n the drugs industry, a poster child for pro-patent arguments, a fixed-term monopoly could be granted by the licensing authority as a quid-pro-quo for getting a new drug proven and certified
Except patents aren't needed for drugs. "An alternative to pharmaceutical patents". As for funding research, pharmaceutical companies spend much more money on marketing than research and development. Then not all research on drugs is done by pharmaceutical companies either. An excellent example is Taxol, a drug for the treatment of some cancers such as breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute, NCI, spent $183,000,000 developing and testing Taxol. After the NCI spent all that taxpayer money it sold all the rights, including the test data needed to get FDA drug approval to Bristol-Myers Squibb for $43,000,000, $140,000,000 less than taxpayers paid. By 2000, years after BMS bought the rights, it was estimated BMS was making $1,000,000,000 a year on sales of Taxol.
You are aware, that this is valid only for the US patent system? The US patent system is different (and IMHO worse) than all other patent systems in many ways, like 'first to file'
The US is first to invent not first to file. This is about the only thing that's better about the US system, however there's a movement afoot to harmonize US patent law to other countries' laws.
So what happens when you come up with a brilliant idea that can be implemented in multiple ways? You work your ass of developing it and as soon as it is a success, someone else copies the idea (they write their own code that does the exact same thing).
And that's exactly how it should be. A programmer can copyright their own implement while someone else can implement theirs. you don't think it's not done this way with hardware? Open the hood of your car, if you have one, and look at all the patents on the different parts. Then open your neighbor's hood and look at all the different patent numbers on it's starter. I can take a starter from 2 different cars and find different numbers on them, yet they both work in the same basic way. Or use an item closer, take CPUs or ICs from different manufacturers. Again though they work much the same they are covered by different patents.
But if the coders make their money by making their original code better, what's to stop others from stealing it again and selling it cheaper still. Thus the original coder never makes any money.
Linus hasn't made any money? Redhat and all the other Linux distros don't make money?
Yahoo has become extremely unfriendly to non-Microsoft systems of late and even my Mac OS X box has problems playing all the music and videos there
I'm a member of some Yahoo! Groups and I haven't had problem either on my Mac or my Linux PC with the groups. It may be different with audio/visuals but I don't play music or videos on any computer except as objects or plugins on websites.
I don't think you understand. In a publicly held company, the shareholders own the company. If they want money (and they do), they'll just vote out the board at Yahoo and vote in one that is in favor of being bought out.
That's it exactly. If Microsoft really wanted to buy Yahoo! then MS should have bought Yahoo! shares on the market. MS could have bought 4.9% of Yahoo!'s shares before notifying anyone about it, SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires stockholders to make a filing once they've bought 5% of a corporation's stocks. Though I'm not now if I had been a Yahoo! stockholder when MS first made the offer and the board accepted it I very well may of filed a lawsuit against the board. Most of the tyme when a buyer makes an offer they make it a low offer, those who don't believe this need to pay a visit to a bazaar, it called haggling or in more polite environs negotiating. In Yahoo!'s case, as the board didn't want to sell, why should they negotiate?
The founders and management of Yahoo dont own the company, it isnt their decision nor should it be. The founders made the decision that they wanted to go public and basically sell the company to others. Sure, they built it from ashes, but they made the decision to sell it. (for quite a bit of money too)
Yea the founders had an IPO and sold a lot of shares, however they also kept a lot of shares too so not only are they "management" but they are stockholders as well.
I mean that, right now, Microsoft pretty much owns the market. They're not worried about growing their userbase, they're worried about keeping their user base.
Ok.
Linux and Mac are still looking at growing their userbase. I wonder how long until the tables are turned.
Linux and Macs are growing in market share but I think it'll take years before either has a sizable desktop market share. Apple has increased it's laptop market share a lot more than the desktop market share which suggests to me than people are still using Windows PCs for desktop systems. And with Linux, though it's knowledge with general users is increasing, for many it's still perceived as difficult and the apps they think they think they need won't run on it. Distros, like Linspire and Ubuntu, are disproving this however. Not only are they easy to use even for newbies but they also make it easy to install software, though not as easy at it is to install software on my Mac.
I wonder how long it'll take for Microsoft to have to take users away from OSS, rather than keep their existing ones from migrating.
Actually because of their antics I can see people moving away from Microsoft. I'd bought and used MS Windows and Office for about 10 years. About 1 1/2 years ago though when my HP was dying I got a desktop PC, tower really, with Linux preinstalled. I was sick and tired of the problems I had with Windows and hated the idea that MS was requiring Activation and spyware. Then last summer when it came tyme for me to get a new laptop I bought a MacBook Pro. I could of gotten a laptop with Linux but that would have required me to order one, then I would of had to call for support as well. Now some don't mind Activation or spyware but I do.
I gotta agree with the article. This makes complete sense from a business perspective.
I agree too, it does make good business sense. However how often does Microsoft make decisions that are good for business? I can name 1 decision which I think was a bad decision, not releasing a version of MS Office for the Unices. In part because MS didn't Open Office has gained ground. Now, some will say or ask who wants to run Office on Linux but if no one did then CodeWeavers would not have created CrossOver so Office could be run in Linux. Nor would there be people working to do the same with WINE, which CodeWeavers contributes to.
If you want a PC to just run out of the box, you install Windows. Linux is getting better, but just isn't to that level, yet.
A year and a half ago I bought a new PC, just walking into a brick and mortar store, with Linux preinstalled. After unpacking it I plugged in the KVM and cable modem, then booted up. It asked me to create a root account then a user account. There was info on what each was for. When I logged into the user account to import my old bookmarks which I had on USB flash I plugged it in and within seconds a window popped up with the contents of the flash on the desktop, which looked like an MS Windows desktop. Clicking the browser icon and it launched and connected to the distro's homepage, which was set as the browser's homepage. I didn't have to do any configuration to use the modem or anything else.
I'm sure Microsoft thinks they can create the artificial need for "certification" to run on Windows. Then just don't certify certain products, or make the certification process wind up making the software hugely advantageous for Windows.
Except it's the Open Source group SpikeSource that will be doing the testing and certification not Microsoft.
On the other hand, Open Office still manages to choke on the minutae in Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. documents.
Though I haven't opened Powerpoint documents I have opened MS Word 2007's.docx and Excel documents with NeoOffice the native Mac port of Open Office without problems. The version I have is 2.1 yet 2.2.3 is available.
Co-ops are good ideas... but take common standards and funding methods to do. There's hope.
I don't see any problems of common standards, as both electrical and phone companies worked out any connection problem. As for funding, though on a much larger scale, they can be funded much the same way as coops are funded now, membership fees. I'm a member of 2 coops and when I joined each one I paid a fee. The coops are eligible for loans so they can raise more funds. Now each year depending on how much I spend at them I receive a check from them. And if I ever decide I want to leave the coops I get a refund of the member fee I paid joining as well as another refund check depending on how much I spent there.
I see one big problem with TFA. It talks about how Utah taxpayers subsidized Utopia yet it does not acknowledge the billions of taxpayer dollars government already gave to the telcos and cablecos to buildout a broadband infrastructure the companies never built. Question, would you also like airlines to build and pay for their own airports as well? Here's an appropriate quote from Paul Morris, Utopia's executive director:
"It would be absurd for each airline to build its own airport," he says. "But that's just what we've been doing for telecommunications. Qwest has its set of wires in the ground, and Comcast"--the dominant cable provider in the region--"has its own. We think it makes sense for a city or a region to build the airport, have someone operate it, and let as many airlines provide service as want to."
Project Utopia in Utah is a good example of what can be done when you get people to make it happen.
Yea, though as a libertarian I believe in small government I like Utopia. A system like it doesn't require the government to own the infrastructure though, all it requires is to require the owner of the infrastructure to allow open access to it and bar them from compeating with anyone who wants to offer any services it can deliver. I like the idea of having a coop own it, as it is now utility coops already deliver electricity and phone service. Actually I'd expand the separation and open access requirements to power lines as well, a utility company would own the powerlines but would be required to allow access to the lines to power generation companies. And any other utility that requires right of way access. Then allow consumers to choose who will provide the electricity they use. A coal fired power plant, nuclear power plant, solar, and wind farms could be hooked up to the same lines then the user would sign up with whichever provider they wanted. For those who are considered mostly with low prices, they could sign up with the coal company. Those who are concerned about greenhouse gases and believe in nuclear power can sign up with them. And those who care about GHGs and nuclear can go with solar and or wind.
And no, landlines refer to tip-and-ring technology of the old phone companies. Fiber is in lots of places, thanks to the Rolling '90s.
As fiber needs the same, or similar, rights of way as copper does, as does coaxial cable I consider them all landlines. The only thing different once the lines are lain is the equipment needed to use them.
Consider: connectivity that doesn't use 'landlines' or tip-and-ring technology, rather, symmetrical fibre and local digital infrastructure (not DSL).
Fiber isn't landline? It may be glass instead of copper but it still requires the same right of way and even more labour to install.
Get rid of the monopolies and governmental sanctioned phone-mafias.
Agreed, however the problem is in the details. For instance someone has to pay to build then maintain and own the infrastructure. What might work is to separate the ownership of the infrastructure from offering the services it is capable of delivering. Such an approach is being implemented as part of A Broadband Utopia in northeastern Utah, here's an update abet almost a year old. One person in the article says it is operated like an airport, airliners don't build their own, instead usually the airport is built and owned by the government who then leases gates to the airlines.
I've thought for quite a while that forcing telecoms to lease bandwidth to 3rd party providers has been a bad idea.
What's bad are taxpayer supported monopolies. These companies, telcos and cablecos, have been given monopolies then they've been given taxpayer money to buildout a broadband infrastructure. Which they didn't do.
However, I don't think that the government should force them to lease infrastructure to competitors.
When the government gives businesses billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, in subsidies the government better attach strings to the money. Such as open access. And actually building the infrastructure the money was given to them to do.
I'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that?
Most people don't have a choice, either for landline phone service or broadband net access. The only substantial choice people in the US have is with cellphone service, however it's not setup for broadband yet. Now though businesses could use the newly available 700 MHz bands to offer wireless broadband.
But back to the question, simply the more choices the more competition.
I haven't smoked since I was sixteen. Might if they legalized it... then again, might not. Depends on the occasion, I suppose. At this point, I'm desperately holding on to the brain cells I have left.;-)
Well like you I have smoked, and inhaled, but it's been somewhere around 20 years since I've had a drag. I like the taste but I didn't like losing control so I didn't smoke enough to get high. For the same reason I don't drink so much I get drunk, as soon as I start getting a buzz I quit drinking alcohol. Unfortunately as I am now I'd rather be drunk and or high almost all the tyme now because those brain cells, neurons. As I'm a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, they have been damaged.
Byte was quite a different magazine in those early days.
"Byte" was a good how-to, if you read long enough you should of been able to build your own, from one of the kits offered or maybe by yourself. It was the only magazine I know that was like it, all the other computer magazines focused more on using them. "Byte" also had some articles on what they could be used for, that's what Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" column was about, but it had more how-tos.
Slashdot Mirror
The pharmaceutical industry is probably the best example I can think of for the requirement of patents.
See my post on drug patents on why they aren't needed.
Falconn the drugs industry, a poster child for pro-patent arguments, a fixed-term monopoly could be granted by the licensing authority as a quid-pro-quo for getting a new drug proven and certified
Except patents aren't needed for drugs. "An alternative to pharmaceutical patents". As for funding research, pharmaceutical companies spend much more money on marketing than research and development. Then not all research on drugs is done by pharmaceutical companies either. An excellent example is Taxol, a drug for the treatment of some cancers such as breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute, NCI, spent $183,000,000 developing and testing Taxol. After the NCI spent all that taxpayer money it sold all the rights, including the test data needed to get FDA drug approval to Bristol-Myers Squibb for $43,000,000, $140,000,000 less than taxpayers paid. By 2000, years after BMS bought the rights, it was estimated BMS was making $1,000,000,000 a year on sales of Taxol.
FalconYou are aware, that this is valid only for the US patent system? The US patent system is different (and IMHO worse) than all other patent systems in many ways, like 'first to file'
The US is first to invent not first to file. This is about the only thing that's better about the US system, however there's a movement afoot to harmonize US patent law to other countries' laws.
FalconSo what happens when you come up with a brilliant idea that can be implemented in multiple ways? You work your ass of developing it and as soon as it is a success, someone else copies the idea (they write their own code that does the exact same thing).
And that's exactly how it should be. A programmer can copyright their own implement while someone else can implement theirs. you don't think it's not done this way with hardware? Open the hood of your car, if you have one, and look at all the patents on the different parts. Then open your neighbor's hood and look at all the different patent numbers on it's starter. I can take a starter from 2 different cars and find different numbers on them, yet they both work in the same basic way. Or use an item closer, take CPUs or ICs from different manufacturers. Again though they work much the same they are covered by different patents.
FalconBut if the coders make their money by making their original code better, what's to stop others from stealing it again and selling it cheaper still. Thus the original coder never makes any money.
Linus hasn't made any money? Redhat and all the other Linux distros don't make money?
FalconI don't think so, MS would have a hard tyme buying Disney because Steve Jobs is on Disney's board of directors.
FalconYahoo has become extremely unfriendly to non-Microsoft systems of late and even my Mac OS X box has problems playing all the music and videos there
I'm a member of some Yahoo! Groups and I haven't had problem either on my Mac or my Linux PC with the groups. It may be different with audio/visuals but I don't play music or videos on any computer except as objects or plugins on websites.
FalconI don't think you understand. In a publicly held company, the shareholders own the company. If they want money (and they do), they'll just vote out the board at Yahoo and vote in one that is in favor of being bought out.
That's it exactly. If Microsoft really wanted to buy Yahoo! then MS should have bought Yahoo! shares on the market. MS could have bought 4.9% of Yahoo!'s shares before notifying anyone about it, SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires stockholders to make a filing once they've bought 5% of a corporation's stocks. Though I'm not now if I had been a Yahoo! stockholder when MS first made the offer and the board accepted it I very well may of filed a lawsuit against the board. Most of the tyme when a buyer makes an offer they make it a low offer, those who don't believe this need to pay a visit to a bazaar, it called haggling or in more polite environs negotiating. In Yahoo!'s case, as the board didn't want to sell, why should they negotiate?
FalconThe founders and management of Yahoo dont own the company, it isnt their decision nor should it be. The founders made the decision that they wanted to go public and basically sell the company to others. Sure, they built it from ashes, but they made the decision to sell it. (for quite a bit of money too)
Yea the founders had an IPO and sold a lot of shares, however they also kept a lot of shares too so not only are they "management" but they are stockholders as well.
FalconI mean that, right now, Microsoft pretty much owns the market. They're not worried about growing their userbase, they're worried about keeping their user base.
Ok.
Linux and Mac are still looking at growing their userbase. I wonder how long until the tables are turned.
Linux and Macs are growing in market share but I think it'll take years before either has a sizable desktop market share. Apple has increased it's laptop market share a lot more than the desktop market share which suggests to me than people are still using Windows PCs for desktop systems. And with Linux, though it's knowledge with general users is increasing, for many it's still perceived as difficult and the apps they think they think they need won't run on it. Distros, like Linspire and Ubuntu, are disproving this however. Not only are they easy to use even for newbies but they also make it easy to install software, though not as easy at it is to install software on my Mac.
FalconHow is certified open source any more open than TiVo?
It's not certified open source, it's certification that open source software will run on Windows Server.
FalconI wonder how long it'll take for Microsoft to have to take users away from OSS, rather than keep their existing ones from migrating.
Actually because of their antics I can see people moving away from Microsoft. I'd bought and used MS Windows and Office for about 10 years. About 1 1/2 years ago though when my HP was dying I got a desktop PC, tower really, with Linux preinstalled. I was sick and tired of the problems I had with Windows and hated the idea that MS was requiring Activation and spyware. Then last summer when it came tyme for me to get a new laptop I bought a MacBook Pro. I could of gotten a laptop with Linux but that would have required me to order one, then I would of had to call for support as well. Now some don't mind Activation or spyware but I do.
FalconI gotta agree with the article. This makes complete sense from a business perspective.
I agree too, it does make good business sense. However how often does Microsoft make decisions that are good for business? I can name 1 decision which I think was a bad decision, not releasing a version of MS Office for the Unices. In part because MS didn't Open Office has gained ground. Now, some will say or ask who wants to run Office on Linux but if no one did then CodeWeavers would not have created CrossOver so Office could be run in Linux. Nor would there be people working to do the same with WINE, which CodeWeavers contributes to.
If you want a PC to just run out of the box, you install Windows. Linux is getting better, but just isn't to that level, yet.
A year and a half ago I bought a new PC, just walking into a brick and mortar store, with Linux preinstalled. After unpacking it I plugged in the KVM and cable modem, then booted up. It asked me to create a root account then a user account. There was info on what each was for. When I logged into the user account to import my old bookmarks which I had on USB flash I plugged it in and within seconds a window popped up with the contents of the flash on the desktop, which looked like an MS Windows desktop. Clicking the browser icon and it launched and connected to the distro's homepage, which was set as the browser's homepage. I didn't have to do any configuration to use the modem or anything else.
FalconI'm sure Microsoft thinks they can create the artificial need for "certification" to run on Windows. Then just don't certify certain products, or make the certification process wind up making the software hugely advantageous for Windows.
Except it's the Open Source group SpikeSource that will be doing the testing and certification not Microsoft.
FalconIf you go back to what RMS was writing In The Beginning (c.f. Gnu Manifesto), the principles did precede the code.
If you go back even further, the code and principles were together in the 1950s and '60s in the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT. It was all part of the Hacker ethic which Steven Levy first wrote about in 1984 in his "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution".
FalconOn the other hand, Open Office still manages to choke on the minutae in Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. documents.
Though I haven't opened Powerpoint documents I have opened MS Word 2007's .docx and Excel documents with NeoOffice the native Mac port of Open Office without problems. The version I have is 2.1 yet 2.2.3 is available.
FalconThere's one difference in between your sense of cupric vs fiber.
I'm not the only one who considers fiber as landlines: "Pyxis Broadband offers a wholesale alternative to landline fiber via a carrier-grade, wireless backbone operating in a secure, FCC licensed frequency environment." Senior Network Technician ... "Resolved leased landline fiber". "BSNL Land lines (Fiber optics) and Mobile phones".
Co-ops are good ideas... but take common standards and funding methods to do. There's hope.
I don't see any problems of common standards, as both electrical and phone companies worked out any connection problem. As for funding, though on a much larger scale, they can be funded much the same way as coops are funded now, membership fees. I'm a member of 2 coops and when I joined each one I paid a fee. The coops are eligible for loans so they can raise more funds. Now each year depending on how much I spend at them I receive a check from them. And if I ever decide I want to leave the coops I get a refund of the member fee I paid joining as well as another refund check depending on how much I spent there.
Falconutopia.
I see one big problem with TFA. It talks about how Utah taxpayers subsidized Utopia yet it does not acknowledge the billions of taxpayer dollars government already gave to the telcos and cablecos to buildout a broadband infrastructure the companies never built. Question, would you also like airlines to build and pay for their own airports as well? Here's an appropriate quote from Paul Morris, Utopia's executive director:
"It would be absurd for each airline to build its own airport," he says. "But that's just what we've been doing for telecommunications. Qwest has its set of wires in the ground, and Comcast"--the dominant cable provider in the region--"has its own. We think it makes sense for a city or a region to build the airport, have someone operate it, and let as many airlines provide service as want to."
FalconProject Utopia in Utah is a good example of what can be done when you get people to make it happen.
Yea, though as a libertarian I believe in small government I like Utopia. A system like it doesn't require the government to own the infrastructure though, all it requires is to require the owner of the infrastructure to allow open access to it and bar them from compeating with anyone who wants to offer any services it can deliver. I like the idea of having a coop own it, as it is now utility coops already deliver electricity and phone service. Actually I'd expand the separation and open access requirements to power lines as well, a utility company would own the powerlines but would be required to allow access to the lines to power generation companies. And any other utility that requires right of way access. Then allow consumers to choose who will provide the electricity they use. A coal fired power plant, nuclear power plant, solar, and wind farms could be hooked up to the same lines then the user would sign up with whichever provider they wanted. For those who are considered mostly with low prices, they could sign up with the coal company. Those who are concerned about greenhouse gases and believe in nuclear power can sign up with them. And those who care about GHGs and nuclear can go with solar and or wind.
And no, landlines refer to tip-and-ring technology of the old phone companies. Fiber is in lots of places, thanks to the Rolling '90s.
As fiber needs the same, or similar, rights of way as copper does, as does coaxial cable I consider them all landlines. The only thing different once the lines are lain is the equipment needed to use them.
FalconAnd cellphones can do broadband?
Consider: connectivity that doesn't use 'landlines' or tip-and-ring technology, rather, symmetrical fibre and local digital infrastructure (not DSL).
Fiber isn't landline? It may be glass instead of copper but it still requires the same right of way and even more labour to install.
Get rid of the monopolies and governmental sanctioned phone-mafias.
Agreed, however the problem is in the details. For instance someone has to pay to build then maintain and own the infrastructure. What might work is to separate the ownership of the infrastructure from offering the services it is capable of delivering. Such an approach is being implemented as part of A Broadband Utopia in northeastern Utah, here's an update abet almost a year old. One person in the article says it is operated like an airport, airliners don't build their own, instead usually the airport is built and owned by the government who then leases gates to the airlines.
FalconI've thought for quite a while that forcing telecoms to lease bandwidth to 3rd party providers has been a bad idea.
What's bad are taxpayer supported monopolies. These companies, telcos and cablecos, have been given monopolies then they've been given taxpayer money to buildout a broadband infrastructure. Which they didn't do.
FalconHowever, I don't think that the government should force them to lease infrastructure to competitors.
When the government gives businesses billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, in subsidies the government better attach strings to the money. Such as open access. And actually building the infrastructure the money was given to them to do.
FalconI'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that?
Most people don't have a choice, either for landline phone service or broadband net access. The only substantial choice people in the US have is with cellphone service, however it's not setup for broadband yet. Now though businesses could use the newly available 700 MHz bands to offer wireless broadband.
But back to the question, simply the more choices the more competition.
FalconAll of the giant database companies (like ChoicePoint) have giant bullseyes on their databases for hackers.
Crackers or script kiddies but NOT hackers. A hacker is more likely to fix a hole in ChoicePoint's system they find then inform them of it.
FalconSame here except smoking marijuana.
I haven't smoked since I was sixteen. Might if they legalized it... then again, might not. Depends on the occasion, I suppose. At this point, I'm desperately holding on to the brain cells I have left. ;-)
Well like you I have smoked, and inhaled, but it's been somewhere around 20 years since I've had a drag. I like the taste but I didn't like losing control so I didn't smoke enough to get high. For the same reason I don't drink so much I get drunk, as soon as I start getting a buzz I quit drinking alcohol. Unfortunately as I am now I'd rather be drunk and or high almost all the tyme now because those brain cells, neurons. As I'm a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, they have been damaged.
Byte was quite a different magazine in those early days.
"Byte" was a good how-to, if you read long enough you should of been able to build your own, from one of the kits offered or maybe by yourself. It was the only magazine I know that was like it, all the other computer magazines focused more on using them. "Byte" also had some articles on what they could be used for, that's what Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" column was about, but it had more how-tos.
Falcon