I don't know if that's what the original poster was after but I understand what you are saying.
I think the real key here is better patent examination. Patents are not supposed to be given for trivial things. Only useful inventions that show a real inventive spark are supposed to be awarded patents.
Typically, such an invention requires investment in time and money to create. Usually such an investment is a strong incentive to commercialize the results. That's how the system is supposed to work.
One place the patent system really falls apart (but not the only place) is in software patents. High research investment and high risk are not associated with many of the software patents that have been granted.
You missed my point. I wasn't referring to government action.
If Microsoft wants to enforce a patent they have to go to court. In that court case the defendant can bring up the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and is acting unfairly/illegally. If such a court case does drag on for several years it is very likely that the original product would continue to be sold/produced.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't take notice. But I think huge concern is unwarranted at this point.
I'd say that Quartz Extreme by itself was a big improvement for 10.2. QE by itself was a reason to buy Jaguar (or, in my case, its absence would have kept me a PC owner). I just can't stand a slow GUI.
Why do you keep trying to prove that infringement != theft when we were discussing a world without patents?
If you kind find a statement of mine where I indicated otherwise, please show me. Otherwise, what the heck are you talking about? You're making a point that is irrelevant and that I have never refuted.
And, as to Georgia....well...it is in the South. I am sure they have laws about sex toys too. I guess every state is different. I stand corrected:)
Not only that, but having a patent doesn't magically make someone stop doing something. You first have to threaten them. Then, if that doesn't work, you have to take them to court. I am certain that in any court case the defense would be bringing up the term "monopolist" and "unfair competition". Microsoft would have to be very careful. Unfortunately, Microsoft has now shown this skill in the past.
Of course patents don't give you the right to produce something.
Many other regulations (environmental impact, etc...) factor into whether you are allowed to make something.
For instance, you are perfectly allowed to patent a new invention which can only be produced in a way which produces highly toxic waste. Without appropriate permits and disposal plans you will not be allowed to produce your invention.
The only possible point of a patent (or having a system of patents) is to limit what others can produce. Where is the -10, What are you talking about? moderation button?
Copyright violation is not on the same playing field as patent infringement. Having said that, I have not been inside a courtroom during a patent case. So I do not know if the term "theft" is used. Have you?
I have heard the terms "theft" and "misappropriation" used in corporate espionage / trade secret cases, however. And those cases deal with intellectual property.
So, yes, the term theft can be applied to intellectual property. You may not like it. But there it is....
At least I am willing to put my name to my statements.
There is a benefit to providing a system where people can disclose their ideas but still prevent others from unrestricted use of the idea. Otherwise, the only way to prevent the unrestricted use of the idea is to not disclose it.
That is the reason behind the patent system: to encourage people to release their ideas publicly. The encouragement comes in the form of a monopoly on the idea for a limited time. After that time, the knowledge is in the public domain.
I am amazed that the same sad, stupid arguments against patents keep getting brought up time after time. Perhaps that's why you're not willing to put your name to your post? Even you probably know that what you're writing is crap.
Second: You did get my point, right? To use your words. Infringement is legaly speaking infringement which is not larceny. Glad we got that cleared up.
Third: I wasn't arguing any way for or against total abolishment. I was arguing the case of whether "infringement" is "larceny".
That's all well and good. But my post which started this sub-thread contained the text:
"If there weren't patent protections, people would be stealing legitimate inventions willy-nilly."
So the concept of "patent infringement" is completely outside the scope of this discussion.
Btw. It's called "patent infridgement", not theft. This also applies to copyright violations. Please correct yourself.
I'd rather correct you. 1. It's "infringement" 2. We were discussing a scenario where patents did not exist. Therefore the correct term could not possibly be patent infringement.
If you look up criminal laws you will see that "stealing" is not listed among them either. I think the term would be "larceny."
And if we're talking in a generic sense then the concept of "stealing" as "taking without permission" is an apt one.
I sometimes wonder if people who favor the elimination of all forms of intellectual property are really capable of understanding the ramifications of their proposal.
There must be a basis why a patent is rejected. The examiner must have enough time to establish that basis. It's not as if examiners are afraid to reject claims. They do it all the time. But there has to be a supportable reason behind the rejection.
Holding someone accountable without giving them the means to meet the standard is just foolhardy (*cough*No Child Left Behind*cough*).
2. Loser pays should only be invoked under these circumstances:
1. The loser reprsesents a corporation
It is possible to get reimbursed for your reasonable legal expenses in the event that you win the lawsuit. I don't know how typical this is, but it does happen.
3. The losing lawyer should have to forefit all fees to the WINNING party if loser pays is invoked.
Typically, the losing initiating lawyer simply doesn't make any money. That's what "contingency" means.
4. A defendant should never be subject to loser pays, only the initiator.
So how does your solution help in this case then? Because in this case the initiator doesn't "have means" as you described above.
6. Judges should have greater lattitude in disposing of frivilous cases out of hand
They already do. The McDonalds "fat" case was thrown out because the judge decided there was no set of facts that could possibly prove the plaintiff's case.
But if someone has a patent, how can you really call the lawsuit frivilous without judging the merits of the patent? Do you really want judges to be able to invalidate patents after only looking at them for five minutes without allowing you, the patent holder, to even present evidence of inventorship? That sounds really extreme!
The good news is that the new bill that just passed the Senate would decrease the costs for a small inventor to apply for a patent. Currently the Small Entity Status gives you a 50% discount. If filed electronically, a Small Entity can get a 75% discount with the new bill.
How about an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law? (in other words, big government)
For the record, the patent system is not ambiguous. It is true that patents that are ambiguous or overly broad can slip through the system. But the system itself is well defined.
And it may not have occurred to you but every system is exploitable, just in a different way. If there weren't patent protections, people would be stealing legitimate inventions willy-nilly.
There is one pair of tracks that makes me want this feature: Parabol and Parabola from Tool's most recent album. Those tracks are essentially one song, and the god-damned quarter-second silence iTunes puts between them drives me CRAZY! it ruins the whole transition!
So why not join them as one track when you rip them?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if that's what the original poster was after but I understand what you are saying.
I think the real key here is better patent examination. Patents are not supposed to be given for trivial things. Only useful inventions that show a real inventive spark are supposed to be awarded patents.
Typically, such an invention requires investment in time and money to create. Usually such an investment is a strong incentive to commercialize the results. That's how the system is supposed to work.
One place the patent system really falls apart (but not the only place) is in software patents. High research investment and high risk are not associated with many of the software patents that have been granted.
You missed my point. I wasn't referring to government action.
If Microsoft wants to enforce a patent they have to go to court. In that court case the defendant can bring up the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and is acting unfairly/illegally. If such a court case does drag on for several years it is very likely that the original product would continue to be sold/produced.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't take notice. But I think huge concern is unwarranted at this point.
I think one of the reasons people hate lawyers is that they often say things in a complicated way when a simpler way would have sufficed.
The good news is that at least some law schools are taking note and teaching law students how to write like NORMAL PEOPLE
I'd say that Quartz Extreme by itself was a big improvement for 10.2. QE by itself was a reason to buy Jaguar (or, in my case, its absence would have kept me a PC owner). I just can't stand a slow GUI.
Movie Player? .NET?
Does iLife count as an OS release too?
How about XCode?
Can blonde people use it or only brunettes?
Why do you keep trying to prove that
:)
infringement != theft
when we were discussing a world without patents?
If you kind find a statement of mine where I indicated otherwise, please show me. Otherwise, what the heck are you talking about? You're making a point that is irrelevant and that I have never refuted.
And, as to Georgia....well...it is in the South. I am sure they have laws about sex toys too. I guess every state is different. I stand corrected
ugh
s/has now/has not/
Not only that, but having a patent doesn't magically make someone stop doing something. You first have to threaten them. Then, if that doesn't work, you have to take them to court. I am certain that in any court case the defense would be bringing up the term "monopolist" and "unfair competition". Microsoft would have to be very careful. Unfortunately, Microsoft has now shown this skill in the past.
You forgot the mandatory patent bashing. That's actually gotten even more annoying than the MS bashing.
Of course patents don't give you the right to produce something.
Many other regulations (environmental impact, etc...) factor into whether you are allowed to make something.
For instance, you are perfectly allowed to patent a new invention which can only be produced in a way which produces highly toxic waste. Without appropriate permits and disposal plans you will not be allowed to produce your invention.
The only possible point of a patent (or having a system of patents) is to limit what others can produce. Where is the -10, What are you talking about? moderation button?
Are you a lawyer? Or do you just play one on slashdot.
:rollseyes: emoticon when you need it?
For the record, I'll be taking my patent exam this summer....
ps. Again I will say, there is no law dealing with "theft". The term is "larceny"
Where is the
Copyright violation is not on the same playing field as patent infringement. Having said that, I have not been inside a courtroom during a patent case. So I do not know if the term "theft" is used. Have you?
I have heard the terms "theft" and "misappropriation" used in corporate espionage / trade secret cases, however. And those cases deal with intellectual property.
So, yes, the term theft can be applied to intellectual property. You may not like it. But there it is....
At least I am willing to put my name to my statements.
There is a benefit to providing a system where people can disclose their ideas but still prevent others from unrestricted use of the idea. Otherwise, the only way to prevent the unrestricted use of the idea is to not disclose it.
That is the reason behind the patent system: to encourage people to release their ideas publicly. The encouragement comes in the form of a monopoly on the idea for a limited time. After that time, the knowledge is in the public domain.
I am amazed that the same sad, stupid arguments against patents keep getting brought up time after time. Perhaps that's why you're not willing to put your name to your post? Even you probably know that what you're writing is crap.
Second:
You did get my point, right? To use your words. Infringement is legaly speaking infringement which is not larceny. Glad we got that cleared up.
Third:
I wasn't arguing any way for or against total abolishment. I was arguing the case of whether "infringement" is "larceny".
That's all well and good. But my post which started this sub-thread contained the text:
"If there weren't patent protections, people would be stealing legitimate inventions willy-nilly."
So the concept of "patent infringement" is completely outside the scope of this discussion.
Thanks for the link. Who ever would have thought that an anarchist would be against the concept of property?
Btw. It's called "patent infridgement", not theft. This also applies to copyright violations. Please correct yourself.
I'd rather correct you.
1. It's "infringement"
2. We were discussing a scenario where patents did not exist. Therefore the correct term could not possibly be patent infringement.
If you look up criminal laws you will see that "stealing" is not listed among them either. I think the term would be "larceny."
And if we're talking in a generic sense then the concept of "stealing" as "taking without permission" is an apt one.
I sometimes wonder if people who favor the elimination of all forms of intellectual property are really capable of understanding the ramifications of their proposal.
Well it's a good thing he's dead then!!!!
And if there were no concept of the ownership of physical property no one would ever think of calling it "stealing" either.
Did you have some point to make?
There must be a basis why a patent is rejected. The examiner must have enough time to establish that basis. It's not as if examiners are afraid to reject claims. They do it all the time. But there has to be a supportable reason behind the rejection.
Holding someone accountable without giving them the means to meet the standard is just foolhardy (*cough*No Child Left Behind*cough*).
2. Loser pays should only be invoked under these circumstances:
1. The loser reprsesents a corporation
It is possible to get reimbursed for your reasonable legal expenses in the event that you win the lawsuit. I don't know how typical this is, but it does happen.
3. The losing lawyer should have to forefit all fees to the WINNING party if loser pays is invoked.
Typically, the losing initiating lawyer simply doesn't make any money. That's what "contingency" means.
4. A defendant should never be subject to loser pays, only the initiator.
So how does your solution help in this case then? Because in this case the initiator doesn't "have means" as you described above.
6. Judges should have greater lattitude in disposing of frivilous cases out of hand
They already do. The McDonalds "fat" case was thrown out because the judge decided there was no set of facts that could possibly prove the plaintiff's case.
But if someone has a patent, how can you really call the lawsuit frivilous without judging the merits of the patent? Do you really want judges to be able to invalidate patents after only looking at them for five minutes without allowing you, the patent holder, to even present evidence of inventorship? That sounds really extreme!
The good news is that the new bill that just passed the Senate would decrease the costs for a small inventor to apply for a patent. Currently the Small Entity Status gives you a 50% discount. If filed electronically, a Small Entity can get a 75% discount with the new bill.
How about an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law? (in other words, big government)
For the record, the patent system is not ambiguous. It is true that patents that are ambiguous or overly broad can slip through the system. But the system itself is well defined.
And it may not have occurred to you but every system is exploitable, just in a different way. If there weren't patent protections, people would be stealing legitimate inventions willy-nilly.
Yeah but if it's TWO SONGS in the ENTIRE collection my advice would be "why not just rip them as one track?"
My advice wasn't intended to be generic. It was intended to be very specific to a person who only wanted this feature for one particular instance.
There is one pair of tracks that makes me want this feature: Parabol and Parabola from Tool's most recent album. Those tracks are essentially one song, and the god-damned quarter-second silence iTunes puts between them drives me CRAZY! it ruins the whole transition!
So why not join them as one track when you rip them?