gates seem to paint Jobs as an inspirational, visionary asshole, while Gates is just an asshole. I wonder how true that is?
Of course, it's nothing like that at all. You probably know that but just suppress it because the truth would ruin a good rant. And we can't have that now, can we?
Of course, I think most of the whiners here are both pessimistic and naive. Pessimistic because they greatly exaggerate any negative consequences that *may* come from certain events. And I say naive because they have bought into a belief system ("free the information!!!") that doesn't work in reality but sounds good on paper (just like early Communists I suppose).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the same. You are missing the difference between "available for" (iTunes) and "always present in" (WMP).
As of today I believe there are only two manufacturers that are shipping iTunes (HP/Compaq and now Founder). That's a very small percentage of the overall Windows shipments.
WMP on the other hand is on every single computer with Windows box shipped by every single computer manufacturer in the world.
That's a huge difference and one which you are trivializing.
Yes, there is leverage in the fact that Windows is everywhere. This allows application developers to write for one platform and reach a wide audience. This leverage is shared by Microsoft and all other application developers. What you are wrongfully dismissing is the fact that Microsoft has additional leverage.
And you also seem to be stuck in the rut of assuming that I am arguing against the current situation. I am not arguing that one is OK and the other is not. I simply pointing out how completely wrong you are in equating the two situations.
How do you figure? Isn't Apple leveraging the enormous popularity of Windows and cheap PC prices (as opposed to Apple hardware prices, which I'm guessing don't fly so well in China) to get iTunes installed on as many Chinese computers as possible?
Your logic is still incredibly faulty.
Hopefully these questions will help clarify the matter:
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Apple will be able to install iTunes on all PCs sold with Windows?
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Microsoft will be able to install WMP on all PCs sold with Windows?
For the record, I am not advocating forcing Microsoft to remove WMP from Windows (I would much rather see them forced to open the codecs). I am just explaining how they are leveraging the OS and why the same argument does not apply to others.
If you can't see the difference you're obviously beyond help.
apple computer is not behaving as a music label. they are behaving as a website which acts as a 3rd party for music sales.
From your link: That contract stipulated Apple Computer could use the logo for computers, data processing and telecommunications, while the Beatles could retain it for music, according to documents filed by the pop group's lawyers at the High Court.
They could violate the trademark without acting like a label. However, notice the distinct lack of the Apple logo on the iTMS. Also notice that the iTMS used to be called the Apple Music Store but now is officially known as the iTunes Music Store.
Apple might be the name of the company, but it's clear that they are trying not to use the Apple name or logo in connection with the music store.
If Microsoft isn't allowed to use its OS monopoly, then Apple shouldn't either.
Apple is cutting independant deals with computer manufacturers based on the quality of its product.
Microsoft is forcing computer manufacturers to ship the Windows Media Player whether they want to or not.
So, no, Microsoft is the only company using the leverage provided by the Windows OS monopoly.
Ooops! I read this title the wrong way. I was thinking this would be an article about a generation of people taking pictures of themselves and compositing it with a picture of the WTC jet or the Hindenburg disaster. Isn't that what everyone does with self portraits?
I would complain to the boss instead of frantically trying to do the impossible task. When he fires me after doing some of the work (just uncompleted, not fucked up), I would sue for wrongful dismissal. Then I would make it a point to explain to the judge that I _couldn't_ do work under unreasonable circumstances, and not simply say I _didn't_ do the work so he fired me and expect judgement in my favor.
I know plenty of people who think this way. I just don't know anyone who acts this way. The people I know are just grateful to have a job and aren't willing to "make a statement" like that.
(I'm not sure who you refer to by 'patent trolls', so I won't comment on that paragraph).
Patent trolls are usually companies that buy (or get) questionable patents and then sue, sue, sue (or just threaten to sue to extort money). My original proposal that the loser pays (if a patent is thrown out in court) was to deter patent trolls. If a company knows a patent is unlikely to hold up in court they might be dissuaded from suing if they are going to be stuck with another company's $2 million legal bill.
To me this seems too little, waaaayyyyy to fucking late at this point in time.
If money was the problem it's never too late to add money. The existing problem is simply the existence of questionable patents. Those will work themselves out in court. It's not perfect. But, aside from issues like software patents (which are a parallel issue having nothing to do with questionable patents and overworked examiners) that's really it.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about.
Besides if you don't have the time, don't do the work. When no work gets done the 'boss' might actually clue in that there's not enough time!
:)
Maybe the examiners are sitting there saying "if I approve THIS patent application maybe they'll hire me some help"
Wouldn't you fire an employee that makes a major mistakes (the severity of PTO's "mistakes" is up for discussion of course)? I consider the PTO "employed" by the taxpayers (though corporations might actually be the ones running the show - I don't know), and if they're not doing their job, well.....
First, firing an employee is different from sueing the company. Second, how many different ways do I have to say that it's unfair to judge the work of somebody who doesn't have time?
Imagine your boss gave you a task, a very important one. This task would get you fired if you did it incorrectly. Now further imagine that you can't possibly do this task in less than 30 hours, but you only have 20 hours to complete it. Oh, and you can't work overtime.
Wouldn't you think that was a load of crap? I sure would. But it sounds like that's what you're suggesting.
Now, as with any company, once the workers are given a fair workload (see below) it is, of course, reasonable to do performance evaluations. But I really don't see how that will help with the problem of patent trolls.
Either way I would certainly expect them bring up any resource defeciencies instead of blindly continuing on with the problem, and especially bring about a solution to it sooner rather than waiting after a point-of-no-return, which seems (to most folks here) to be what's happening now....
A law is in Congress as we speak to increase the number of examiners by a very large amount. The problem is being taken seriously.
Your suggestion seems to be: when the USPTO makes a mistake because it has poor funding take even more of their money away.
This sounds like something from the PHB (pointy-haired boss). It would make the situation worse not better.
"Sending a message" is irrelevant if the party in question is not capable of living up to your expectations due to factors beyond its control.
Yes, the trial costs money. But the post I was responding to advocated sueing the USPTO *after* a trial where the patent wasn't upheld. So the trial occurs in both cases and is a wash in terms of court costs.
I don't subscribe to all-or-nothing approaches. Saying, "we spent 1 million so we might as well spend 2 million more" doesn't fly with me.
general != ambiguous
It can be, but so can using general terms. In my example, imagine a patent had the term PDA in there. That's actually a pretty ambiguous term when it comes right down to it.
Remember, the patent office IS the US government which IS the citizens of the US. If the patent office gets sued for $5 million to cover legal costs that comes right out of my pocket and yours. Whereas if a company choses to sue they can pass the costs onto their customers but you don't have to be one of them.
Thanks for the link.
:).
Sorry, I was thinking in terms of the big patent picture (ie. the process) and not just with reference to software patents (ie. what can be patented) even though I know it is near and dear to the hearts of many here
I agree with the FTC that something needs to be done to restrict the field of software patents.
Public review for patents. Open source meets patent reform.
Unless a request is made when a patent application is filed, an application will be published 18 months from its effective application date.
At this point members of the public have 2 months to submit publications for review. Perhaps the period should be extended to 4 or 6 months? That would allow more time for the word to spread throughout the industry about a particular application.
I should learn to read the whole post before responding :)
The BETTER way is to make the process work as it is supposed too. With patents being granted based on being unique, after proper investigation, and then easily overturned later if prior art is shown, without a lenghtly and costly cour battle, but merely by filing a petition and having the USPO do it's own investigation.
This is already the way the system works - just not to the desired degree. If you think that a patent is invalid you can file an Ex parte reexamination request submitting evidence of prior art (which would make the patent invalid). The USPTO then can essentially reopen the examination if the submitted evidence is sufficient to raise questions of patentability. The problem, as always, is one of workload.
Well that is pretty much exactly what is happening in the US and it is NOT working.
Can you please provide evidence that it is not working?
Yes, we have overly broad patents being issued. But if that is the way it's supposed to work it obviously can't be evidence of "NOT working."
We do have occasional lawsuits like BT patenting the internet or SBC patenting left frame navigation. It is my understanding that those have been quickly and thoroughly smacked down.
If there is lots of evidence out there I would really like to see it. As someone who is entering the field I really would like to "do it right".
Thanks
Belgium has solved this problem. They issue patents as easily as we can register copyrights. Got a dispute? Take it to the courts.
That's basically what the US patent system does now. Remember, the USPTO makes no guarantee that the patent they issue is valid. They are doing an initial check for form and to weed out obviously invalid patents. They just don't have the resources to do any more.
Patents are written in generic terms to be as broad as possible. If you use a specific term like PDA you could run into the problem that five years in the future when every PDA is built into a cell phone your patent is now worthless because "PDA" is distinct from "cell phone" even if all the cell phones act like PDAs.
Simply put: being too specific in a patent means that it's easy for a competitor to use your invention simply by changing a minor component or feature.
500,000 unemployed engineers
I don't think those people are engineers. I bet they're mostly zoology majors who saw an ad on tv about "getting certified" and paid some money for credentials.
The notion that pointless patents are somehow new is simply false. It would be nice if we could screen these out better so that examiners weren't wasting valuable time doing work on swingset process applications when they should be working on important business patents.
It's nice to see some optimism that expanding the examiner force should alleviate some of the problem.
And here's a suggestion for eliminating trolls:
Currently a large percentage of patents that go to trial (I remember reading 40-50%) are declared invalid. Why not, in those cases where a patent is declared invalid, require that the plaintiff cover legal fees of the defendant? If that were the case you had really better be sure that your patent was valid. Kind of a specialized "loser pays."
With the way this conversation has gone I half expected you to whip out "I know you are but what am I?"
:)
LOL
Are you full yet? I have never met a troll who wanted to eat so much!!
Buried in the article (which I thought was very well written) was this sentiment (echoed in a few other places as well):
The company is addicted to the revenue from these flagship products and is afraid to go in new directions that might initially hurt the bottom line.
Most healthy companies have diverse product lines and aren't afraid to compete internally. Just look at Sony, a company that sells media that it wants to DRM protect as well as devices for copying said media.
Internal competition usually doesn't hurt. But it does hurt Microsoft, at least in the short term. No matter how much of a spectacular success one of its other products is, if it even lowered Windows or Office revenue by 5% it would be a disaster. That's really kept Microsoft from expanding its dominance into areas it should have been able to because of its market position.
The author writes (and many others have written) that Microsoft is paranoid. There's a good kind of paranoia. I think at Microsoft it's become the bad kind. After all, they have a $280B market cap to maintain.
ps. I thought the anecdote about Gates at the bottom was pretty funny. All the anecdotes of Jobs and Gates seem to paint Jobs as an inspirational, visionary asshole, while Gates is just an asshole. I wonder how true that is?
What a compelling argument.
*roll eyes*
Is this how the schools are teaching our children to think today? Very sad.
Of course, it's nothing like that at all. You probably know that but just suppress it because the truth would ruin a good rant. And we can't have that now, can we?
Of course, I think most of the whiners here are both pessimistic and naive. Pessimistic because they greatly exaggerate any negative consequences that *may* come from certain events. And I say naive because they have bought into a belief system ("free the information!!!") that doesn't work in reality but sounds good on paper (just like early Communists I suppose).
Guess it sucks to be them, eh?