I don't mean in terms of examination. I mean "at all", as a rule for the "game".
Imagine you want to marry a girl and she answers "I would, but x just asked me 4 minutes ago. I have to respect priority."
Imagine you have a restaurant with African dishes, you get bankrupt and out of business. Another person steps in and it becomes a huge success. You say: I was first, it was my idea to serve African dishes. He says: So what?
Imagine you watch documentary about Slashdot and then say: Oh, but I had the idea before to make one. (*)
The existance of independent "reinvention" shows that the object that gets awarded the incentive is special, scarce. Patent infringement doesn't work like: We read the patent and then implement it. Rather, you do your engineering work as usual and someone says: I have a patent on that. A patent says No! You can't do this! I have a right to prevent you from doing this. Copyright is more positive. You copy something. You cannot accidently infringe a copyright and where it happens the sphere of copyright protection is weak and you can expect to win in court.
(*) Does the priority matter? Does the idea matter, is it scarce?...or the ability to make it happen?
That a monopoly grant system(sorry, a "negative monopoly" to exclude others from doing it) does good for you does not mean that it is beneficial for the economy. In fact it cannot be shown it is.
In the language of the patent system inventing means "writing a patent application".
That is the so called disclosure teaching. The idea is that without patents inventions would not be disclosed. It is a rather strong one but assumes that the patent is of technical value for a professional, that is in most of the cases not true.
"Prior to the existence of patents inventors used trade secrets, non-disclosure contracts and various means of technical obfuscation to hide their inventions greatly impeding the advance of technologies."
An example for that is porcellaine but it was under a monopoly anyway. As patents are territorial rights they won't help to improve the situation.
I was trying to answer the property related question.
Cole writes "...these rights do not arise from the scarcity of the appropriated objects; rather, their purpose is to create scarcity, thereby generating a monopoly rent for holders of such rights. In such case, the law does not protect property over a scarce good, since the law itself created the scarcity, and this artificial scarcity generates the monopoly rents that confer value upon those rights. The big difference between patents and copyrights on the one hand, and tangible goods on the other, is that the latter will be scarce even if there are no welldefined property rights; in the case of patents and copyrights, the scarcity arises only after the property right is defined"
If you can create property by granting rights why doesn't the government grant even more rights and monopoly privileges. What does the legal sphere "create"?
"Without patents large vested interests would simply take all the inventions startup companies produce for their and only their profit."
The patent system does not work for start-ups. Patenting makes only sense when you can build up a portfolio. You cannot enforce a patent against a large player because in our world of patent madness the larger player has at least x trivial patents you infringe. Remains the patent troll. To become a patent troll you have to be able to finance 400k lawsuits which may last several years. Either you concentrate on your product development or on legal action. Real start ups just have no time for the patent process.
Examination of a patent takes 5 years. Either you are bankrupt before you get the patent or no "startup" anymore.
"Slashdot is not the right place to seek advice about these issues because for the most part it is populated by entitlement minded dullards who never have original ideas. I find Slashdot forums rate next to use groups in quality of content."
At least they know that patent attorneys are perpetrators. Get me the economist who tells that the patent system makes sense. Machlup's conclusions still hold.
Public research is public and needs public financing.
Private research is private and needs private financing.
Turning a public institution into a patent troll is damaging for the economy.
Patents have nothing to do with research. You get more patents when you hire more lawyers to write them. There is no free lunch. You cannot create "property" by assigning rights.
As of a company keep your house clean. Don't create incentives to do what is wrong in the first place. Don't buy the snake oil from the patent attorney.
Well, it is very topical! Don't do what is wrong. Don't spread the cancer.
Why would you even want to make a scheme for employees to file more patents?
He asks how he should worship the devil. I say, there is no devil.
The patent system is useless slack. Therefore my incentive system would be that for each patent your institution has to apply for (because there is a patent system) you invest 10% of the legal costs in patent reform or abolishment. Same for all patent lawsuits and royalties you have to pay. The patent system would implode in no time and make way to a free market.
"the fact remains that patents are what drives most research and technological progress in the world"
Which shows that you have no clue about the economic research on the patent system.
Sure, statistic research which measures 'innovation' of a nation by the number of patents granted (or "applied for" as we don't have good data on granting, it takes 4-5 years to examine a patent) will find that more patents mean more innovation but the fact is that the patent system is based on economic voodoo. It is a belief system with the assumption that you can create property.
As it is an incentive system we don't know if an economy is better off with a patent system than without. Therefore a patent system is not "justified". At least in the field of software and business methods and other service sectors the system is very damaging as it was not made for these markets.
The problem is that there should not be a patent at all. Because patents are just slack for the economy as every economist will tell you. The only leftover the free trade revolution failed to kill in the last century.
The fact with patents is that registering a patent is like registering a trade mark. Hire more patent attorneys and you get more patents. And no one asks whether they will produce any return on investment.
An innovative company will bail the lawyers out, invest in real R&D and lobby for patent reform to overcome the madness. Research institutions should not patent at all.
But you don't want to be the cheap provider. Companies don't care much about costs, someone needs to spent his budget. The cost argument is stupid. If you can get the source, that solution is better.
I for me the "think tank" looks like American astroturfing and sure it is. You know Eiffel tower, this is so cheap. What a strange group. I don't really need to read their paper because they have no credibility.
The arguments of Mr. Augustin are fun! Take this one:
"Key driver of commercial Open Source business creation: Creation of a local software industry"
Sure, politicians should care. But in a commercial European environment companies take open source because its the right solution for them, not for market goals. Because their engineers like it. Because its better. Oh, maybe costs but money is no the problem.
Or dual licensing: "Not true open source. Proprietary business models using Open Source for PR and marketing."
Sorry, I don't get it.
Or on American companies: "US companies donâ(TM)t want to be in the services business. The focus is on products, typically proprietary add-ons or an Enterprise Edition paired with an Open Source product edition."
Well, which company did they invite? Microsoft? Who still sells software? Come on. Professional software is a service market.
Or why is there the Venture Capital discussion... In the US you have equity capital financing. In Europe debt capital financing. So the whole VC discussion does not really play a role. Augustin writes: "Iâ(TM)m somewhat biased living in Silicon Valley at the center of the information technology Venture Capital business, but in the US we are definitely driven to create Open Source businesses with venture capital. The US has a large and successful existing proprietary software business. Our motivation in the US is to build the next generation of software companies. But in Europe thatâ(TM)s not the case. Here there is a natural desire to build a local software economy and Open Source offers that opportunity. Thatâ(TM)s a major motivating factor in the adoption of Open Source."
Empirical research for idiots: one panel in the US, one panel in Paris, and then compare national attitudes. Sorry, back to Silicon Valley, please. Stay away from us.
Of course you are held accountable to do what you are supposed to do. I was speaking of 'personal responsibility'.
Most soldiers don't actually kill persons. But you sign up to kill and get killed.
For a soldier it is formally no problem to defeat a target by killing that person. Unfortunately we are humans and it is difficult to confront that you caused the death of another person. Killing in war is not "murder" but the effect is the same. If it does feel good you should worry about yourself.
For a soldier it is formally no problem to get killed as it is his professional risk. But his family will see things differently. You also have a leadership problem. Most of the cases military organisations don't work very efficiently. So you have "guilt". You did mistake x and soldiers you work with die.
You drive through areas and see those dead children your fellow soldiers who dropped the bomb didn't.
The standard narrative pattern of war is that the hierarchy has to tell you, you did everything right. Your fellow soldier gets killed. So the government needs to say he did it right, it was honourable or for a cause etc. You can't tell the family "he had bad luck" or talk about professional risk.
Come on. A political leader does not require that sort of knowledge. The scandal e.g. about the Bush doctrine is that it is idiosyncratic and contradicts the Nuremberg principles and discontinues foreign policy. To say it is a "doctrine" is a joke, it is revolutionary politics. It shouldn't happen.
Now, a VP is a person to shake hands with African dictators. It is a symbolic office. That is why Obama was right to pick Biden instead of Clinton.
A soldier is a person who is lead by a leader and does not take the decisions. They are e.g. not in Iraq because they like it or not or they want to do good as they don't take the decisions.
There is really no point in talking about "support for our troops", meaning the sustention of the mission they carry out. It is a classic cover-up. A soldier is an object and leadership means to direct them in a responsible way. What bad leadership to use the object you lead to justify the decisions you made!
Michael Moore is a polemic but he is of course right that soldiers usually come from the lower class. They are guys who sell their freedom and are subordinated, relieved from personal responsibilities they are forced to kill or get killed. It is a burden not a virtue.
Now Palin even makes it worse. She buys into the propaganda that gets a life of its own.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean in terms of examination. I mean "at all", as a rule for the "game".
Imagine you want to marry a girl and she answers "I would, but x just asked me 4 minutes ago. I have to respect priority."
Imagine you have a restaurant with African dishes, you get bankrupt and out of business. Another person steps in and it becomes a huge success. You say: I was first, it was my idea to serve African dishes. He says: So what?
Imagine you watch documentary about Slashdot and then say: Oh, but I had the idea before to make one. (*)
The existance of independent "reinvention" shows that the object that gets awarded the incentive is special, scarce. Patent infringement doesn't work like: We read the patent and then implement it. Rather, you do your engineering work as usual and someone says: I have a patent on that. A patent says No! You can't do this! I have a right to prevent you from doing this. Copyright is more positive. You copy something. You cannot accidently infringe a copyright and where it happens the sphere of copyright protection is weak and you can expect to win in court.
(*) Does the priority matter? Does the idea matter, is it scarce? ...or the ability to make it happen?
That a monopoly grant system(sorry, a "negative monopoly" to exclude others from doing it) does good for you does not mean that it is beneficial for the economy. In fact it cannot be shown it is.
In the language of the patent system inventing means "writing a patent application".
That is the so called disclosure teaching. The idea is that without patents inventions would not be disclosed. It is a rather strong one but assumes that the patent is of technical value for a professional, that is in most of the cases not true.
"Prior to the existence of patents inventors used trade secrets, non-disclosure contracts and various means of technical obfuscation to hide their inventions greatly impeding the advance of technologies."
An example for that is porcellaine but it was under a monopoly anyway. As patents are territorial rights they won't help to improve the situation.
I was trying to answer the property related question.
Former French Minister and parliament member Toubon explained the link between child porn and internet evilness in this video (he start around min 11:00).
A patent is a "right".
Cole writes "...these rights do not arise from the scarcity of the appropriated objects; rather, their purpose is to create scarcity, thereby generating a monopoly rent for holders of such rights. In such case, the law does not protect property over a scarce good, since the law itself created the scarcity, and this artificial scarcity generates the monopoly rents that confer value upon those rights. The big difference between patents and copyrights on the one hand, and tangible goods on the other, is that the latter will be scarce even if there are no welldefined property rights; in the case of patents and copyrights, the scarcity arises only after the property right is defined"
If you can create property by granting rights why doesn't the government grant even more rights and monopoly privileges. What does the legal sphere "create"?
"Without patents large vested interests would simply take all the inventions startup companies produce for their and only their profit."
The patent system does not work for start-ups. Patenting makes only sense when you can build up a portfolio. You cannot enforce a patent against a large player because in our world of patent madness the larger player has at least x trivial patents you infringe. Remains the patent troll. To become a patent troll you have to be able to finance 400k lawsuits which may last several years. Either you concentrate on your product development or on legal action. Real start ups just have no time for the patent process.
Examination of a patent takes 5 years. Either you are bankrupt before you get the patent or no "startup" anymore.
"Slashdot is not the right place to seek advice about these issues because for the most part it is populated by entitlement minded dullards who never have original ideas. I find Slashdot forums rate next to use groups in quality of content."
At least they know that patent attorneys are perpetrators. Get me the economist who tells that the patent system makes sense. Machlup's conclusions still hold.
I found an interesting article of Cole.
It boils down to the question if novelty is relevant.
Public research is public and needs public financing.
Private research is private and needs private financing.
Turning a public institution into a patent troll is damaging for the economy.
Patents have nothing to do with research. You get more patents when you hire more lawyers to write them. There is no free lunch. You cannot create "property" by assigning rights.
As of a company keep your house clean. Don't create incentives to do what is wrong in the first place. Don't buy the snake oil from the patent attorney.
Well, it is very topical! Don't do what is wrong. Don't spread the cancer.
Why would you even want to make a scheme for employees to file more patents?
He asks how he should worship the devil. I say, there is no devil.
The patent system is useless slack. Therefore my incentive system would be that for each patent your institution has to apply for (because there is a patent system) you invest 10% of the legal costs in patent reform or abolishment. Same for all patent lawsuits and royalties you have to pay. The patent system would implode in no time and make way to a free market.
Is it possible in the US to use an EULA to prevent third parties to read your proprietary formats?
Do you think the legislator should better enforce interoperability provisions?
"the fact remains that patents are what drives most research and technological progress in the world"
Which shows that you have no clue about the economic research on the patent system.
Sure, statistic research which measures 'innovation' of a nation by the number of patents granted (or "applied for" as we don't have good data on granting, it takes 4-5 years to examine a patent) will find that more patents mean more innovation but the fact is that the patent system is based on economic voodoo. It is a belief system with the assumption that you can create property.
As it is an incentive system we don't know if an economy is better off with a patent system than without. Therefore a patent system is not "justified". At least in the field of software and business methods and other service sectors the system is very damaging as it was not made for these markets.
The problem is that there should not be a patent at all. Because patents are just slack for the economy as every economist will tell you. The only leftover the free trade revolution failed to kill in the last century.
Patents for software are in particular dangerous.
The fact with patents is that registering a patent is like registering a trade mark. Hire more patent attorneys and you get more patents. And no one asks whether they will produce any return on investment.
An innovative company will bail the lawyers out, invest in real R&D and lobby for patent reform to overcome the madness. Research institutions should not patent at all.
1. Disclosure of sources
If I am a professional software user and I can procure
software x with source
it is better than
software x without source
2. Price
For most goods you would assume that
x cheap is better than x expensive.
x = the same good.
But the packing tool, what would that be? A win apt-get?
Ehmm. But doesn't the European Patent Organisation reside outside the European Union? ...in Munich, the city of the movement....
I am speaking of communication strategy, not of contents. The vagueness is part of the strategy.
But you don't want to be the cheap provider. Companies don't care much about costs, someone needs to spent his budget. The cost argument is stupid. If you can get the source, that solution is better.
Ever heard of MIOL?
Ask your tax advisor.
For a company, no.
For a politician, maybe they should but they don't
I for me the "think tank" looks like American astroturfing and sure it is. You know Eiffel tower, this is so cheap. What a strange group. I don't really need to read their paper because they have no credibility.
The arguments of Mr. Augustin are fun! Take this one:
"Key driver of commercial Open Source business creation: Creation of a local software industry"
Sure, politicians should care. But in a commercial European environment companies take open source because its the right solution for them, not for market goals. Because their engineers like it. Because its better. Oh, maybe costs but money is no the problem.
Or dual licensing: "Not true open source. Proprietary business models using Open Source for PR and marketing."
Sorry, I don't get it.
Or on American companies: "US companies donâ(TM)t want to be in the services business. The focus is on products, typically proprietary add-ons or an Enterprise Edition paired with an Open Source product edition."
Well, which company did they invite? Microsoft? Who still sells software? Come on. Professional software is a service market.
Or why is there the Venture Capital discussion... In the US you have equity capital financing. In Europe debt capital financing. So the whole VC discussion does not really play a role. Augustin writes: "Iâ(TM)m somewhat biased living in Silicon Valley at the center of the information technology Venture Capital business, but in the US we are definitely driven to create Open Source businesses with venture capital. The US has a large and successful existing proprietary software business. Our motivation in the US is to build the next generation of software companies. But in Europe thatâ(TM)s not the case. Here there is a natural desire to build a local software economy and Open Source offers that opportunity. Thatâ(TM)s a major motivating factor in the adoption of Open Source."
So, learning curve ahead for Mr. Augustin.
Empirical research for idiots: one panel in the US, one panel in Paris, and then compare national attitudes. Sorry, back to Silicon Valley, please. Stay away from us.
Exactly.
Of course you are held accountable to do what you are supposed to do. I was speaking of 'personal responsibility'.
Most soldiers don't actually kill persons. But you sign up to kill and get killed.
For a soldier it is formally no problem to defeat a target by killing that person. Unfortunately we are humans and it is difficult to confront that you caused the death of another person. Killing in war is not "murder" but the effect is the same. If it does feel good you should worry about yourself.
For a soldier it is formally no problem to get killed as it is his professional risk. But his family will see things differently. You also have a leadership problem. Most of the cases military organisations don't work very efficiently. So you have "guilt". You did mistake x and soldiers you work with die.
You drive through areas and see those dead children your fellow soldiers who dropped the bomb didn't.
The standard narrative pattern of war is that the hierarchy has to tell you, you did everything right. Your fellow soldier gets killed. So the government needs to say he did it right, it was honourable or for a cause etc. You can't tell the family "he had bad luck" or talk about professional risk.
I am sorry. That is news to me. Don't expect me to buy into it.
Come on. A political leader does not require that sort of knowledge. The scandal e.g. about the Bush doctrine is that it is idiosyncratic and contradicts the Nuremberg principles and discontinues foreign policy. To say it is a "doctrine" is a joke, it is revolutionary politics. It shouldn't happen.
Now, a VP is a person to shake hands with African dictators. It is a symbolic office. That is why Obama was right to pick Biden instead of Clinton.
Financial crisis? Why not make some ideological proposals how to not fix it?
Yes, it is.
A soldier is a person who is lead by a leader and does not take the decisions. They are e.g. not in Iraq because they like it or not or they want to do good as they don't take the decisions.
There is really no point in talking about "support for our troops", meaning the sustention of the mission they carry out. It is a classic cover-up. A soldier is an object and leadership means to direct them in a responsible way. What bad leadership to use the object you lead to justify the decisions you made!
Michael Moore is a polemic but he is of course right that soldiers usually come from the lower class. They are guys who sell their freedom and are subordinated, relieved from personal responsibilities they are forced to kill or get killed. It is a burden not a virtue.
Now Palin even makes it worse. She buys into the propaganda that gets a life of its own.
1. carry out negative campaigns and spread blunt lies.
2. Speak out against negative campaigning.
3. Profit
What you mean is:
1. I am one of you
2. But I'm your VP candidate.
3. FBI
Keep it simple. Modern politics must be simple because you only have 30 seconds and a few soundbites to get your lies across.
Worth to watch again:
Adam Curtis documentary Century of the Self 4/4 where he speaks about modern campaigning under Clinton.