It's illigal, yes. It's breaking the law. However, its not theft.. its copyright infringement.
I mean, even the law calls it something other than theft.
Fans of The Grateful Dead or KRS-One were encouraged to bootleg shows by the copyright owners, but no formal agreements were signed by anybody.. should we just call these people 'theives' and arrest them? Or should we start understanding that theft != copyright infringement? Nobody ever wants to be robbed, but there are times where authors do not mind the supposed act of 'theft'.. er, copyright infringement.
Both are illegal, both are (arguably and to varying extents) ethically wrong, but they are not the same thing. Folks who claim they are the same thing are simply parroting the cries of their sad and embattled heros, the Business 2.0 reading media/content exec. Save your breath, they have enough money and time to get their message across without you tagging along behind them waggin your tail..
When it gets down to it, it behooves your survival skills to differentiate between the real world and the real world according to its current wealthy conformists. Now _theres_ a world of difference I hope you can appreciate.
Thats a very important and often ignored point. Private companies reap the benifits of the patent system, while much of the pre-commercialization work is done by academia.
When drug comapnies whine about how much it costs to develop their drugs, you should ask them how much it cost for universities to develop the very foundations of the science they profit off of.
meanwhile, at cnn, abcnews, bbc, cbc, journalists are hard at work empowering you, a free man, with bias-free and editorization-free content.
the fact that they make money doing this is just a nice bonus to the fuzzy feelings they get in their tummy from helping you feel^H^H^H^Hbe a free citizen of planet earth.
[/sarcasm]
to be honest, sometimes i respect an out-of-the-closet dictatorial regime over the 'dont say it out loud' vested econo/poli agendas of major media conglomerates who still have the gall to act as if they dont have any vested interest in various stories/news
in other words, better to bias your content for a political/social goal than a purely financial one, although I appreciate that neither system ultimately serves humans on the basis of "what news is important".
please note I'm not condoning China's political system, only somewhat envious of the transparency in so far as agendas go..
as a final huzzah, i believe that this article is about how many people *think* they were infected, not how many actuall were, so it wouldn't really be justification for some sort of tin-foil-hat conceived agenda.
this clearly should tip you off to an important piece of insight:
they are happy with radio, because its where you hear what you have to buy (if you're not the crate digging type), and because the pop (thats pop as in popular, of course.. covering all genres) artists get most of the air play.. the stuff they want to market. they like it because its a hot medium..
they hate the internet, because the shelf-space becomes unlimited so it is more difficult to ensure you own all of the real estate, and because its more prone to splintering peoples tastes.. the labels like an artist that sells to millions as opposed to many artists going to many different people. and of course, because its a cold medium where you decide what to listen to
their very approval of digital radio and non approval of the internet is the very inidicator that radio does not pose a significant threat to them in terms of driving people to middle-tier or independant labels, where as the internet suits the kind of diversification that makes execs shudder.
> When we see articles about automatic shutoff switches for stolen cars set out as bait for the criminal element, everybody here thinks it's a great idea
Actually, this starts to become entrapment, if cops purposely leave this car with its doors open and hang around the corner waiting for somebody to bite.
Exactly! Imagine what happens when you start employing minimum wage jockies who just got outta jail.. we'll have alot more to worry about than folks getting on planes with little pocket knives..
I'm all for fighting corperate welfare, but you'll have corperate welfare no matter what.. think about how companies profit off the work universities do.
Corperate welfare in terms of paying for companies to go into new markets (ie, government funds advertising in markets companies want access to).. worst end of the scale.
Corperate welfare in terms of taxpayer money being used to spur development of a technology? Current bias in patent laws notwithstanding, some company makes some technology, and we all get to use it. Its not the same as subsidizing the risk of the hyper-growth huge corperate bohemouths are into these days.
I think alot of the hype around corperate welfare is only an issue when the company is looking for hyper-growth and unreasonable margins or protection of risk/ I certainly don't mind taxpayer money going to private companies if they intend on being responsible participants in the sci/tech community. I'm not sure there is really a hard and fast line in terms of when you stop providing welfare (in the traditional sense.. money to those who need it, ie to spur development) and you start providing silver spoons and beach chairs to companies who've lost sight of any sense of contributing to human progress.
>You say I can't change the channel on my TV when an ad comes on? Is that illegal?
Actually, according to the MSes of the TV world, yes. And your agument that MS should be able to stop people from selling technology that allows you to circumvent their revenue stream means television should have the right to stop people from selling technologies which allow people to circumvent commercials. (Cause then how do the people making the shows get paid?)
Your answer, which I believe is *right*, is that its up to the producer to select a business model that people will not seek to circumvent. The market works because people pay what they're willing to pay, not because they've a gun to their head saying *you have to pay for this*. Your friends are jerks. I yell at my friends who do anything like that, even down to skipping turnstyles and the like. You should to.
But alas, we can all shuck our social ethics, because thank god, companies are finally starting to ethically police us themselves!
Look, this isn't black and white, but thats the very reason why you should be erring on the side of assuming people can use that technology ethically, for the same reason you asume as much about your blocking software. If banner ads annoyed you, would you block those to? How do you know other users of that software are as ethical as you? The tempation would be there to block *all* ad popups, and even grab tools to block banners, just as the tempation is there to copy games.
This is why Nintendo is smart. They choose media that will have low piracy rates, take the moderate hit on not having the 'latest and greatest', and focus on doing what they do best. Pleasing gamers. MS would rather use technologies that dangle the carrot in front of your friends' nose, and then go after the folks who provide the obvious solution to the obvious and predictable demand for piracy. It is this same reason why I'm not opposed to ad blocking. We can police ourselves. If we can't, you as a producer, are in the wrong business.
Not that it matters. That 'tempation', as you put it, will always exist. Popup killers, channel changers, dual cassette decks, remote controls will always exist. Trying to ban the tool never works; you can only alter people's behaviour through technology, not deny it via denying people technology after its been adopted. Its a pretty core fundamental of the relation between technology and social values and behaviour.
The only thing I'd like is the right to the freedom required to break the law when I want.
If the cops want to arrest me for breaking the law, I'm fully prepared to pay for my actions. 100%. Come and arrest me. Just don't limit my freedom to make the choice of whether to be law abiding or not.
>My software only blocks one form of online advertising, and allows you to let that through for specific sites, if you want.
In other words, the content provider trusts you to use the technology responsibly instead of trying to legislatively put popup killer companies out of business because *some* of their users use them to totally sqaush all advertising? This is hilarious. How can you possibly support MS for going after mod chip makers if those mod chip makers use them responsibly, and then defend your use of a tool that will strip content providers of revenue (popups have to fully load, sometimes even sit for a few seconds, before a website gets paid for it in the majority of ad networks and ad serving systems.. I should know, I write ad servers for a living)...
See? I don't have a problem with you using a popup killer. But you're stripping revenue from sites that deserve it, based on what *you* feel they deserve for what they're providing you.
Then, you go and defend MS for going after companies that make technology that does the *exact* same thing.. lets people access some content the producer would deny them from unless they paid full price for it or bought it in the correct region/market. You're saying: "MS has the right to ensure that nobody consumes their content unless its in the *exact* way they provide it, in the *exact* market they provide it", but use software that does *exactly* the same thing.
Haha. I'm in the ad business, and I have no qualms with your software. What I want to know is why its different that MS has the apparent right to enforce their qualms with mod chips.
Incidentally, popups pay out anywhere from 4 to 10 times what banner ads do. Stripping out the popup ads is a large hit on a websites revenue, because they count on popups WAY more than banners for revenue. But I guess youre smart, responsible, and ethical enough to know all these thigns already right? Why are we wasting time discussing this when there are people watching import games in markets they don't live in!! Lets catch the real criminals!
Dont you find it a little ironic that hes got a fucking POPUP KILLER in his sig? Thats a goddamned mod chip for websites. (Since it cheats the website out of revenue that they _expect_ when people view their site, just like a mod chip cheats MS out of revenue that they _expect_ when people use content on their platform.)
Whats REALLY ironic is that your popup-killer sig is exactly the same as piracy. In order for sites to remain profitable, you have to view the ad. You're using technological means to cheat the provider out of revenue for the infromation they provide you. Thats piracy.. you're saying 'too bad for serving me the content in a format which I can cheat. and because I can cheat it, I will'. How will the writers/artists get paid for providing you with the content you come across on the web?
Now _that_ is ironic, and I'm afraid that the credibility you build in this thread (I was just beginning to agree with you) is all gone. Hypocrite.:)
I see what you're saying, don't get me wrong. My point is mod chips shouldn't be illegal.
But you know what? If zoning didn't exist, I'd have no problem with making mod chips illegal. Absolutely none. If their sole purpose was to play copied games, fine. Make them illegal and deal with the bigger issue of copyright.
But until anyone can prove to me that it wasn't against the will of people and unethical to zone games geographically, keeping people from buying import games that wouldn't be released here, I have 0 sympathy.
Zoning exists so they can get better returns on their investment, not because consumers want it. So I have no sympathy that they now have to fight an unpopular battle because some people actually want to do something that they don't see as being unethical (playing purchased zoned games). MS left the door wide open for an excuse to develop piracy-enabling devices.. all because of the greedy motives behind zoning.
Technology is power, dude. The market used to be able to correct the power of producers, but technology is now sufficiently complex enough to allow producers to weild power over the market through a lack of education, FUD, lobbying, and technolgical measures. Companies that use technological means to maximize margins against the will of people do not deserve to not be protected from the consequences of those actions.
Then explain why radar detectors can be sold. They are only used to avoid cops so that people can speed in peace. Any 'legit' use is minimal.. I mostly see them on the 'decks of imports that are probably going above the speedlimit for 80% of their street life.
Do we shut down people who sell performance parts (because the vast majority of these parts end up in street imports driven by testosterone-driven 22 year olds who revel in breaking the speed limit)... NO WE DONT. We punish the people who use these parts illegally.
And the modchip doesn't cheat MS out of profit. Just like the VCR doesn't cheat the movie biz out of profit, even tho I have 20 copied movies at home (probably like you or many of your neighbours.) Well, okay, it does but its been tolerated for the last 20 odd years.. grandparents who wouldn't go through the express lane at the grocery story with more than 8 items routinely use VCR's illegally.
The VCR gets used illegaly several times a day by people on your street. So will the modchip. No need to whip out the laywers and put your customers in diapers. We've been through this before.. I feel bad for people who honestly think MS has some sort of legal right to prevent the sale of tools which may or may not be used to conduct illegal activity by the fucking people giving MS money for the console in the first place.
Don't trust your consumers? Move into another goddamned market space, but don't treat your customers like babies hanging out in the smoking pit behind the school. Time will sort this all out, but I garauntee you that MS's tactics are unsustainable in a market where humans (consumers, for the sales/marketers) _always_ get the last say.
"sales of my cd's" and "number of copies of my work in existence"
I'm a musician too, but I'm also good at math, which means I recognize that those numbers are not mutually exclusive. Number of copies in existence, unless they are all coming from a centralized source, actually means you've sold more. So if you have a crudload of copies in existance, chances are you've sold a few; in which case, nobody needs to protect your right to make a living off of your music, cause you already are.
So, effectively, you're saying this entire article is BS. Which I assume means that you believe that the actual granting, defence, and enforcement of patents can only be good, regardless of the situation, whats be patented, whos patenting it. It can only help humanity, right? All patents. More patents! More!
No.. there comes a time when you're spending so many resources on trying to be competative other than the actual market fitness of your product that you sacrifice the over-all quality of the product being produced. One example: My father, being a principal R&D guy at a pharmaceutical technology company, was involved in patent litigation that delayed the development of a product they were working on. You simply cannot assume that the cost of not enforcing their patent ALWAYS outweigh the costs involved in filing it, defending it, nor preventing other companies from building off of it. You can't predict the future, either, which means that theres no way to actually prove that had you not filed/enforced a patent, you wouldn't be better off for it.
Tripping each other up doesn't imply illigal action, it implies exactly what the article implies.. some patents are getting in the way of the very goal (to create better drugs) they are supposed to encourage. I have never met anybody in science who doesn't recognize that you can have too much of a good thing when it comes to patents. So then its just a matter of, like I said, figuring out the point where people are spending more time/money trying to defend what they have instead of using that time and money to do what they are chartered to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Cripes, even a lawyer wouldn't agree with you.
.. its copyright infringement.
.. should we just call these people 'theives' and arrest them? Or should we start understanding that theft != copyright infringement? Nobody ever wants to be robbed, but there are times where authors do not mind the supposed act of 'theft' .. er, copyright infringement.
..
It's illigal, yes. It's breaking the law. However, its not theft
I mean, even the law calls it something other than theft.
Fans of The Grateful Dead or KRS-One were encouraged to bootleg shows by the copyright owners, but no formal agreements were signed by anybody
Both are illegal, both are (arguably and to varying extents) ethically wrong, but they are not the same thing. Folks who claim they are the same thing are simply parroting the cries of their sad and embattled heros, the Business 2.0 reading media/content exec. Save your breath, they have enough money and time to get their message across without you tagging along behind them waggin your tail
When it gets down to it, it behooves your survival skills to differentiate between the real world and the real world according to its current wealthy conformists. Now _theres_ a world of difference I hope you can appreciate.
Thats a very important and often ignored point. Private companies reap the benifits of the patent system, while much of the pre-commercialization work is done by academia.
When drug comapnies whine about how much it costs to develop their drugs, you should ask them how much it cost for universities to develop the very foundations of the science they profit off of.
[sarcasm]
..
meanwhile, at cnn, abcnews, bbc, cbc, journalists are hard at work empowering you, a free man, with bias-free and editorization-free content.
the fact that they make money doing this is just a nice bonus to the fuzzy feelings they get in their tummy from helping you feel^H^H^H^Hbe a free citizen of planet earth.
[/sarcasm]
to be honest, sometimes i respect an out-of-the-closet dictatorial regime over the 'dont say it out loud' vested econo/poli agendas of major media conglomerates who still have the gall to act as if they dont have any vested interest in various stories/news
in other words, better to bias your content for a political/social goal than a purely financial one, although I appreciate that neither system ultimately serves humans on the basis of "what news is important".
please note I'm not condoning China's political system, only somewhat envious of the transparency in so far as agendas go
as a final huzzah, i believe that this article is about how many people *think* they were infected, not how many actuall were, so it wouldn't really be justification for some sort of tin-foil-hat conceived agenda.
this clearly should tip you off to an important piece of insight:
.. covering all genres) artists get most of the air play .. the stuff they want to market. they like it because its a hot medium ..
.. the labels like an artist that sells to millions as opposed to many artists going to many different people. and of course, because its a cold medium where you decide what to listen to
they are happy with radio, because its where you hear what you have to buy (if you're not the crate digging type), and because the pop (thats pop as in popular, of course
they hate the internet, because the shelf-space becomes unlimited so it is more difficult to ensure you own all of the real estate, and because its more prone to splintering peoples tastes
their very approval of digital radio and non approval of the internet is the very inidicator that radio does not pose a significant threat to them in terms of driving people to middle-tier or independant labels, where as the internet suits the kind of diversification that makes execs shudder.
> When we see articles about automatic shutoff switches for stolen cars set out as bait for the criminal element, everybody here thinks it's a great idea
Actually, this starts to become entrapment, if cops purposely leave this car with its doors open and hang around the corner waiting for somebody to bite.
Too bad your very post itsn't a suitable example to support your point. :P
.. cause actually, I want to send every reality TV show contestant into space.
Any chance of crossover shows with other reality shows? Personally, it makes more sense to me that the winner should get to stay on earth.
Exactly! Imagine what happens when you start employing minimum wage jockies who just got outta jail .. we'll have alot more to worry about than folks getting on planes with little pocket knives ..
Well spoken.
I'm all for fighting corperate welfare, but you'll have corperate welfare no matter what .. think about how companies profit off the work universities do.
.. worst end of the scale.
.. money to those who need it, ie to spur development) and you start providing silver spoons and beach chairs to companies who've lost sight of any sense of contributing to human progress.
Corperate welfare in terms of paying for companies to go into new markets (ie, government funds advertising in markets companies want access to)
Corperate welfare in terms of taxpayer money being used to spur development of a technology? Current bias in patent laws notwithstanding, some company makes some technology, and we all get to use it. Its not the same as subsidizing the risk of the hyper-growth huge corperate bohemouths are into these days.
I think alot of the hype around corperate welfare is only an issue when the company is looking for hyper-growth and unreasonable margins or protection of risk/ I certainly don't mind taxpayer money going to private companies if they intend on being responsible participants in the sci/tech community. I'm not sure there is really a hard and fast line in terms of when you stop providing welfare (in the traditional sense
>they can afford to strike over just about anything
.. why not stop working and demand more money!" Please.
Yeah, workers only strike when they're livin so good, they stop and go, "Hey
Hey, I have an idea. If they have it so good, why dont you become one?
And then so-and-so pays Verizon to add a note into their AUP saying, "If you arn't using this software, you're cut off!"
This sounds like a slippery slope.
I agree.
...
People seem to dislike this attitude, but its true. Why should anyone deserve sympathy for driving a car thats already rolled over 3 times
Eventually its up to the user to practice safe computing.
>You say I can't change the channel on my TV when an ad comes on? Is that illegal?
Actually, according to the MSes of the TV world, yes. And your agument that MS should be able to stop people from selling technology that allows you to circumvent their revenue stream means television should have the right to stop people from selling technologies which allow people to circumvent commercials. (Cause then how do the people making the shows get paid?)
Your answer, which I believe is *right*, is that its up to the producer to select a business model that people will not seek to circumvent. The market works because people pay what they're willing to pay, not because they've a gun to their head saying *you have to pay for this*. Your friends are jerks. I yell at my friends who do anything like that, even down to skipping turnstyles and the like. You should to.
But alas, we can all shuck our social ethics, because thank god, companies are finally starting to ethically police us themselves!
Look, this isn't black and white, but thats the very reason why you should be erring on the side of assuming people can use that technology ethically, for the same reason you asume as much about your blocking software. If banner ads annoyed you, would you block those to? How do you know other users of that software are as ethical as you? The tempation would be there to block *all* ad popups, and even grab tools to block banners, just as the tempation is there to copy games.
This is why Nintendo is smart. They choose media that will have low piracy rates, take the moderate hit on not having the 'latest and greatest', and focus on doing what they do best. Pleasing gamers. MS would rather use technologies that dangle the carrot in front of your friends' nose, and then go after the folks who provide the obvious solution to the obvious and predictable demand for piracy. It is this same reason why I'm not opposed to ad blocking. We can police ourselves. If we can't, you as a producer, are in the wrong business.
Not that it matters. That 'tempation', as you put it, will always exist. Popup killers, channel changers, dual cassette decks, remote controls will always exist. Trying to ban the tool never works; you can only alter people's behaviour through technology, not deny it via denying people technology after its been adopted. Its a pretty core fundamental of the relation between technology and social values and behaviour.
The only thing I'd like is the right to the freedom required to break the law when I want.
If the cops want to arrest me for breaking the law, I'm fully prepared to pay for my actions. 100%. Come and arrest me. Just don't limit my freedom to make the choice of whether to be law abiding or not.
>My software only blocks one form of online advertising, and allows you to let that through for specific sites, if you want.
.. I should know, I write ad servers for a living) ...
.. lets people access some content the producer would deny them from unless they paid full price for it or bought it in the correct region/market. You're saying: "MS has the right to ensure that nobody consumes their content unless its in the *exact* way they provide it, in the *exact* market they provide it", but use software that does *exactly* the same thing.
In other words, the content provider trusts you to use the technology responsibly instead of trying to legislatively put popup killer companies out of business because *some* of their users use them to totally sqaush all advertising? This is hilarious. How can you possibly support MS for going after mod chip makers if those mod chip makers use them responsibly, and then defend your use of a tool that will strip content providers of revenue (popups have to fully load, sometimes even sit for a few seconds, before a website gets paid for it in the majority of ad networks and ad serving systems
See? I don't have a problem with you using a popup killer. But you're stripping revenue from sites that deserve it, based on what *you* feel they deserve for what they're providing you.
Then, you go and defend MS for going after companies that make technology that does the *exact* same thing
Haha. I'm in the ad business, and I have no qualms with your software. What I want to know is why its different that MS has the apparent right to enforce their qualms with mod chips.
Incidentally, popups pay out anywhere from 4 to 10 times what banner ads do. Stripping out the popup ads is a large hit on a websites revenue, because they count on popups WAY more than banners for revenue. But I guess youre smart, responsible, and ethical enough to know all these thigns already right? Why are we wasting time discussing this when there are people watching import games in markets they don't live in!! Lets catch the real criminals!
Dont you find it a little ironic that hes got a fucking POPUP KILLER in his sig? Thats a goddamned mod chip for websites. (Since it cheats the website out of revenue that they _expect_ when people view their site, just like a mod chip cheats MS out of revenue that they _expect_ when people use content on their platform.)
Whats REALLY ironic is that your popup-killer sig is exactly the same as piracy. In order for sites to remain profitable, you have to view the ad. You're using technological means to cheat the provider out of revenue for the infromation they provide you. Thats piracy .. you're saying 'too bad for serving me the content in a format which I can cheat. and because I can cheat it, I will'. How will the writers/artists get paid for providing you with the content you come across on the web?
:)
Now _that_ is ironic, and I'm afraid that the credibility you build in this thread (I was just beginning to agree with you) is all gone. Hypocrite.
I see what you're saying, don't get me wrong. My point is mod chips shouldn't be illegal.
.. all because of the greedy motives behind zoning.
But you know what? If zoning didn't exist, I'd have no problem with making mod chips illegal. Absolutely none. If their sole purpose was to play copied games, fine. Make them illegal and deal with the bigger issue of copyright.
But until anyone can prove to me that it wasn't against the will of people and unethical to zone games geographically, keeping people from buying import games that wouldn't be released here, I have 0 sympathy.
Zoning exists so they can get better returns on their investment, not because consumers want it. So I have no sympathy that they now have to fight an unpopular battle because some people actually want to do something that they don't see as being unethical (playing purchased zoned games). MS left the door wide open for an excuse to develop piracy-enabling devices
Technology is power, dude. The market used to be able to correct the power of producers, but technology is now sufficiently complex enough to allow producers to weild power over the market through a lack of education, FUD, lobbying, and technolgical measures. Companies that use technological means to maximize margins against the will of people do not deserve to not be protected from the consequences of those actions.
Then explain why radar detectors can be sold. They are only used to avoid cops so that people can speed in peace. Any 'legit' use is minimal .. I mostly see them on the 'decks of imports that are probably going above the speedlimit for 80% of their street life.
... NO WE DONT. We punish the people who use these parts illegally.
Do we shut down people who sell performance parts (because the vast majority of these parts end up in street imports driven by testosterone-driven 22 year olds who revel in breaking the speed limit)
Care you try again?
And the modchip doesn't cheat MS out of profit. Just like the VCR doesn't cheat the movie biz out of profit, even tho I have 20 copied movies at home (probably like you or many of your neighbours.) Well, okay, it does but its been tolerated for the last 20 odd years .. grandparents who wouldn't go through the express lane at the grocery story with more than 8 items routinely use VCR's illegally.
.. I feel bad for people who honestly think MS has some sort of legal right to prevent the sale of tools which may or may not be used to conduct illegal activity by the fucking people giving MS money for the console in the first place.
The VCR gets used illegaly several times a day by people on your street. So will the modchip. No need to whip out the laywers and put your customers in diapers. We've been through this before
Don't trust your consumers? Move into another goddamned market space, but don't treat your customers like babies hanging out in the smoking pit behind the school. Time will sort this all out, but I garauntee you that MS's tactics are unsustainable in a market where humans (consumers, for the sales/marketers) _always_ get the last say.
Yeah .. is it illegal to start a spark plug company and sell spark plugs for cars you don't manufacture yourself?
.. ? Where did this right come from? When? Why?
What right does MS have in preventing people from selling after-market mods
haiku2
zoning makes me mad
how can i play cool imports
do i have to move?
\haiku2
here :)
"sales of my cd's" and "number of copies of my work in existence"
I'm a musician too, but I'm also good at math, which means I recognize that those numbers are not mutually exclusive. Number of copies in existence, unless they are all coming from a centralized source, actually means you've sold more. So if you have a crudload of copies in existance, chances are you've sold a few; in which case, nobody needs to protect your right to make a living off of your music, cause you already are.
>Which drug companies are tripping the others up?
.. there comes a time when you're spending so many resources on trying to be competative other than the actual market fitness of your product that you sacrifice the over-all quality of the product being produced. One example: My father, being a principal R&D guy at a pharmaceutical technology company, was involved in patent litigation that delayed the development of a product they were working on. You simply cannot assume that the cost of not enforcing their patent ALWAYS outweigh the costs involved in filing it, defending it, nor preventing other companies from building off of it. You can't predict the future, either, which means that theres no way to actually prove that had you not filed/enforced a patent, you wouldn't be better off for it.
.. some patents are getting in the way of the very goal (to create better drugs) they are supposed to encourage. I have never met anybody in science who doesn't recognize that you can have too much of a good thing when it comes to patents. So then its just a matter of, like I said, figuring out the point where people are spending more time/money trying to defend what they have instead of using that time and money to do what they are chartered to do.
s/tripping/patent-litgation
So, effectively, you're saying this entire article is BS. Which I assume means that you believe that the actual granting, defence, and enforcement of patents can only be good, regardless of the situation, whats be patented, whos patenting it. It can only help humanity, right? All patents. More patents! More!
No
Tripping each other up doesn't imply illigal action, it implies exactly what the article implies