And I could produce an endless example of innovation prevented or hampered by onerous copyright durations, and examples of creation that came as a result of works lapsing in to the public domain.
Absolutely. But then it would be down to a possible public good vs. denying someone income from their own work. I imagine that if it came down to that choice the courts would side with the individual.
I'm not sure how your proposal fixes this. You said that copyright terms should last as long as the public values and demands a work, and while the author lives. Joe's work obviously fell from popularity or was very obscure until the studio picked it up. What happened there? Did Joe lose his copyright during the obscure years, to regain it when the song became popular?
The scenario was based on the idea of copyrights only lasting 15 years. Anyway, I didn't mean that both conditions had to be true for the copyright to be maintained. What I meant was that as long as Joe was alive, he had a right to any profits made from his creations. I think that a lot of the issues that exist could be resolved by going back to the idea of a shorter initial copyright renewable for a longer time. Something like initial 20 or 30, renewable up to 70 or even 100 (given expected longer lifespans, etc) in steps of 10 years at a time. The creator would have to be the one to make the renewal, so if he dies there are no more renewals.
If Joe is still producing music 15 years later, one would hope that in that time he's been able to come up with something else to pay the bills (unless his music is more a hobby). We shouldn't provide these long copyright terms on the off-chance that song/story x could in 15 years time be used commercially. 15 years to me seems a reasonably amount of time for someone to control a work and pursue profit from it. Joe was either remiss in his efforts to profit from his work or the later success of his song is a bit of a freak occurrence.
Sure, but sometimes art is a very unpredictable business, just look at all the one hit wonders. Also, if you slightly modify my scenario with one of these one hit wonders having their one hit 15 years ago it may make a bit more sense. A lot of old popular songs are revived by covers, movies, TV shows years after original publication.
The idea of copyright only be owned by creators is a nice one, albeit problematic. I should have the right to sell the rights to my work to anyone I chose, which is why I think that copyright terms should simply be fixed periods. I'm presuming when you say that creators should be the only ones to profit, that this would include some scope for licencing works? Otherwise I don't see how publishers could exist, and although many of these companies are vultures (particularly on the music side) they do serve a purpose in the physical world. I would hope though that the move to digital distribution reduces their power.
I agree. Going with a renewable schedule like I mentioned above, the creator could sell the rights to those songs for those specific windows of copyright, after which the copyright would revert to the creator, and he or she would have the option to renew it, and sell the rights for the next window.
Maybe 15 is too short for all cases, but certainly I think we agree that the idea of copyright persisting after death is perverse and morbid. History records no instances of creation from beyond the grave.
Yes, we agree on that, and I think we agree on the general idea that there should be a better balance between the public interest and the interest of the creator of the work when it comes to copyright laws. I think it's mostly a discussion of how to fine tune it to best achieve that balance.
No. It's actually similar to the same reason why it's a bigger deal when republicans get caught in affairs or gay acts then when democrats do. Because the republicans like to represent themselves as being morally superior when it comes to family, religion, and all that stuff, such events expose their hypocrisy much more strongly than when it happens to democrats that don't make such claims to start with.
In other words, the carefully built image of "we're such a cool, hip, enlightened company" (Apple) vs. the reality of sweatshops is a much bigger disappointment and betrayal than the image of "we sell electronic baubles, take 'em or leave 'em, don't worry 'bout how we make 'em" (other brands) vs. the same reality.
Except Apple seems to be the only one being targeted. Why? Are conditions magically better in other factories in China? I doubt it.
Apple is targeted more than others for two main reasons:
1. Apple presents itself as a "think different", hip, cool, enlightened company, much more so than any other consumer electronics brand. So this kind of thing contrasts with their public image much more strongly than any other consumer electronics company.
2. Because of item 1, it's a bigger hypocrisy for Apple than for any other similar company, and thus easier to apply pressure to them in order to bring attention to these conditions.
3. Apple is now the richest company in the entire history of the world. They can afford to use a bit of their profits to improve worker conditions.
Conclusion: it's entirely justified to target Apple more than other companies for the same shortcomings.
Exactly. Great show, and those episodes about the crisis are amazing. It's incredible how people say all kinds of crap about the crisis without acknowledging (or perhaps realizing) what was really happening at various levels around the time the crisis hit.
They also did another interesting episode later on talking to Wall Street people to see if they had any regrets over causing the crisis or receiving the bailouts.
Because it will remove a major reward for people to create works of art. Consider this scenario: Joe Musician writes a song in 1997 that is pretty cool but never really goes anywhere. 15 years later (2012), the music supervisor on the next Hollywood blockbuster or hugely popular TV show includes it in the soundtrack. They make a billion dollars with the movie or TV show, Joe Musician gets a big fat zero.
I could come up with an endless number of very plausible examples like this. Remember that copyright law protects the little people too, not just the mega media conglomerates. In fact, it often protects the little people from the mega media conglomerates.
I accept that someone could make an argument that what I propose is misguided (in either direction), but how is it dangerous? It's more lenient than the current copyright law in the US, while still protecting the creator.
As long as the public values and demands a work, the original creator of the work should be able to continue benefiting from it. The original creator, not the publisher or other middle-men, or the kids or grand-kids of the creator.
So yes, author's lifetime + 70 years is ridiculous. Date of publication + 70 is more reasonable. The number of years after creation is up for discussion, but the clock should never start after the death of the author. I don't understand what the logic was of counting the time that way.
There is definitely room and a need for copyright reform, but not how some people want it, which is basically akin to forcing people to give their creations away for free after a few years, and is an extreme at the other end of the spectrum of what the media conglomerates want but an extreme just the same.
The comparison that some people make, "I'm not getting paid for work I did 10 years ago, so artists shouldn't either" doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons: a) the work you did was most likely paid for in the form of a salary, which is usually not the case for artists and other creators; b) the work you did 10 years ago most likely has little to no value today, and could probably not be sold even if you wanted it to, unlike popular works of art.
I feel for you. I get a similar (but apparently not as intense) sinus infection about once a year. In the past I have tried to avoid antibiotics as much as possible, but sometimes resistance really is futile, unfortunately. If I can't keep it under control it ends up going down to my chest then I end up with bronchitis.
Anyway, among the many things that I do to try to keep it under control are the antihistamines and decongestants like you. I also use the neti pot nasal rinse like many others have mentioned in their responses to you.
However, as far as your throat infection goes, or actually any throat infection regardless if it's from a sinus infection, the BEST thing that I've ever found for it, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, is apple cider vinegar. Look it up for more details, but I basically cover the bottom of a cup or mug with the vinegar (in other words, about a 1-2mm layer) and then almost fill up the rest of the cup with lukewarm water, and then gargle with it. Alternate with having a drink of it too (it's good for you in several ways). Make sure to brush and rinse your teeth afterward so it doesn't damage the enamel. It stings/burns to do it but you will be amazed at the results. At least for isolated throat infections it gets rid of them within a day or two.
I just wanted to jump in here to let you know that I did the same thing you did - purchase the old XDS on ebay after I tried one of the new units (XS, and I already had an XDS). My issue with the new units was different than yours (the netflix ramp up in quality at the beginning of the movie was unacceptable to me).
But anyway, I wanted to let you know that shortly after I bought that on ebay I came to find out that roku were still selling the old units on their accessories page: http://www.roku.com/accessories - the XDS shows out of stock right now, but the XD is available. Probably won't work for you because of connectivity, but it could be useful to someone else.
The article specifically says that they like Pixar films because they're entirely CGI, and don't try to be some weird hybrid of reality+CGI. That's what they really object to.
True, but that's not an ideal example for this conversation because LOTR used a LOT of practical effects (especially miniatures) as well. They used whatever was the most practical solution that would look best for a particular scene.
Just wanted to chime in here to say that UPS now has something called "UPS My Choice" that you can sign up for (free) that will email you and/or text you the day before the delivery, and then if you want, they will notify you again after it's been delivered. I just signed up for it recently when I was expecting a bunch of packages and it worked well. You also have the choice of paying an yearly fee that allows you to redirect the packages or direct them to all be held at the nearest UPS store for example. FedEx has yet to catch up with this option, but I hope they will soon, because like you said you never know what company you will have to use to receive a shipment.
There's an easy fix for your computer registration issue: go to your account page in itunes (click on your account name in the upper right corner when you're in the itunes store). In that page you will see an option to deauthorize all computers. After you do that, just reauthorize the computer you want. I had to do this some years ago. Keep in mind that from some of the links I read it's possible that it may only work if you're already at your limit of 5 registered computers, but it doesn't seem to require that in practice.
Or was this just a lame attempt at twisting the data? Of course no politician will ever be able to keep all the promises they make, unless they're a dictator of some kind.
If there was some way to easily mark stories and comments here for reference later, it would increase Slashdot's value to me. I have run across some extremely interesting/insightful/useful posts and collections of posts under certain stories here and I don't really have a good system to keep track of them. This would be a very useful feature. In fact it's the most useful addition that I can think of for the site.
I also wanted to add my vote for the previous generation of the comments system. It was organized and easy to use, and the site allowed the side columns to be eliminated to make the meat of the site, the stories and comments, to use the whole browser window. Ever since the latest generation, I had to go back to the first classic view.
Again, agreed on the general premise, but to me it doesn't seem like that's what it did at all. It seems like the AV scanner detected an incoming file in the cache that contained a javascript threat, not necessarily that an execution of that threat was attempted. Of course, the threat would be there to be run at some point, and like I said, I also really wonder how malware is executed at all, but I think that this is an important distinction. I still think that except for malware that comes through unpatched java/flash/acrobat or 0-day exploits, most of the malware that gets installed is due to the user clicking on the prompts that come up asking them in not so many words if it's ok to infect their computer with malware.
I have no idea if it was removed or not, my only choice with such an obfuscated, complicated OS is to assume that the tools I am given are not lying to me and are doing the job that they are.
Can you give us an example of how another "better" OS would have handled this differently?
BTW, I largely agree with you and laugh at people who don't run real-time AV scanners on their machines, like a CS student I met once. But I don't get your point with that sentence though because I don't know how another OS would have done it better.
No problem, yes, the article was an interesting read and the book looks like it too. The thing that I wonder is if they advocate that ANY patent system is counterproductive or doomed to failure (except pharma and chemical patents), or if they feel that the system could be fixed to be beneficial. In other words, are they saying that the system is bad as it is currently set up or if patent protections are bad in general.
The article itself posits that the problem is the fuzzy boundaries of patents other than chemical/pharmaceutical (because those have a clearly defined boundary), but it seems to leave the door open to the possibility that the system could be fixed by requiring better quality, more specific, narrow patents. However, I'm open to the possibility that the idea is hopelessly broken and will never work well for its intended purpose.
I agree about using the best tools to analyze the problem and keeping an open mind to the solutions!
Some of the most rigorous research on U.S. patents has been conducted by Boston University's James Bessen and Michael Meurer. They have gone beyond the anecdotes that so often characterize discussions of patent reform and have studied in detail just how patents function, what incentives they create, and how the system could function better. What they found is that America's patent system only provides positive incentives for innovation in two industries: pharmaceuticals and chemicals. The value that a patent confers on its owner is outweighed by the cost of obtaining, asserting, and defending that patent for almost all American companies. Anyone innovating outside of those two industries would be better off if there were no patent system at all.
Perhaps I'm out of date with my impressions of how new technology gets developed. I still believe that it costs a lot more money to develop physical high-tech items than to develop software, until I see good evidence to the contrary. Your friend's situation is only one case.
I don't agree about Apple. They're a bad example for a variety of reasons. They were a minor player in the "few/no patent" days until the advent of the iPod and iPhone, when they did start to wield patents. Patents were a way to help enhance their reputation for unique design, quality, and polish.
Here is another analogy: if at exam time in school everyone was allowed to copy the answers of the A students without any adverse consequences, wouldn't that reduce the incentive for the A students to do so well? It wouldn't completely eliminate it, but it would certainly reduce it significantly.
Let me just mention here that I think that anti-patent folks have a very well justified argument that the patent system is being severely abused. But that is not an argument to completely eliminate patents, just to change them. For example, I think that something like 5 or 10 years protection would be more reasonable, and, obviously, stronger requirements and inspection for quality of patent applications.
I also understand and agree with your point that wealthy companies can twist the system, but that's the nature of the world we live in nowadays, and I share your frustration with this kind of situation. The only thing we can do is to fight that manipulation through whatever means we can. But I don't believe that completely killing patents is the way to do it.
I think that what we really need is to have complete campaign finance reform in the US to severely reduce the power of lobbyists, but unfortunately that's about as unlikely as the patent system being eliminated. So let's fight on however we can.
Slashdot Mirror
And I could produce an endless example of innovation prevented or hampered by onerous copyright durations, and examples of creation that came as a result of works lapsing in to the public domain.
Absolutely. But then it would be down to a possible public good vs. denying someone income from their own work. I imagine that if it came down to that choice the courts would side with the individual.
I'm not sure how your proposal fixes this. You said that copyright terms should last as long as the public values and demands a work, and while the author lives. Joe's work obviously fell from popularity or was very obscure until the studio picked it up. What happened there? Did Joe lose his copyright during the obscure years, to regain it when the song became popular?
The scenario was based on the idea of copyrights only lasting 15 years. Anyway, I didn't mean that both conditions had to be true for the copyright to be maintained. What I meant was that as long as Joe was alive, he had a right to any profits made from his creations. I think that a lot of the issues that exist could be resolved by going back to the idea of a shorter initial copyright renewable for a longer time. Something like initial 20 or 30, renewable up to 70 or even 100 (given expected longer lifespans, etc) in steps of 10 years at a time. The creator would have to be the one to make the renewal, so if he dies there are no more renewals.
If Joe is still producing music 15 years later, one would hope that in that time he's been able to come up with something else to pay the bills (unless his music is more a hobby). We shouldn't provide these long copyright terms on the off-chance that song/story x could in 15 years time be used commercially. 15 years to me seems a reasonably amount of time for someone to control a work and pursue profit from it. Joe was either remiss in his efforts to profit from his work or the later success of his song is a bit of a freak occurrence.
Sure, but sometimes art is a very unpredictable business, just look at all the one hit wonders. Also, if you slightly modify my scenario with one of these one hit wonders having their one hit 15 years ago it may make a bit more sense. A lot of old popular songs are revived by covers, movies, TV shows years after original publication.
The idea of copyright only be owned by creators is a nice one, albeit problematic. I should have the right to sell the rights to my work to anyone I chose, which is why I think that copyright terms should simply be fixed periods. I'm presuming when you say that creators should be the only ones to profit, that this would include some scope for licencing works? Otherwise I don't see how publishers could exist, and although many of these companies are vultures (particularly on the music side) they do serve a purpose in the physical world. I would hope though that the move to digital distribution reduces their power.
I agree. Going with a renewable schedule like I mentioned above, the creator could sell the rights to those songs for those specific windows of copyright, after which the copyright would revert to the creator, and he or she would have the option to renew it, and sell the rights for the next window.
Maybe 15 is too short for all cases, but certainly I think we agree that the idea of copyright persisting after death is perverse and morbid. History records no instances of creation from beyond the grave.
Yes, we agree on that, and I think we agree on the general idea that there should be a better balance between the public interest and the interest of the creator of the work when it comes to copyright laws. I think it's mostly a discussion of how to fine tune it to best achieve that balance.
No. It's actually similar to the same reason why it's a bigger deal when republicans get caught in affairs or gay acts then when democrats do. Because the republicans like to represent themselves as being morally superior when it comes to family, religion, and all that stuff, such events expose their hypocrisy much more strongly than when it happens to democrats that don't make such claims to start with.
In other words, the carefully built image of "we're such a cool, hip, enlightened company" (Apple) vs. the reality of sweatshops is a much bigger disappointment and betrayal than the image of "we sell electronic baubles, take 'em or leave 'em, don't worry 'bout how we make 'em" (other brands) vs. the same reality.
They could either change suppliers or put more pressure on foxconn to provide better conditions.
Except Apple seems to be the only one being targeted. Why? Are conditions magically better in other factories in China? I doubt it.
Apple is targeted more than others for two main reasons:
1. Apple presents itself as a "think different", hip, cool, enlightened company, much more so than any other consumer electronics brand. So this kind of thing contrasts with their public image much more strongly than any other consumer electronics company.
2. Because of item 1, it's a bigger hypocrisy for Apple than for any other similar company, and thus easier to apply pressure to them in order to bring attention to these conditions.
3. Apple is now the richest company in the entire history of the world. They can afford to use a bit of their profits to improve worker conditions.
Conclusion: it's entirely justified to target Apple more than other companies for the same shortcomings.
Exactly. Great show, and those episodes about the crisis are amazing. It's incredible how people say all kinds of crap about the crisis without acknowledging (or perhaps realizing) what was really happening at various levels around the time the crisis hit.
They also did another interesting episode later on talking to Wall Street people to see if they had any regrets over causing the crisis or receiving the bailouts.
Because it will remove a major reward for people to create works of art. Consider this scenario: Joe Musician writes a song in 1997 that is pretty cool but never really goes anywhere. 15 years later (2012), the music supervisor on the next Hollywood blockbuster or hugely popular TV show includes it in the soundtrack. They make a billion dollars with the movie or TV show, Joe Musician gets a big fat zero.
I could come up with an endless number of very plausible examples like this. Remember that copyright law protects the little people too, not just the mega media conglomerates. In fact, it often protects the little people from the mega media conglomerates.
I accept that someone could make an argument that what I propose is misguided (in either direction), but how is it dangerous? It's more lenient than the current copyright law in the US, while still protecting the creator.
As long as the public values and demands a work, the original creator of the work should be able to continue benefiting from it. The original creator, not the publisher or other middle-men, or the kids or grand-kids of the creator.
So yes, author's lifetime + 70 years is ridiculous. Date of publication + 70 is more reasonable. The number of years after creation is up for discussion, but the clock should never start after the death of the author. I don't understand what the logic was of counting the time that way.
There is definitely room and a need for copyright reform, but not how some people want it, which is basically akin to forcing people to give their creations away for free after a few years, and is an extreme at the other end of the spectrum of what the media conglomerates want but an extreme just the same.
The comparison that some people make, "I'm not getting paid for work I did 10 years ago, so artists shouldn't either" doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons: a) the work you did was most likely paid for in the form of a salary, which is usually not the case for artists and other creators; b) the work you did 10 years ago most likely has little to no value today, and could probably not be sold even if you wanted it to, unlike popular works of art.
I feel for you. I get a similar (but apparently not as intense) sinus infection about once a year. In the past I have tried to avoid antibiotics as much as possible, but sometimes resistance really is futile, unfortunately. If I can't keep it under control it ends up going down to my chest then I end up with bronchitis.
Anyway, among the many things that I do to try to keep it under control are the antihistamines and decongestants like you. I also use the neti pot nasal rinse like many others have mentioned in their responses to you.
However, as far as your throat infection goes, or actually any throat infection regardless if it's from a sinus infection, the BEST thing that I've ever found for it, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, is apple cider vinegar. Look it up for more details, but I basically cover the bottom of a cup or mug with the vinegar (in other words, about a 1-2mm layer) and then almost fill up the rest of the cup with lukewarm water, and then gargle with it. Alternate with having a drink of it too (it's good for you in several ways). Make sure to brush and rinse your teeth afterward so it doesn't damage the enamel. It stings/burns to do it but you will be amazed at the results. At least for isolated throat infections it gets rid of them within a day or two.
Good luck!
"And for all our lovely friends overseas, we'll be localizing the text in French, Italian, German, and Spanish."
Spanish makes sense, but not the others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
I have a hard time believing that, for instance, Italy has a larger market for games than Brazil, Russia, India, or China.
I just wanted to jump in here to let you know that I did the same thing you did - purchase the old XDS on ebay after I tried one of the new units (XS, and I already had an XDS). My issue with the new units was different than yours (the netflix ramp up in quality at the beginning of the movie was unacceptable to me).
But anyway, I wanted to let you know that shortly after I bought that on ebay I came to find out that roku were still selling the old units on their accessories page: http://www.roku.com/accessories - the XDS shows out of stock right now, but the XD is available. Probably won't work for you because of connectivity, but it could be useful to someone else.
That's very interesting. How did you make this change?
The article specifically says that they like Pixar films because they're entirely CGI, and don't try to be some weird hybrid of reality+CGI. That's what they really object to.
True, but that's not an ideal example for this conversation because LOTR used a LOT of practical effects (especially miniatures) as well. They used whatever was the most practical solution that would look best for a particular scene.
Just wanted to chime in here to say that UPS now has something called "UPS My Choice" that you can sign up for (free) that will email you and/or text you the day before the delivery, and then if you want, they will notify you again after it's been delivered. I just signed up for it recently when I was expecting a bunch of packages and it worked well. You also have the choice of paying an yearly fee that allows you to redirect the packages or direct them to all be held at the nearest UPS store for example. FedEx has yet to catch up with this option, but I hope they will soon, because like you said you never know what company you will have to use to receive a shipment.
Quick update: read this page as well: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1420
It looks like you can only do the deauthorize all operation once per year, so keep that in mind.
There's an easy fix for your computer registration issue: go to your account page in itunes (click on your account name in the upper right corner when you're in the itunes store). In that page you will see an option to deauthorize all computers. After you do that, just reauthorize the computer you want. I had to do this some years ago. Keep in mind that from some of the links I read it's possible that it may only work if you're already at your limit of 5 registered computers, but it doesn't seem to require that in practice.
Why didn't you link to his complete record of promises on politifact?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Or his complete file on politifact?
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
Or was this just a lame attempt at twisting the data? Of course no politician will ever be able to keep all the promises they make, unless they're a dictator of some kind.
Just wanted to point out that the bailed out banks DID pay them back, with interest, a good while ago. A quick google search turned this up as the first article: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/04/business/la-fi-tarp4-2009dec04
If there was some way to easily mark stories and comments here for reference later, it would increase Slashdot's value to me. I have run across some extremely interesting/insightful/useful posts and collections of posts under certain stories here and I don't really have a good system to keep track of them. This would be a very useful feature. In fact it's the most useful addition that I can think of for the site.
I also wanted to add my vote for the previous generation of the comments system. It was organized and easy to use, and the site allowed the side columns to be eliminated to make the meat of the site, the stories and comments, to use the whole browser window. Ever since the latest generation, I had to go back to the first classic view.
Again, agreed on the general premise, but to me it doesn't seem like that's what it did at all. It seems like the AV scanner detected an incoming file in the cache that contained a javascript threat, not necessarily that an execution of that threat was attempted. Of course, the threat would be there to be run at some point, and like I said, I also really wonder how malware is executed at all, but I think that this is an important distinction. I still think that except for malware that comes through unpatched java/flash/acrobat or 0-day exploits, most of the malware that gets installed is due to the user clicking on the prompts that come up asking them in not so many words if it's ok to infect their computer with malware.
I have no idea if it was removed or not, my only choice with such an obfuscated, complicated OS is to assume that the tools I am given are not lying to me and are doing the job that they are.
Can you give us an example of how another "better" OS would have handled this differently?
BTW, I largely agree with you and laugh at people who don't run real-time AV scanners on their machines, like a CS student I met once. But I don't get your point with that sentence though because I don't know how another OS would have done it better.
The countless delays just lead me to think that there were too many problems with this new design or application of technology.
No problem, yes, the article was an interesting read and the book looks like it too. The thing that I wonder is if they advocate that ANY patent system is counterproductive or doomed to failure (except pharma and chemical patents), or if they feel that the system could be fixed to be beneficial. In other words, are they saying that the system is bad as it is currently set up or if patent protections are bad in general.
The article itself posits that the problem is the fuzzy boundaries of patents other than chemical/pharmaceutical (because those have a clearly defined boundary), but it seems to leave the door open to the possibility that the system could be fixed by requiring better quality, more specific, narrow patents. However, I'm open to the possibility that the idea is hopelessly broken and will never work well for its intended purpose.
I agree about using the best tools to analyze the problem and keeping an open mind to the solutions!
Take care.
So apparently I might be wrong about patents' incentive to innovation after all. Today's slashdot post on patents has a link to this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-patent-overhaul-wont-help-innovators-2011-9
I will have to check out that book...
Perhaps I'm out of date with my impressions of how new technology gets developed. I still believe that it costs a lot more money to develop physical high-tech items than to develop software, until I see good evidence to the contrary. Your friend's situation is only one case.
I don't agree about Apple. They're a bad example for a variety of reasons. They were a minor player in the "few/no patent" days until the advent of the iPod and iPhone, when they did start to wield patents. Patents were a way to help enhance their reputation for unique design, quality, and polish.
Here is another analogy: if at exam time in school everyone was allowed to copy the answers of the A students without any adverse consequences, wouldn't that reduce the incentive for the A students to do so well? It wouldn't completely eliminate it, but it would certainly reduce it significantly.
Let me just mention here that I think that anti-patent folks have a very well justified argument that the patent system is being severely abused. But that is not an argument to completely eliminate patents, just to change them. For example, I think that something like 5 or 10 years protection would be more reasonable, and, obviously, stronger requirements and inspection for quality of patent applications.
I also understand and agree with your point that wealthy companies can twist the system, but that's the nature of the world we live in nowadays, and I share your frustration with this kind of situation. The only thing we can do is to fight that manipulation through whatever means we can. But I don't believe that completely killing patents is the way to do it.
I think that what we really need is to have complete campaign finance reform in the US to severely reduce the power of lobbyists, but unfortunately that's about as unlikely as the patent system being eliminated. So let's fight on however we can.