The central issue is this: does Apple have the legal right to dictate what hardware you run their software on?
I don't think that's the issue at all. The issue is not "Is there hardware out there manufactured by a party other than Apple, Inc. on which software made by Apple, Inc. is capable of executing?" I don't think Apple will try to stop that. What Apple is probably concerned about, and probably within their right to enforce, is to stop is another manufacturer saying "We are building specifically Apple-compatible computers," and using that as marketing. Basically, the argument will probably be over misappropriation of the Apple brand-name, not technical capabilities of the product.
If some other company sold an "empty" computer, and just said "this computer has these hardware capabilities. You are free to choose an operating system." Then there would be no issue. The specific mention of Apple, and specific bundling of OSX with that computer, is what likely will cause problems.
I have to agree with Kamokazi on this one. The environmental impact and cost of high population densities cannot be easily compared with the rural life - there are pros and cons to each and the net result is probably a wash. However, there are vastly different interests and problems associated with both - hence the observation about the differences between "liberal" and "conservative". My biggest problem is with your statement:
What happens if shipping food to the middle of nowhere just gets too expensive to do anymore?
You do realize that food is produced in the "middle of nowhwere", right? I would posit that if the entire population was rural and farming, food distribution costs would decrease vastly because everyone would always live near food. However, distribution costs for other goods would increase because the population would be spread out. Thus my assertion that the net result will probably be a wash.
What I think is really missing from the discussion in general, which applies to most discussions, is the realization that a single technology, political stance, etc. is a solution for all situations. This "robocar" proposal is a phenomenal idea for dense urban areas assuming cleanliness of vehicles, availability, etc. can be managed. It is a terrible solution for low population density areas. Remember, there is a real economic loss associated with waiting for transportation (or other commodity) to arrive when needed which must be balanced against the cost of excess unused capacity. (I'm personally economically conservative in that I think excess unused capacity is always the more desirable alternative).
I think that most of this could be solved if they re-wrote section 101 to say "you have patent the process or mechanism, not the result."
The "result" is the problem that people scream about today, not the process. The reason patents are out of hand isn't because people are patenting a specific set of bars, wheels, levers, and computers to paint the side of a barn red, they are patenting "A red side of a barn."
Now, to be sure, there are many patents which truly are in the original spirit of patents - a new way to obtain some result. That's the key thing that seems to be missed by many in the discussion. Make patents the means, not the result, and be done with it.
For prior art, you need a combination of these two properties integrated into a single device....In general, if the patent is a new combination of three or more existing inventions, it is non-obvious. If it is only two existing inventions combined, then it depends.
Not true any more. There was a suit not long ago, in the Supreme Court even, which basically says "If you combine things, and the end result is having the obvious result of combining those things, then your invention is Obvious (prior art doesn't even have to be invoked)." I'm pretty sure there is no "magic cutoff" of combining three or four things versus combining only two. You would have to get new, non-obvious functionality. Adding "click through" to an analog device to obtain tactile position feedback information doesn't give you new or unexpected functionality. If adding click through to the device somehow gave you, say, olfactory feedback, that would definitely be non-obvious and patent-worthy.
I'm surprised the Nintendo et al. lawyers didn't throw this all over Anascape's case.
Company X spends 100M developing a new drug. Company Y saves 100M, copies the drug, and uses that money on marketing and undercutting X. Company Y drives X out of business.
This would only happen a few times, because eventually company Y would run out of money because companies Z, Q, R, F, G would also all produce the product. Without new products, all companies will die. Company Y (or Z, etc.) would then choose to develop something new to get an edge on the others or collapse. Most people choose to try to innovate rather than collapse.
Also, you could inherently charge more by saying "we're the company with the brainpower to develop WonderProductXIV - support us to get new stuff (instead of supporting others who just give you the same-old, same-old)."
Fundamentally, patents, copyrights, etc. are all forms of protectionism, which has a somewhat dubious track record over history.
Also, while the existential value of IP is its characteristic of being an intangible idea that can be infinitely duplicated, the economic value is in how many copies the IP-holder can sell. The ability to create new works is only economically valuable insofar as it lets you offer more copies for sale. If customers didn't actually need a new copy to enjoy the product (for example, because one only needs to use it temporarily to appreciate the benefits), then independent trading would satisfy the demand for the product while never sharing a cent with the creator. It is the copy, not the ability to copy, that holds the economic value.
I guess I disagree here. Firstly, you say the economic value is in "how many copies the IP holder can sell." This is actually not accurate. For the producer, the revenue potential from selling copies is related to maximizing the profit function, which is price x volume, not simply volume. You can do some fairly trivial analyses to show that even at zero price, the demand for most products is not the entire population of the planet. At a price equivalent of "number of man years to develop and produce one copy" for one copy, there is also very little demand. The revenue maximization is somewhere in the middle. For society in general, economic value is related more toward how easily things are distributed so they can be used more rapidly (note this can be positive value such as from a new efficient tool or negative such as a popular form of entertainment which creates massive environmental hazards)
Secondly, the copy really doesn't have economic value. The use of the copy holds value to the person using it, and that value is reflected by the price they are willing to pay. People using copies without paying for them means they really don't value that copy very much - they value it less than the risk of whatever current legal ramifications apply to their jurisdiction.
Third: demand for a single non-scarce product doesn't drive an economy. Economies do not value non-scarce resources such as copies of information. Note that the transition from scarce to non-scarce was indeed a result of technology, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot sustainably ask people to exchange things of value for non-scarce resources. Attempting to limit supply through artificial social constructs is also unsustainable (consider prohibition for one example). The thing of value in information these days is the ability to create new information and the ability to interpret that information, not in shuffling that information around. The reason there is no value in shuffling information around is because it takes no special ability or infrastructure to shuffle that information around - there is no value gained in having party A move the information versus party B. (Substitute "distribute" for "move" and "copyrighted works" with "information" for the specific example.)
The value people have today from "information" items is that those items exist. To ensure they exist, the creators of the work will be compensated. If those creators are not compensated, those items will likely not exist in the same number they do now. Criminalizing distribution when distribution has no value is similar to protectionism and it will have the same detrimental effects in the long run - look at the steel industry for an example there.
In closing, I would agree that there is not yet a standard, popular method for compensating information creators that is not tied to distributing their works. One model that has been tried is the "donation" method some of the popular artists have been using, and another is the dreaded subscription model (works for some things like serial works, not so much for things like software). I believe we will see a movement toward some hybrid of systems, where the information creators make available their works to everyone so long as they get enough revenue to keep what their doing, rather than complain that everyone that experiences their works does not compensate them.
I wish people would realize that the thing of value in "Intellectual Property" is not the created work itself, but the ability to create new works. If I copy and redistribute works and claim it is mine, I am attempting to acquire the important thing: the credit for creating the work. If I just distribute the work, and point everyone back at the original creator, I have kept the one scarce thing intact: the attribution of the work. That is, if people want more similar work, they will go to the one that created that work - not the one who distributed it.
I think the system would fix itself if things focused less on the "copies" or the media, but on attribution. Being famous as an artist means people want the art from you, not from someone else. Instead of worrying about demand for copies of a work you already created, worry about demand for works you have not yet created - that is where you guarantee income.
This is an immense topic, so I'll focus on a few things which I've mentioned before.
1. "Real" Property encompasses those things which are truly economically scarce. By that I mean "things that can only be used simultaneously by a small finite number of people." For instance: a piece of land, a particular tool, a book (the physical object), etc. Real Property rights make sense, because it is possible to enforce by virtue of the location of the object. Note that a consumer/user of physical property has some typical social grants also: right of first sale, the concept that if you 'buy' the object, you can use is until it breaks with no additional compensation to the manufacturer than original (you don't pay annual license fees on a hammer for instance). (Note: Things like leases are different, because in those the 'customer' pays less than the "ownership" amount for a temporary use of the item. Observe: you can both buy and rent tools from stores like Home Depot - a large "consumer" construction supply store for those not familiar with it - you buy a tool it's yours, you rent it you have to return it later, but renting is far less expensive for a few days than buying a tool.)
2. "Intellectual" Property has some problems that current legal and social constructs do not address. The first is that currently the system tries to protect the work as the economically scarce item - the copy of the music, book, software, etc. Those things are not economically scarce though, because there is no loss of use to any number of individuals which may be utilizing an idea. Until the rules protect what is actually scarce - the people coming up with and implementing the ideas - then the system will be broken. Rather than strange licensing rules and copyrights and such, I would rather see forced "attribution rights" (for lack of a better term). That said, the only thing that really troubles me about "intellectual property" is the ability of people to continue to extract economic wealth from others for work that was done in the past without adding new value - things like forced annual licenses for software when a version that's three years old is fine for a particular need, or making tons of money off a song that was written thirty years ago. I don't have problems with artists making money off new performances (performances are a scarce economic good, so those fall under the "old" paradigms). This is why, of all the current forms of intellectual property, I think Trademark is the most sound as it is simply what I meant by attribution "rights" - it ensures the consumer that a particular product was created/developed by a particular entity and establishes brand image and gives real value to both the consumer and manufacturer/creator. It also allows for vast competition in a field - I can by a brand X widget or a brand Y widget depending on my tastes.
So what's the solution? I admit that I am not entirely sure, because there are problems with the current implementations of both real and "intellectual" property rights. What is really needed is a thoughtful consideration of the social goals of the concepts, and how to ensure that people remain free to think and tinker and make a living off (which is a distinct difference in my mind from "profit from") their works. Having any entity, even a government, tell you that you cannot implement an idea because someone else implemented it is a not-so-subtle form of slavery.
On a related note: If I was in California, I'd ask this congressman what benefit I as an individual and California as a whole would receive for the increased revenue. Would I get more use of my product? Would the money be used to increase pay for congressmen? Would it offset some other tax? Without knowing those things, and also having compensation in the language of the bill for what happens if those funds are not used for the approved task, the increase should be disallowed. On behalf of everyone who wishes to avoid California setting precedent, please write your representatives!
I personally don't mind taxes as long as there is a clear benefit for the additional cost. When taxes increase with no increase in benefit, there's a problem.
...then we need some alternative to markets for encouraging the creation of copyable things. Nobody knows what though...
We already have this. It's called people finding something they like to do for which other people are willing to trade goods and services which the former people want and/or need. If people enjoy making copyable things, and other people want those copyable things, then the balance works.
There is no rational argument for a system which enforces people trading for something I want to produce if that thing I want to produce is not desired. There is also no rational argument for forcing people to create something they don't want to create if there are people that desire it (but don't want to provide it themselves). To use two examples common in these conversations: If I create a song, there is no obligation for people to pay for it. If I only hold concerts and people want recordings, I am under no obligation to provide those recordings. (Note that I'm just talking about obligation, not about if it's a good idea or not.)
The bit where technology is helping is where it helps match up the desires of the creators with the desires of the traders.
That's it, and anything else is just what I would like to call "economic friction."
Ok, to clarify for others who also may be confused:
"Common cause" basically means "due to essentially random conditions" - things like traffic accidents are, on a population-sized basis, random. That is, for a large population, accidents happen at some statistical rate due to the more or less random distribution of weather, driver ability, distractions, etc. There is a fundamental minimum number of such common-cause incidents; this is why, while the auto accident rate has been falling, that rate has slowed and we still have thousands of deaths a year. This is like random metal impurities in mechanical components that cause some of them to break before other ones, and some parts to last "forever". (Now, I agree that you're not likely to die in a car accident if you never ride in a car. However, I'd argue that far less than 100% of the US population is at risk for terrorist attacks - there is no real benefit to terrorists to attack very remote areas because there isn't a high enough concentration of people to terrorize).
Terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. are "special cause" because they are *not* random - there is no statistical distribution of these, and they happen because of some specific, unique set of circumstances. This is like mixing the wrong alloy for components which cause a whole bunch of them to break at once.
That way my initial response actually. Money is one of those things that's very hard to "lose" in the sense that it doesn't really vanish - it just ends up in someone else's pocket at the end of the day. The interesting thing would be to see how much economic activity is generated by the stolen funds - because I guarantee that these guys aren't just taking the money and having it sit in a non-interest bearing account in some kind of bizarre effort to combat inflation by taking money out of circulation. (I would also counter any citing of the broken window argument, because these crooks are not destroying wealth to encourage activity; they are just reallocating existing resources which is a different phenomenon.)
Indeed. If N is the number of people with legitimate copies today, and X is today's price, and M is the number of people using illegitimate copies, potential lost revenue would be (N+M)*Y - N*X, where Y is the price required to get everyone to use legitimate copies.
Note that I said "lost revenue", not "lost money". If an entity invests some amount of money and doesn't get a return on it, then they have lost money on a poor investment. However, as soon as that entity makes any type of profit, by definition they have not lost money but have gained money. You cannot "lose" money you don't have, and unrealized profits or losses are not, in my mind, a legitimate argument.
The interesting thing would be to turn this around and say that if implemented, the bill would cost Americans $18 billion a year, since there is apparently $18B/year currently in the pockets of consumers that is being used some other way. So perhaps Wal-Mart or someone should sue these folks for potentially stealing their revenue...
It doesn't make sense, and that's the problem, because when things don't make sense fundamentally it's not possible to have a rational discussion with those making the decisions.
Projects this big should all be about return on investment.
For instance, if I could build a complete off-grid power system on my house for about $3700, I'd do it in a heartbeat because at about $100/month for energy, 5 years would cost me at least $6000 (I left out energy inflation for simplicity). If I invest $3725.53 today at 10% (which is a great rate of return) I'd have $6000 after 5 years. A $3700 investment today to get $6000 at the end of 5 years would be a phenomenal investment.
So the question for society is - what's the return on that $100M/mile investment? Now, it's a societal thing, not an individual, so the numbers get strange. But what are the alternatives? What will be saved in the future by making that investment?
Those are the questions that I'd want to see answered - who cares about the raw numbers today as long as there is a good return on that investment (after including the effects of interest, of course).
When you buy a book you are really buying the content inside the book.
Ah - no, you're not. What you're buying when you buy a book is access to the content represented in the book. When you buy a book, you buy a physical object that can be used to control access to that content. This is why
With paper books there's a limit to how many people can read a single copy of a book,
Because the physical nature of the book controls access.
but with electronic books there's nothing preventing everybody in the world from endlessly copying the data of a single book.
That's correct - and that's the big issue, isn't it? Controlling distribution of information has always been about controlling access. The fact that, historically, the compensation to the collector or originator of a work was tied to duplication of objects which grant access to that information, makes the modern situation complicated, because the ability to duplicate objects is ubiquitous, and the ability to control access must then change (which is why we have DRM, and thus why people don't like it - we had a restriction removed, and some people want to reinstate that restriction).
and there's apparently no mention of the fundamental premise to this restriction: people under 18 can't be trusted to make their own decisions.
Not quite; people of any age are allowed to make their own decisions.
The thing that happens when you're 18 or older, though, is that you then have to be responsible for your decisions. When you're less than 18, the consequences get handled by society at large.
That's the difference that sets the line for smoking at 18. Doesn't have anything to do with health issues except for who has to pay the majority to fix those issues. (Here's a hint: what tax burden is paid by those younger than 18?)
...using ethanol which is renewable as a fuel source for his jets....
He can have fun with that when his jets' range gets decreased by around 40%* (or the useful payload is decreased by 40% because of the extra fuel required for the same range) because of the difference in energy content between ethanol (which is already partially oxidized) and Jet-A. There's a good reason why we use petrochemicals as vehicle fuel, and it's not simply because at one time they were less expensive.
Mass and volume energy density are important characteristics of fuel... and petrochemicals win that battle by quite a fair margin to all other fuels that are safe enough to be used in common vehicles.
* according to this, petrodiesel (which is close to Jet-A) has energy content of 43.3MJ/kg, and ethanol only has 26.7 MJ/kg (using the LHV; the results are slightly different, though the trend the same, using HHV). That's a substantial difference, and mass is extremely important when it comes to aircraft fuel.
Interesting points, but I feel there is more discussion:
...and decisions would have to be made on how to provide each OS a 'video' card, while still allowing hardware acceleration, etc.
How is that different than simply providing each application with a graphics context? Sounds the same to me, just with a different flavor.
Other facets are thread and memory management,...
A VM today has to do this between the various OSs. OSs already do this today. I don't see any difference, other than an OS wants to have more control than applications typically.
common libraries and services including everything from providing an api for user interface (the windowing system, and window widgets like buttons) to providing encryption services, and network stacks like TCP/IP.
These are just software abstractions and I agree they are not the same as "accessing the hardware". A TCP/IP stack is just a common interface to Ethernet hardware. These are things that I understand are fine to be part of the "OS".
Of course, over time, we'd improve the HAL, and different OSes would require different HALs, and we'd need to have a HAL that could host the different HALs...
In my mind, this means we're doing it wrong - we don't have the correct view of abstraction. Any time you can increase something infinitely without bound, that's a good indication that somewhere your method of thinking about it is wrong - it means you should have taken out some of the middle layers.
That said, I think the only legitimate use of virtualization is running different operating systems on the same hardware because of the differences in libraries and APIs as mentioned above. That's mostly interface preference, though, and shouldn't have anything to do with a need for virtualization.
A single operating system should never have to have multiple instances running in virtual machines on the same hardware - In my mind this means that operating system cannot appropriately manage hardware resources, or applications aren't written to behave nicely with other applications. All throwing two instances of the same OS on a VM on a single piece of hardware means is that the OS (and/or applications written for it) can't handle the desired multiple applications that you'd want so some other meta-manager is required to keep things in check. Any "good" application should behave nicely with any other applications running in a single OS instance, be able to pass control to another instance of that application on other hardware, etc. A "good" OS should be able to survive rogue programs and keep them sandboxed and isolated so one program dying won't cause others to die.
So, if anything else, I agree that
It would look different
But I still think that virtualization, as it is currently used today, is just a patch to a class of more serious underlying issues with design philosophy.
I still amuse myself from time to time thinking, "Heck, if we virtualize OS software, why don't we go one step further and virtualize virtualization software! A whole new untapped market!"
Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".
(After all, isn't the OS supposed to be the "virtualization" between applications and hardware in the first place?)
If that's the one, it should be shot down again due to recent SCOTUS rulings: all the items in that patent simply do what anyone with knowledge of those components expects them to do when you put them together; you're just using memory as memory, and you're keeping track of how much you use so you don't use things too much.
Nothing non-obvious about that.
Now, if there's a particular wear-leveling algorithm, then that could be patentable, but the the general idea should not be.
If the cost increases, they will invest the money and upgrade the network.
Not quite. They will only invest in infrastructure if they think the return on that investment will at a bare minimum keep the same level of profit, and likely only if it will increase their profit.
Companies don't increase their capacity because cost goes up, they increase capacity because by doing so they can increase or maintain profits.
The notion that increased revenue increases capacity only works when the markets are free enough for newcomers to enter the market. Things like utilities and oil and medicine don't work that way, because the cost of entry to new competitors is very high. This means that there is a significant level of price increases that turn into pure profit with zero increase in capacity; until the increased price can overcome the cost of entry or the demand changes, no additional capacity will be created unless dictated by some external agency.
So until the price of current services hits the level at which it will be affordable for a competitor to enter the market to add capacity, or governing agencies lower the cost of entry to the market, supply can be artificially restricted even without monopoly behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's the issue at all. The issue is not "Is there hardware out there manufactured by a party other than Apple, Inc. on which software made by Apple, Inc. is capable of executing?" I don't think Apple will try to stop that. What Apple is probably concerned about, and probably within their right to enforce, is to stop is another manufacturer saying "We are building specifically Apple-compatible computers," and using that as marketing. Basically, the argument will probably be over misappropriation of the Apple brand-name, not technical capabilities of the product.
If some other company sold an "empty" computer, and just said "this computer has these hardware capabilities. You are free to choose an operating system." Then there would be no issue. The specific mention of Apple, and specific bundling of OSX with that computer, is what likely will cause problems.
I have to agree with Kamokazi on this one. The environmental impact and cost of high population densities cannot be easily compared with the rural life - there are pros and cons to each and the net result is probably a wash. However, there are vastly different interests and problems associated with both - hence the observation about the differences between "liberal" and "conservative". My biggest problem is with your statement:
You do realize that food is produced in the "middle of nowhwere", right? I would posit that if the entire population was rural and farming, food distribution costs would decrease vastly because everyone would always live near food. However, distribution costs for other goods would increase because the population would be spread out. Thus my assertion that the net result will probably be a wash.
What I think is really missing from the discussion in general, which applies to most discussions, is the realization that a single technology, political stance, etc. is a solution for all situations. This "robocar" proposal is a phenomenal idea for dense urban areas assuming cleanliness of vehicles, availability, etc. can be managed. It is a terrible solution for low population density areas. Remember, there is a real economic loss associated with waiting for transportation (or other commodity) to arrive when needed which must be balanced against the cost of excess unused capacity. (I'm personally economically conservative in that I think excess unused capacity is always the more desirable alternative).
I think that most of this could be solved if they re-wrote section 101 to say "you have patent the process or mechanism, not the result."
The "result" is the problem that people scream about today, not the process. The reason patents are out of hand isn't because people are patenting a specific set of bars, wheels, levers, and computers to paint the side of a barn red, they are patenting "A red side of a barn."
Now, to be sure, there are many patents which truly are in the original spirit of patents - a new way to obtain some result. That's the key thing that seems to be missed by many in the discussion. Make patents the means, not the result, and be done with it.
Not true any more. There was a suit not long ago, in the Supreme Court even, which basically says "If you combine things, and the end result is having the obvious result of combining those things, then your invention is Obvious (prior art doesn't even have to be invoked)." I'm pretty sure there is no "magic cutoff" of combining three or four things versus combining only two. You would have to get new, non-obvious functionality. Adding "click through" to an analog device to obtain tactile position feedback information doesn't give you new or unexpected functionality. If adding click through to the device somehow gave you, say, olfactory feedback, that would definitely be non-obvious and patent-worthy.
I'm surprised the Nintendo et al. lawyers didn't throw this all over Anascape's case.
This would only happen a few times, because eventually company Y would run out of money because companies Z, Q, R, F, G would also all produce the product. Without new products, all companies will die. Company Y (or Z, etc.) would then choose to develop something new to get an edge on the others or collapse. Most people choose to try to innovate rather than collapse.
Also, you could inherently charge more by saying "we're the company with the brainpower to develop WonderProductXIV - support us to get new stuff (instead of supporting others who just give you the same-old, same-old)."
Fundamentally, patents, copyrights, etc. are all forms of protectionism, which has a somewhat dubious track record over history.
Also, while the existential value of IP is its characteristic of being an intangible idea that can be infinitely duplicated, the economic value is in how many copies the IP-holder can sell. The ability to create new works is only economically valuable insofar as it lets you offer more copies for sale. If customers didn't actually need a new copy to enjoy the product (for example, because one only needs to use it temporarily to appreciate the benefits), then independent trading would satisfy the demand for the product while never sharing a cent with the creator. It is the copy, not the ability to copy, that holds the economic value.
I guess I disagree here. Firstly, you say the economic value is in "how many copies the IP holder can sell." This is actually not accurate. For the producer, the revenue potential from selling copies is related to maximizing the profit function, which is price x volume, not simply volume. You can do some fairly trivial analyses to show that even at zero price, the demand for most products is not the entire population of the planet. At a price equivalent of "number of man years to develop and produce one copy" for one copy, there is also very little demand. The revenue maximization is somewhere in the middle. For society in general, economic value is related more toward how easily things are distributed so they can be used more rapidly (note this can be positive value such as from a new efficient tool or negative such as a popular form of entertainment which creates massive environmental hazards)
Secondly, the copy really doesn't have economic value. The use of the copy holds value to the person using it, and that value is reflected by the price they are willing to pay. People using copies without paying for them means they really don't value that copy very much - they value it less than the risk of whatever current legal ramifications apply to their jurisdiction.
Third: demand for a single non-scarce product doesn't drive an economy. Economies do not value non-scarce resources such as copies of information. Note that the transition from scarce to non-scarce was indeed a result of technology, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot sustainably ask people to exchange things of value for non-scarce resources. Attempting to limit supply through artificial social constructs is also unsustainable (consider prohibition for one example). The thing of value in information these days is the ability to create new information and the ability to interpret that information, not in shuffling that information around. The reason there is no value in shuffling information around is because it takes no special ability or infrastructure to shuffle that information around - there is no value gained in having party A move the information versus party B. (Substitute "distribute" for "move" and "copyrighted works" with "information" for the specific example.)
The value people have today from "information" items is that those items exist. To ensure they exist, the creators of the work will be compensated. If those creators are not compensated, those items will likely not exist in the same number they do now. Criminalizing distribution when distribution has no value is similar to protectionism and it will have the same detrimental effects in the long run - look at the steel industry for an example there.
In closing, I would agree that there is not yet a standard, popular method for compensating information creators that is not tied to distributing their works. One model that has been tried is the "donation" method some of the popular artists have been using, and another is the dreaded subscription model (works for some things like serial works, not so much for things like software). I believe we will see a movement toward some hybrid of systems, where the information creators make available their works to everyone so long as they get enough revenue to keep what their doing, rather than complain that everyone that experiences their works does not compensate them.
I wish people would realize that the thing of value in "Intellectual Property" is not the created work itself, but the ability to create new works. If I copy and redistribute works and claim it is mine, I am attempting to acquire the important thing: the credit for creating the work. If I just distribute the work, and point everyone back at the original creator, I have kept the one scarce thing intact: the attribution of the work. That is, if people want more similar work, they will go to the one that created that work - not the one who distributed it.
I think the system would fix itself if things focused less on the "copies" or the media, but on attribution. Being famous as an artist means people want the art from you, not from someone else. Instead of worrying about demand for copies of a work you already created, worry about demand for works you have not yet created - that is where you guarantee income.
This is an immense topic, so I'll focus on a few things which I've mentioned before.
1. "Real" Property encompasses those things which are truly economically scarce. By that I mean "things that can only be used simultaneously by a small finite number of people." For instance: a piece of land, a particular tool, a book (the physical object), etc. Real Property rights make sense, because it is possible to enforce by virtue of the location of the object. Note that a consumer/user of physical property has some typical social grants also: right of first sale, the concept that if you 'buy' the object, you can use is until it breaks with no additional compensation to the manufacturer than original (you don't pay annual license fees on a hammer for instance). (Note: Things like leases are different, because in those the 'customer' pays less than the "ownership" amount for a temporary use of the item. Observe: you can both buy and rent tools from stores like Home Depot - a large "consumer" construction supply store for those not familiar with it - you buy a tool it's yours, you rent it you have to return it later, but renting is far less expensive for a few days than buying a tool.)
2. "Intellectual" Property has some problems that current legal and social constructs do not address. The first is that currently the system tries to protect the work as the economically scarce item - the copy of the music, book, software, etc. Those things are not economically scarce though, because there is no loss of use to any number of individuals which may be utilizing an idea. Until the rules protect what is actually scarce - the people coming up with and implementing the ideas - then the system will be broken. Rather than strange licensing rules and copyrights and such, I would rather see forced "attribution rights" (for lack of a better term). That said, the only thing that really troubles me about "intellectual property" is the ability of people to continue to extract economic wealth from others for work that was done in the past without adding new value - things like forced annual licenses for software when a version that's three years old is fine for a particular need, or making tons of money off a song that was written thirty years ago. I don't have problems with artists making money off new performances (performances are a scarce economic good, so those fall under the "old" paradigms). This is why, of all the current forms of intellectual property, I think Trademark is the most sound as it is simply what I meant by attribution "rights" - it ensures the consumer that a particular product was created/developed by a particular entity and establishes brand image and gives real value to both the consumer and manufacturer/creator. It also allows for vast competition in a field - I can by a brand X widget or a brand Y widget depending on my tastes.
So what's the solution? I admit that I am not entirely sure, because there are problems with the current implementations of both real and "intellectual" property rights. What is really needed is a thoughtful consideration of the social goals of the concepts, and how to ensure that people remain free to think and tinker and make a living off (which is a distinct difference in my mind from "profit from") their works. Having any entity, even a government, tell you that you cannot implement an idea because someone else implemented it is a not-so-subtle form of slavery.
On a related note: If I was in California, I'd ask this congressman what benefit I as an individual and California as a whole would receive for the increased revenue. Would I get more use of my product? Would the money be used to increase pay for congressmen? Would it offset some other tax? Without knowing those things, and also having compensation in the language of the bill for what happens if those funds are not used for the approved task, the increase should be disallowed. On behalf of everyone who wishes to avoid California setting precedent, please write your representatives!
I personally don't mind taxes as long as there is a clear benefit for the additional cost. When taxes increase with no increase in benefit, there's a problem.
We already have this. It's called people finding something they like to do for which other people are willing to trade goods and services which the former people want and/or need. If people enjoy making copyable things, and other people want those copyable things, then the balance works.
There is no rational argument for a system which enforces people trading for something I want to produce if that thing I want to produce is not desired. There is also no rational argument for forcing people to create something they don't want to create if there are people that desire it (but don't want to provide it themselves). To use two examples common in these conversations: If I create a song, there is no obligation for people to pay for it. If I only hold concerts and people want recordings, I am under no obligation to provide those recordings. (Note that I'm just talking about obligation, not about if it's a good idea or not.)
The bit where technology is helping is where it helps match up the desires of the creators with the desires of the traders.
That's it, and anything else is just what I would like to call "economic friction."
Ok, to clarify for others who also may be confused:
"Common cause" basically means "due to essentially random conditions" - things like traffic accidents are, on a population-sized basis, random. That is, for a large population, accidents happen at some statistical rate due to the more or less random distribution of weather, driver ability, distractions, etc. There is a fundamental minimum number of such common-cause incidents; this is why, while the auto accident rate has been falling, that rate has slowed and we still have thousands of deaths a year. This is like random metal impurities in mechanical components that cause some of them to break before other ones, and some parts to last "forever". (Now, I agree that you're not likely to die in a car accident if you never ride in a car. However, I'd argue that far less than 100% of the US population is at risk for terrorist attacks - there is no real benefit to terrorists to attack very remote areas because there isn't a high enough concentration of people to terrorize).
Terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. are "special cause" because they are *not* random - there is no statistical distribution of these, and they happen because of some specific, unique set of circumstances. This is like mixing the wrong alloy for components which cause a whole bunch of them to break at once.
You might want to consider the significant difference between common-cause and special-cause events.
That way my initial response actually. Money is one of those things that's very hard to "lose" in the sense that it doesn't really vanish - it just ends up in someone else's pocket at the end of the day. The interesting thing would be to see how much economic activity is generated by the stolen funds - because I guarantee that these guys aren't just taking the money and having it sit in a non-interest bearing account in some kind of bizarre effort to combat inflation by taking money out of circulation. (I would also counter any citing of the broken window argument, because these crooks are not destroying wealth to encourage activity; they are just reallocating existing resources which is a different phenomenon.)
I just discovered a new argument against the crazy change in terminology for no good reason:
"Here come the Men in Black!"
Indeed. If N is the number of people with legitimate copies today, and X is today's price, and M is the number of people using illegitimate copies, potential lost revenue would be (N+M)*Y - N*X, where Y is the price required to get everyone to use legitimate copies.
Note that I said "lost revenue", not "lost money". If an entity invests some amount of money and doesn't get a return on it, then they have lost money on a poor investment. However, as soon as that entity makes any type of profit, by definition they have not lost money but have gained money. You cannot "lose" money you don't have, and unrealized profits or losses are not, in my mind, a legitimate argument.
The interesting thing would be to turn this around and say that if implemented, the bill would cost Americans $18 billion a year, since there is apparently $18B/year currently in the pockets of consumers that is being used some other way. So perhaps Wal-Mart or someone should sue these folks for potentially stealing their revenue...
It doesn't make sense, and that's the problem, because when things don't make sense fundamentally it's not possible to have a rational discussion with those making the decisions.
It is an unfortunate observation, to be sure.
Projects this big should all be about return on investment.
For instance, if I could build a complete off-grid power system on my house for about $3700, I'd do it in a heartbeat because at about $100/month for energy, 5 years would cost me at least $6000 (I left out energy inflation for simplicity). If I invest $3725.53 today at 10% (which is a great rate of return) I'd have $6000 after 5 years. A $3700 investment today to get $6000 at the end of 5 years would be a phenomenal investment.
So the question for society is - what's the return on that $100M/mile investment? Now, it's a societal thing, not an individual, so the numbers get strange. But what are the alternatives? What will be saved in the future by making that investment?
Those are the questions that I'd want to see answered - who cares about the raw numbers today as long as there is a good return on that investment (after including the effects of interest, of course).
Ah - no, you're not. What you're buying when you buy a book is access to the content represented in the book. When you buy a book, you buy a physical object that can be used to control access to that content. This is why
Because the physical nature of the book controls access.
That's correct - and that's the big issue, isn't it? Controlling distribution of information has always been about controlling access. The fact that, historically, the compensation to the collector or originator of a work was tied to duplication of objects which grant access to that information, makes the modern situation complicated, because the ability to duplicate objects is ubiquitous, and the ability to control access must then change (which is why we have DRM, and thus why people don't like it - we had a restriction removed, and some people want to reinstate that restriction).
I should have included the words added above in bold...
Not quite; people of any age are allowed to make their own decisions.
The thing that happens when you're 18 or older, though, is that you then have to be responsible for your decisions. When you're less than 18, the consequences get handled by society at large.
That's the difference that sets the line for smoking at 18. Doesn't have anything to do with health issues except for who has to pay the majority to fix those issues. (Here's a hint: what tax burden is paid by those younger than 18?)
He can have fun with that when his jets' range gets decreased by around 40%* (or the useful payload is decreased by 40% because of the extra fuel required for the same range) because of the difference in energy content between ethanol (which is already partially oxidized) and Jet-A. There's a good reason why we use petrochemicals as vehicle fuel, and it's not simply because at one time they were less expensive.
Mass and volume energy density are important characteristics of fuel... and petrochemicals win that battle by quite a fair margin to all other fuels that are safe enough to be used in common vehicles.
* according to this, petrodiesel (which is close to Jet-A) has energy content of 43.3MJ/kg, and ethanol only has 26.7 MJ/kg (using the LHV; the results are slightly different, though the trend the same, using HHV). That's a substantial difference, and mass is extremely important when it comes to aircraft fuel.
Interesting points, but I feel there is more discussion:
How is that different than simply providing each application with a graphics context? Sounds the same to me, just with a different flavor.
A VM today has to do this between the various OSs. OSs already do this today. I don't see any difference, other than an OS wants to have more control than applications typically.
These are just software abstractions and I agree they are not the same as "accessing the hardware". A TCP/IP stack is just a common interface to Ethernet hardware. These are things that I understand are fine to be part of the "OS".
In my mind, this means we're doing it wrong - we don't have the correct view of abstraction. Any time you can increase something infinitely without bound, that's a good indication that somewhere your method of thinking about it is wrong - it means you should have taken out some of the middle layers.
That said, I think the only legitimate use of virtualization is running different operating systems on the same hardware because of the differences in libraries and APIs as mentioned above. That's mostly interface preference, though, and shouldn't have anything to do with a need for virtualization.
A single operating system should never have to have multiple instances running in virtual machines on the same hardware - In my mind this means that operating system cannot appropriately manage hardware resources, or applications aren't written to behave nicely with other applications. All throwing two instances of the same OS on a VM on a single piece of hardware means is that the OS (and/or applications written for it) can't handle the desired multiple applications that you'd want so some other meta-manager is required to keep things in check. Any "good" application should behave nicely with any other applications running in a single OS instance, be able to pass control to another instance of that application on other hardware, etc. A "good" OS should be able to survive rogue programs and keep them sandboxed and isolated so one program dying won't cause others to die.
So, if anything else, I agree that
But I still think that virtualization, as it is currently used today, is just a patch to a class of more serious underlying issues with design philosophy.
I still amuse myself from time to time thinking, "Heck, if we virtualize OS software, why don't we go one step further and virtualize virtualization software! A whole new untapped market!"
Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".
(After all, isn't the OS supposed to be the "virtualization" between applications and hardware in the first place?)
If that's the one, it should be shot down again due to recent SCOTUS rulings: all the items in that patent simply do what anyone with knowledge of those components expects them to do when you put them together; you're just using memory as memory, and you're keeping track of how much you use so you don't use things too much.
Nothing non-obvious about that.
Now, if there's a particular wear-leveling algorithm, then that could be patentable, but the the general idea should not be.
Not quite. They will only invest in infrastructure if they think the return on that investment will at a bare minimum keep the same level of profit, and likely only if it will increase their profit.
Companies don't increase their capacity because cost goes up, they increase capacity because by doing so they can increase or maintain profits.
The notion that increased revenue increases capacity only works when the markets are free enough for newcomers to enter the market. Things like utilities and oil and medicine don't work that way, because the cost of entry to new competitors is very high. This means that there is a significant level of price increases that turn into pure profit with zero increase in capacity; until the increased price can overcome the cost of entry or the demand changes, no additional capacity will be created unless dictated by some external agency.
So until the price of current services hits the level at which it will be affordable for a competitor to enter the market to add capacity, or governing agencies lower the cost of entry to the market, supply can be artificially restricted even without monopoly behavior.