That is an observation you generally make. In the United States antitrust policy is not taken serious by business and institutions seem to get bullied. That is not the way you are expected to deal with a European competition regulator.
In particular you don't question the basics of competition law when they caught you.
But basically the United States don't get competition law at all.
From an ordoeconomical perspective the justified elementary function of governmental intervention is to enforce market competition. Competition of course also benefits the procurement side (consumers) but that is a side effect. There also may be some cases where there is too much competition but that is a fringe case.
Competition law creates a free market, a "free competitive market". In ideal terms there should be no market entrance barriers.
The other aspect is of course that it is not upon US parliamentarians to interfere into the internal matters of the European Union, that is our market rules. I find that extremely unprofessional lobbying.
The objective of a company is to make money, not to present great technology. So Microsoft is a success.
Microsoft understands who crucial dependency on them is for their ongoing commercial success, even more than the interoperability geeks. That is why they take unreasonable action to kill all interoperability or open source projects of the public sector.
If you switch to something new, leave it to people to chose the old way they are used to. I find the "simplified" file manager of Vista unusable, it is an inconvenience.
I think the competition with Netscape benefitted all of us.
And you are wrong with one important aspects. The whole Google OS is actually driven by the hardware manufacturers, not Google. It is branded Google because the customers will accept the trademark. The agenda is to put Microsoft license fees down. Simple target cost calculation.
Google OS is a free product. Google does not need to win market share. But the product aims at one of Microsoft's cash cows.
Google could have simply taken an existing Linux distribution and rebranded it as Google. Indeed it is cheap confetti for Google. So now the hardware manufacturers build their Google OS. Google OS will be more lightweight.
We see a lot of propaganda right now: * Desktop Linux last chance * Google takes on Apple etc.
No, I am actually not referring to a Godwin argument. I don't say communist and I don't say Karl Marx but "orthodox marxists" have a certain communication technique. They criticise something with ordinary language but they have their own definitions of what the language precisely means.
When a patent attornes talks about obviousness with a software professional, then what is "obviousness" is defined by the examination practice and that has nothing to do with what a software professional finds is obvious or not in his arts.
That does not imply that I want the patent office to adapt its obviousness test to what programmers think. Not at all. It is a general clause test in the examination "machine" with a defined and good purpose and it is labeled "obviousness". The mistake in the USA was to overload the simple obviousness filter in the patent examination process.
Because once a patent issues, the courts give it a strong presumption of validity, just like they give a strong presumption of validity to other administrative actions. And "should not be granted" is just your whiny, uninformed personal opinion.
It is a normative statement. I don't think the patent system is beneficial for software.
The problem with opposition is a so called "free rider effect". There is good economical literature on the matter and it is widely accepted in patent economics that these problems exist.
Just to explain it: I invalidate a patent and invest my money and capacity. The invalidation also benefits other market players who would infringe the patent otherwise but did not contribute to my invalidation costs. That is the free rider effect. When I contribute information to the patent office I am kind of altruistic. As an effect there is always less "opposition" as the aggregated benefits in a perfect "invalidation market" The so called "samuelson condition" is not met. In economics there are interesting reform models discussed to privatise patent examination by the provision of incentives to oppose a patent, provide information etc.
You can't just say, "this is a podcasting patent, and podcasting was around before today."... Learn about how patents work before you argue about them.
I never said that. Americans are always so focussed on novelty. I would abolish software patenting because it awards governmental privileges for a subject matter that is not scarce. You discuss the mouse, I discuss the mouse trap.
What I mean is: when a patent attorney says "obvious" it is a dogmatic term that has nothing to do with empirical opinions about what is obvious or not among software professionals in the field. Most software patents are "trivial" but they are not trivial because they lack obviousness but because the object that is awarded protection by patent law is not scarce.
"To be patentable, your invention has to be new and non-obvious."
That is the way the patent system technocracy shields itself, talking with patent professionals is like dealing with marxists. They have their own definition and standards of what constitutes "obviousness". And guess what, it has nothing to do with "common sense".
If you want to kill this thing... the best way to do it is to find a document published anywhere in the world before November 2002
Why is the burden to kill a patent that should not be granted put on market players? Because that is the way the patent scam profits fromn the free rider effects of opposition failure.
Look, David Hasselhoff is super-creepy and this is why he sold in Germany some while ago. David Hasselhoff was popular 20 years ago. And he was produced by German producers with cheap entertainment songs. Hasselhoff stands for a kind of white coon song. I guess he is taken more serious in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything they do is governed by laws.
That is an observation you generally make. In the United States antitrust policy is not taken serious by business and institutions seem to get bullied. That is not the way you are expected to deal with a European competition regulator.
In particular you don't question the basics of competition law when they caught you.
It is two sides of the same problem.
Competition law = towards perfect competition.
Under perfect competition (Free Market) consumers are better off.
That is true.
But basically the United States don't get competition law at all.
From an ordoeconomical perspective the justified elementary function of governmental intervention is to enforce market competition. Competition of course also benefits the procurement side (consumers) but that is a side effect. There also may be some cases where there is too much competition but that is a fringe case.
Competition law creates a free market, a "free competitive market". In ideal terms there should be no market entrance barriers.
The other aspect is of course that it is not upon US parliamentarians to interfere into the internal matters of the European Union, that is our market rules. I find that extremely unprofessional lobbying.
Why does Glenn Beck wear a German uniform?
They praise the DIB perfomance. In other news Wine still needs a DIB engine because graphics with X is so slow.
We definitely need a Saudi software sheik willing to dump some millions...
The objective of a company is to make money, not to present great technology. So Microsoft is a success.
Microsoft understands who crucial dependency on them is for their ongoing commercial success, even more than the interoperability geeks. That is why they take unreasonable action to kill all interoperability or open source projects of the public sector.
Take KBasic.
If you switch to something new, leave it to people to chose the old way they are used to. I find the "simplified" file manager of Vista unusable, it is an inconvenience.
Microsoft controls the last mile, the dominant operating system.
Google OS is a Linux. So we will see some mutual beneficial effects.
Who says that OpenOffice won't run on the Google OS platform? Microsoft Office won't, for sure. The second cash cow targeted here.
I think the competition with Netscape benefitted all of us.
And you are wrong with one important aspects. The whole Google OS is actually driven by the hardware manufacturers, not Google. It is branded Google because the customers will accept the trademark. The agenda is to put Microsoft license fees down. Simple target cost calculation.
Google OS is a free product. Google does not need to win market share. But the product aims at one of Microsoft's cash cows.
Google could have simply taken an existing Linux distribution and rebranded it as Google. Indeed it is cheap confetti for Google. So now the hardware manufacturers build their Google OS. Google OS will be more lightweight.
We see a lot of propaganda right now:
* Desktop Linux last chance
* Google takes on Apple
etc.
Who killed Guido Sohne?
No, I am actually not referring to a Godwin argument. I don't say communist and I don't say Karl Marx but "orthodox marxists" have a certain communication technique. They criticise something with ordinary language but they have their own definitions of what the language precisely means.
When a patent attornes talks about obviousness with a software professional, then what is "obviousness" is defined by the examination practice and that has nothing to do with what a software professional finds is obvious or not in his arts.
That does not imply that I want the patent office to adapt its obviousness test to what programmers think. Not at all. It is a general clause test in the examination "machine" with a defined and good purpose and it is labeled "obviousness". The mistake in the USA was to overload the simple obviousness filter in the patent examination process.
It is a normative statement. I don't think the patent system is beneficial for software.
The problem with opposition is a so called "free rider effect". There is good economical literature on the matter and it is widely accepted in patent economics that these problems exist.
Just to explain it: I invalidate a patent and invest my money and capacity. The invalidation also benefits other market players who would infringe the patent otherwise but did not contribute to my invalidation costs. That is the free rider effect. When I contribute information to the patent office I am kind of altruistic. As an effect there is always less "opposition" as the aggregated benefits in a perfect "invalidation market" The so called "samuelson condition" is not met. In economics there are interesting reform models discussed to privatise patent examination by the provision of incentives to oppose a patent, provide information etc.
I never said that. Americans are always so focussed on novelty. I would abolish software patenting because it awards governmental privileges for a subject matter that is not scarce. You discuss the mouse, I discuss the mouse trap.
What I mean is: when a patent attorney says "obvious" it is a dogmatic term that has nothing to do with empirical opinions about what is obvious or not among software professionals in the field. Most software patents are "trivial" but they are not trivial because they lack obviousness but because the object that is awarded protection by patent law is not scarce.
In fact you are a troll.
"To be patentable, your invention has to be new and non-obvious."
That is the way the patent system technocracy shields itself, talking with patent professionals is like dealing with marxists. They have their own definition and standards of what constitutes "obviousness". And guess what, it has nothing to do with "common sense".
If you want to kill this thing ... the best way to do it is to find a document published anywhere in the world before November 2002
Why is the burden to kill a patent that should not be granted put on market players? Because that is the way the patent scam profits fromn the free rider effects of opposition failure.
Sickness is the right state of mind to express my appreciation of David Hasselhoff. You know, bad taste rules.
September 1, 1939 != 1941
I know several persons with Linux Laptops. In particular IT professionals use Linux.
Oh, Paris..., we've been there.
Look, David Hasselhoff is super-creepy and this is why he sold in Germany some while ago. David Hasselhoff was popular 20 years ago. And he was produced by German producers with cheap entertainment songs. Hasselhoff stands for a kind of white coon song. I guess he is taken more serious in the US.
Usually Germans prefer Music to kick ass of the Americans.
Exactly. Germany is more advanced in Linux adoption among ordinary citizens but in the public sector Spain leads.
Find the Spanish prime minister Zapatero telling that Bill Gates told him to be proud of Linux adoption.
Actually it is that people are fed up with Microsoft's arogance and with Linux you have Firefox and don't waste your time with virus scanning.
Actually the Americans jumped to the aid of Stalin and Churchill in 1941. War started around 1939...