...of getting so far out of balance between innovation and protectionism that we risk never being able to recover from the damage legislation like this does to US industries, inventors, and technology consumers.
It's enlightening to think that this entire mess is related to the failure of campaign finance reform to adequately accomplish its goals; reason #1 why geeks should care about politics.
Unless the price of high-density flash RAM drops dramatically sometime really soon, hard drive-based MP3 players will continue to be the de facto standard for large-capacity players.
Besides, these "innovative" new features aren't really all that innovative. So there.
I'm thinking of moving from New York to California, and I'd like to take ALL my information with me, including:
my home IP address
my telephone numbers, including area code
my full mailing address
my global coordinates (latitude and longitude)
and my land (physical property).
What's the address of this judge? I need to go talk to him.
I'm an academic and a scientist (albeit a social scientist...hey, not everyone can be John Nash). Publishing in the scientific community is somewhat like the music and books biz, but unlike in other ways.
LIKE artists, I have to publish to get paid. I'm in a research university, so if I don't publish, I don't get tenure and then I have to go get a real job.
But, UNLIKE most artists, I don't get paid by selling my content. The only people who make money off of that are the journals, and most of them aren't making tons of money.
In the end, access to scientific information should be as free and easy as possible -- making the world a better-informed place about this stuff helps everyone (you know, a rising tide lifts all boats, and all that).
I'm all for freer access to scientific content. But to make it more freely available, we need to figure out who should be getting rich from it. Since we can't divorce our scientific community from our business community (that was tried, it was called communism), we need to figure out a model that rewards the scientist for his/her endeavors while also maximizing availability. The current system certainly doesn't do that.
" People doing R&D aren't being protected now. The only people protected are those who can afford the patent lawyers"
Two thoughts. First, navigating the legality of R&D *is* part of R&D. If you just invent stuff and put no effort into protecting it, why should you be given protection? Second, the costs associated with the legalities of patents are way, way too high. If they were significantly cheaper, and the bureaucracy was reduced, this wouldn't be much of a burden.
With patents there is no incentive to innovate because only one company is allowed to produce any feature or product. Look at how RIM has been potentially enjoined out of business. The gist is that nobody is allowed to make X because company Y came up with the idea first. (yet wasn't able to market it)
Your logic is pretty contrary to both practice and theory on the matter. Just because a firm can't make (i.e., manufacture) something that it invents does NOT mean it is unable to earn financial rewards for doing so. That's why companies license their inventions, so that firms who can manufacture and sell products based on the innovation can make money, thereby directing some portion of the revenue back to the original innovator.
There are lots of small companies who are simply little labs -- they invent stuff, get patents, and then license the use of those patents to big firms who make stuff out of them. Those labs are often incredibly profitable and very successful.
As a counter-example, Xerox has invented a crapload of stuff, yet it is good at neither commercialization nor licensing. In that situation, it resorts to ex post litigation over infringement, which is a very bad way to go about things.
In general, innovation is fostered by some degree of protection. How long and how much, however, are the details that make the difference between a healthy system and a broken one.
Please vote for one of the following:
A) Microsoft
B) ClearChannel
C) The FCC
D) US Congress
E) SCO
F) The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO)
G) The RIAA
H) The MPAA
I) The NRA
J) The KKK
Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see sanity returned to this topic, eliminating patents won't do it.
Doing that rewards companies who are excellent at manufacturing, not R&D or innovation. R&D is expensive, and the only thing that motivates companies to invest in that is the possibility of above-market-value returns as a result of a limited (timewise) monopoly on the sale or licensing of the resulting product.
If we had no patents and the only thing we rewarded was manufacturing expertise, then there would be a race to improve manufacturing's ability to copy others' inventions. As a result, there would be (theoretically) much less innovation, at least in industries where R&D is expensive (e.g., pharmaceuticals, electronics, etc.)
So, while I hope we can figure out a better patent review system, just getting rid of patents ain't the answer.
Now Monsanto and similar companies can sue all those dastardly gene thieves who operate illicit piracy-enabling operations like produce delivery trucks, caterers, restaurants, Orville Redenbacher, etc.
Maybe, they can even sue the states or the federal government for laying down the roads that permit such illegal distribution (inter-state, even [gasp!]) of improperly obtained genetically modified food substances.
Except for the lack of pop-up window handling and some of the "fancier" plug-ins (e.g., Flash), I've been pretty satisfied with the better Palm OS handheld browsers when viewing standards-compliant websites. It's when webmasters start catering their code to IE that screws things up most of the time.
While I'd love to see the "ultimate" browser made for Palm OS, the fact that we have a few decent choices already may be why you're not hearing the chorus of "me too's" that you're hearing from the Pocket PC crowd. Or maybe it's that Palm OS users don't read/. (ha! beat you to it...muhahahaha).
Apparently, Googol wasn't trademarked, so there's little risk that Google.com/Google will be forced to do much of anything punitive or remunerative.
Simply making up a word, or even publishing it, doesn't permit you to prevent others from using it in whatever fashion they want. A single word is not copyrightable, so without trademark (or servicemark) protection, there's not much value in a single word or term.
I think (note that implies less than 100% certainty) that zerophase.net has what you're looking for. They're very independent and very into supporting innovative ways to (legally) share music.
Or is this because the Space Station is actually funded by Microsoft and is just a floating Exchange server with the world's most efficient cooling system?
Will the last lawyer out of the building please turn off the lights?
The sociological implications are stunning...
on
Perfect Digital Skin
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Today, we're raising a generation of people who believe that everyone engages in Cialis-enhanced multi-partner sex just like they see on the Internet (don't you?!).
Tomorrow, we'll be raising a generation of people who believe that all those seemingly real people on the Internet are flawless as well.
How disappointed they will all be when they realize that the imperfection of humanity can't compare with the perfection of a digital world. Hopefully they'll also realize that it is those same imperfections that make life interesting.
I was laughing at the fact that there are *only* hundreds. Devices running Palm OS can select from tens of thousands of programs, many (if not most) completely free.
If you care about this issue enough to follow any of the links above, you should read Lessig's "Free Culture" -- hell, you don't even have to pay for it (available as a free download). It's an excellent read that clearly outlines both sides of the issue (including de-FUDding many of Valenti's statements).
News flash: Taking a cue from the RIAA, the JPEG has instituted wide-ranging lawsuits and subpoenas to ISPs requesting identification of users who are, according to the JPEG representative, "guilty of sharing hundreds or thousands of illegally created JPG images using programs or utilities that do not comply with the recently enforced JPEG patent."
In other news, the entire US Congress was found to have absolutely no clue as to the meaning of the words "The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
One thing we'll definitely need is the RFID equivalent of FreeDB.
Of course, once the planet is littered with RFID tags in everything (after all, isn't 94.6% of everything in the world purchased at a Wal-Mart now?), we geeks will need a way to find out what data each contains.
The big corp monopolies won't be giving up their data, so it'll be up to us to collect, organize, and disseminate the data in these tags. Bu then, you have to wonder if even reading those tags won't be some kind of violation of the DMCA or other IP protection laws. Damn laws.
Re:still not sure what the point is
on
Running for Geeks
·
· Score: 1
My point was that if you don't enjoy running enough to do it without the gadgets, then the gadgets alone probably aren't going to compel you to keep running. IOW, if running is merely a platform for someone's technology habit, that's fine -- I got no beef with that -- but it's likely to be only a _temporary_ platform.
Slashdot Mirror
It's enlightening to think that this entire mess is related to the failure of campaign finance reform to adequately accomplish its goals; reason #1 why geeks should care about politics.
Besides, these "innovative" new features aren't really all that innovative. So there.
I'm thinking of moving from New York to California, and I'd like to take ALL my information with me, including:
my home IP address
my telephone numbers, including area code
my full mailing address
my global coordinates (latitude and longitude)
and my land (physical property). What's the address of this judge? I need to go talk to him.
He's all for destroying citizens' personal computers as well if they do naughty things like swap copyrighted materials. Link
LIKE artists, I have to publish to get paid. I'm in a research university, so if I don't publish, I don't get tenure and then I have to go get a real job.
But, UNLIKE most artists, I don't get paid by selling my content. The only people who make money off of that are the journals, and most of them aren't making tons of money.
In the end, access to scientific information should be as free and easy as possible -- making the world a better-informed place about this stuff helps everyone (you know, a rising tide lifts all boats, and all that).
I'm all for freer access to scientific content. But to make it more freely available, we need to figure out who should be getting rich from it. Since we can't divorce our scientific community from our business community (that was tried, it was called communism), we need to figure out a model that rewards the scientist for his/her endeavors while also maximizing availability. The current system certainly doesn't do that.
There are lots of small companies who are simply little labs -- they invent stuff, get patents, and then license the use of those patents to big firms who make stuff out of them. Those labs are often incredibly profitable and very successful.
As a counter-example, Xerox has invented a crapload of stuff, yet it is good at neither commercialization nor licensing. In that situation, it resorts to ex post litigation over infringement, which is a very bad way to go about things.
In general, innovation is fostered by some degree of protection. How long and how much, however, are the details that make the difference between a healthy system and a broken one.
Please vote for one of the following:
A) Microsoft
B) ClearChannel
C) The FCC
D) US Congress
E) SCO
F) The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO)
G) The RIAA
H) The MPAA
I) The NRA
J) The KKK
Doing that rewards companies who are excellent at manufacturing, not R&D or innovation. R&D is expensive, and the only thing that motivates companies to invest in that is the possibility of above-market-value returns as a result of a limited (timewise) monopoly on the sale or licensing of the resulting product.
If we had no patents and the only thing we rewarded was manufacturing expertise, then there would be a race to improve manufacturing's ability to copy others' inventions. As a result, there would be (theoretically) much less innovation, at least in industries where R&D is expensive (e.g., pharmaceuticals, electronics, etc.)
So, while I hope we can figure out a better patent review system, just getting rid of patents ain't the answer.
How will it ever defeat Ziggo?
"Because it can be done" is actually a great reason only about 4% of the time it gets used.
Maybe, they can even sue the states or the federal government for laying down the roads that permit such illegal distribution (inter-state, even [gasp!]) of improperly obtained genetically modified food substances.
That dripping sound you hear is lawyer drool.
While I'd love to see the "ultimate" browser made for Palm OS, the fact that we have a few decent choices already may be why you're not hearing the chorus of "me too's" that you're hearing from the Pocket PC crowd. Or maybe it's that Palm OS users don't read /. (ha! beat you to it...muhahahaha).
Simply making up a word, or even publishing it, doesn't permit you to prevent others from using it in whatever fashion they want. A single word is not copyrightable, so without trademark (or servicemark) protection, there's not much value in a single word or term.
I think (note that implies less than 100% certainty) that zerophase.net has what you're looking for. They're very independent and very into supporting innovative ways to (legally) share music.
Or is this because the Space Station is actually funded by Microsoft and is just a floating Exchange server with the world's most efficient cooling system?
I'd love to see Firefox for Palm OS or Linux handhelds and smartphones.
Hell, I'd love to see Firefox come pre-installed on all those Linux boxes that Wal-Mart is selling.
Will the last lawyer out of the building please turn off the lights?
Tomorrow, we'll be raising a generation of people who believe that all those seemingly real people on the Internet are flawless as well.
How disappointed they will all be when they realize that the imperfection of humanity can't compare with the perfection of a digital world. Hopefully they'll also realize that it is those same imperfections that make life interesting.
I was laughing at the fact that there are *only* hundreds. Devices running Palm OS can select from tens of thousands of programs, many (if not most) completely free.
"But it uses Symbian a better OS that i can upgrade, alter and get hundreds of progreammes for" /me chuckles... "hundreds" [giggle, snort]
If you care about this issue enough to follow any of the links above, you should read Lessig's "Free Culture" -- hell, you don't even have to pay for it (available as a free download). It's an excellent read that clearly outlines both sides of the issue (including de-FUDding many of Valenti's statements).
With infinite _parallel_ universes, why be troubled with _future_ event horizons?
In other news, the entire US Congress was found to have absolutely no clue as to the meaning of the words "The Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Of course, once the planet is littered with RFID tags in everything (after all, isn't 94.6% of everything in the world purchased at a Wal-Mart now?), we geeks will need a way to find out what data each contains.
The big corp monopolies won't be giving up their data, so it'll be up to us to collect, organize, and disseminate the data in these tags. Bu then, you have to wonder if even reading those tags won't be some kind of violation of the DMCA or other IP protection laws. Damn laws.
My point was that if you don't enjoy running enough to do it without the gadgets, then the gadgets alone probably aren't going to compel you to keep running. IOW, if running is merely a platform for someone's technology habit, that's fine -- I got no beef with that -- but it's likely to be only a _temporary_ platform.