Also, this isn't about patents. This is about trade secrets.
Personal opinion: If you want to protect your ideas you should patent them. That is the rationale for the existence of patents - to encourage people to publish their ideas in return for a period of exclusivity. If you don't use the patent system, and instead try to keep your ideas secret, then you shouldn't be able to sue someone if they leak. The courts should not be in the business of enforcing private secrets to the detriment of the public interest.
What is easy for a biologist is not the same as what is easy for an electrochemist. How about we let the biologists work on the cow farts, while the electrochemists work on better batteries?
you must move to them as opposed to where you want to live
For what other professions do companies hire remote workers? The opportunities for working remotely as a coder are not that great, but every other profession I can think of is even worse.
you must work long hours,
Not all tech jobs require long hours, and plenty of other jobs do have long hours.
commute an hour to work and an hour back
What? So there are special fast lanes for non-coders?
The investment needed to supply sufficient electricity for vehicles would be enormous.
We already have sufficient generating capacity. The capacity is designed for peak demand, but cars can recharge anytime, and there is plenty of power capacity available non-peak. My wife has an electric car, and it is pre-programmed to start charging at 2am. In the future, cars can be designed to query the grid, and only draw power when excess is available. This flexible demand can mesh very well with intermittent power sources such as solar and wind.
No, we should not. There is no rational reason to sequentially solve independent problems. There is no reason that dealing with methane emissions from cattle should be delayed until we are "done" with transportation. That is idiotic.
But can they charge extra to the people that want the right to sue, to cover litigation costs? Or, equivalently, offer a discount to people willing to sign the arbitration clause?
Americans collectively spend about 800 billion hours per year watching TV. If you want to criticize people for wasting time, there are better targets than this handful of coders.
They are doing nothing to help cure cancer, but neither is any artist, poet, dancer, novelist, or musician. Should we also criticize those people for "wasting time"?
Conway's game of Life has been shown to be Turing Complete, so it can do anything any computer can do. You can use glider generators to construct a NAND gate, and then use NAND gates to construct any logic circuit, including a CPU.
Someone should write a compiler to run arbitrary software inside the automaton system.
I'd rather see it parceled out in bankruptcy then in a single deal like this.
This single deal would be likely be better for consumers. If the oligopoly is going to go from 4 to 3, it is better for the 3 to be roughly the same size. Sprint and T-Mobile combined are still smaller than Verizon in number of subscribers.
Another question is how much the coal/natural gas lobby's have donated to ensure this ruling?
I love conspiracy theories, but this one just doesn't fit the facts:
1. This is a court ruling, not a legislative or regulatory issue, and lobbyists don't talk to judges. 2. Coal producers are mostly broke, and would be unlikely to benefit much from less solar since no new coal plants are being built. The benefits would mostly go to NG. 3. The NG industry is dominated by independent frackers who are way too disorganized to effectively lobby for something like this.
Solar is still less than 1%, Coal and NG have more to gain by fighting each other. Coals biggest competitive adversary is gas, and will be for a long time.
This doesn't make sense to me either. Under WTO rules, retaliation is permitted against dumping and subsidies. But there is no retaliation permitted just for low prices. Domestic producers don't have a "right" to be shielded from competition. Even weirder, the court is setting a "price floor" that seems to prohibit even domestic competition from undercutting incumbent producers.
What about just doing your grocery shopping yourself?
That still requires other people to grow the food, package it, and put it on the shelf for you. In principle, these are no different from delivery, and you only think they are because you are used to them being done for you.
Demand a fair market price, if Nestle moves on let them.
"Next to nothing" is a fair market price for water. I pay about $1 per HCF (hundred cubic feet) at the retail level, for water pumped to my house. That is about a 30th of a cent, or $0.0003 per liter. This is in drought threatened California. In most other areas, water is even cheaper.
The prices listed in TFA are reasonable, and only sound otherwise to people that have no idea just how cheap water is. Any government is going to get way way way more from jobs and property taxes that they could ever expect to get by charging a few extra pennies per HCF for the water.
To be fair, Nestle SHOULD be painted evil in all this after their CEO's statement that he didn't think water was a human right.
A right is something that others can't take from you, not something that others should be compelled to give to you.
The word you are looking for is "entitlement". Are people entitled to clean water? I would say yes. We should ensure that everyone (even homeless people) has access to a minimal amount of clean water for drinking, cooking, and washing. But that is because it is good health and welfare policy, not because it is a "right".
A quick way to differentiate "rights" from "entitlements" is to see if they are described using "to" or "from". Freedom to speak, freedom to worship, freedom to travel, are all rights. Freedom from hunger, freedom from thirst, freedom from fear, freedom from offense or insult, are all describing entitlements.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to file the patents as prior art?
No. A patent portfolio is a good defense against patent infringement lawsuits by other practicing entities. Not only can you counter-sue, but you can often preempt lawsuits with broad cross licensing agreements.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, this isn't about patents. This is about trade secrets.
Personal opinion: If you want to protect your ideas you should patent them. That is the rationale for the existence of patents - to encourage people to publish their ideas in return for a period of exclusivity. If you don't use the patent system, and instead try to keep your ideas secret, then you shouldn't be able to sue someone if they leak. The courts should not be in the business of enforcing private secrets to the detriment of the public interest.
otherwise get turned to methane anyway.
No. This is wrong. If it decays or is eaten by most other animals, it will be converted to CO2, not CH4.
More pay or more perks.
Companies aren't doing either.
A BS in CS has a higher starting salary than any other 4 year degree. What industry offers better perks than tech?
You start with easy stuff and work your way up.
What is easy for a biologist is not the same as what is easy for an electrochemist. How about we let the biologists work on the cow farts, while the electrochemists work on better batteries?
you must move to them as opposed to where you want to live
For what other professions do companies hire remote workers? The opportunities for working remotely as a coder are not that great, but every other profession I can think of is even worse.
you must work long hours,
Not all tech jobs require long hours, and plenty of other jobs do have long hours.
commute an hour to work and an hour back
What? So there are special fast lanes for non-coders?
The investment needed to supply sufficient electricity for vehicles would be enormous.
We already have sufficient generating capacity. The capacity is designed for peak demand, but cars can recharge anytime, and there is plenty of power capacity available non-peak. My wife has an electric car, and it is pre-programmed to start charging at 2am. In the future, cars can be designed to query the grid, and only draw power when excess is available. This flexible demand can mesh very well with intermittent power sources such as solar and wind.
We should tackle the worst offenders first.
No, we should not. There is no rational reason to sequentially solve independent problems. There is no reason that dealing with methane emissions from cattle should be delayed until we are "done" with transportation. That is idiotic.
Forced arbitration should be banned.
But can they charge extra to the people that want the right to sue, to cover litigation costs? Or, equivalently, offer a discount to people willing to sign the arbitration clause?
it was a tremendous waste of time
Americans collectively spend about 800 billion hours per year watching TV. If you want to criticize people for wasting time, there are better targets than this handful of coders.
They are doing nothing to help cure cancer, but neither is any artist, poet, dancer, novelist, or musician. Should we also criticize those people for "wasting time"?
Conway's game of Life has been shown to be Turing Complete, so it can do anything any computer can do. You can use glider generators to construct a NAND gate, and then use NAND gates to construct any logic circuit, including a CPU.
Someone should write a compiler to run arbitrary software inside the automaton system.
Or we could relocate Spain?
We already tried that. It led to a lot of complaints.
What? If the company made bigger profits it would pay me more?
It is unlikely they would pay you more, but it is likely they would hire more people. Profitable companies grow (so they can make more profit).
I'd rather see it parceled out in bankruptcy then in a single deal like this.
This single deal would be likely be better for consumers. If the oligopoly is going to go from 4 to 3, it is better for the 3 to be roughly the same size. Sprint and T-Mobile combined are still smaller than Verizon in number of subscribers.
Another question is how much the coal/natural gas lobby's have donated to ensure this ruling?
I love conspiracy theories, but this one just doesn't fit the facts:
1. This is a court ruling, not a legislative or regulatory issue, and lobbyists don't talk to judges.
2. Coal producers are mostly broke, and would be unlikely to benefit much from less solar since no new coal plants are being built. The benefits would mostly go to NG.
3. The NG industry is dominated by independent frackers who are way too disorganized to effectively lobby for something like this.
Solar is still less than 1%, Coal and NG have more to gain by fighting each other. Coals biggest competitive adversary is gas, and will be for a long time.
This doesn't make sense to me either. Under WTO rules, retaliation is permitted against dumping and subsidies. But there is no retaliation permitted just for low prices. Domestic producers don't have a "right" to be shielded from competition. Even weirder, the court is setting a "price floor" that seems to prohibit even domestic competition from undercutting incumbent producers.
South Korea is NOT a low-cost locale ... labor there is surely more expensive than someplace like Alabama.
Median salary in S. Korea: $29,125
Median salary in Alabama: $39,180
Both figures are the result of a 10 second Google search.
Disclaimer: I think import restrictions on solar panels are idiotic.
Walmart is almost literally the worst place to buy groceries.
Is "almost literally" the same as "barely figuratively"?
I have a housekeeper who comes twice a month. She has two methods of dealing with dogs:
1. A bag of treats
2. Pepper spray
With my dog, the first method worked with immediate effect.
What about just doing your grocery shopping yourself?
That still requires other people to grow the food, package it, and put it on the shelf for you. In principle, these are no different from delivery, and you only think they are because you are used to them being done for you.
Freedom to not be hungry, freedom to not be thirsty, freedom to not be afraid, freedom to not be insulted. Great, now they are all rights.
Nice. Please post your home address. What time will dinner be ready?
Demand a fair market price, if Nestle moves on let them.
"Next to nothing" is a fair market price for water. I pay about $1 per HCF (hundred cubic feet) at the retail level, for water pumped to my house. That is about a 30th of a cent, or $0.0003 per liter. This is in drought threatened California. In most other areas, water is even cheaper.
The prices listed in TFA are reasonable, and only sound otherwise to people that have no idea just how cheap water is. Any government is going to get way way way more from jobs and property taxes that they could ever expect to get by charging a few extra pennies per HCF for the water.
To be fair, Nestle SHOULD be painted evil in all this after their CEO's statement that he didn't think water was a human right.
A right is something that others can't take from you, not something that others should be compelled to give to you.
The word you are looking for is "entitlement". Are people entitled to clean water? I would say yes. We should ensure that everyone (even homeless people) has access to a minimal amount of clean water for drinking, cooking, and washing. But that is because it is good health and welfare policy, not because it is a "right".
A quick way to differentiate "rights" from "entitlements" is to see if they are described using "to" or "from". Freedom to speak, freedom to worship, freedom to travel, are all rights. Freedom from hunger, freedom from thirst, freedom from fear, freedom from offense or insult, are all describing entitlements.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to file the patents as prior art?
No. A patent portfolio is a good defense against patent infringement lawsuits by other practicing entities. Not only can you counter-sue, but you can often preempt lawsuits with broad cross licensing agreements.
Why would Oracle buy RedHat?
Patents.
It's better to force companies to make their own sub-par player
Technical standards are not an appropriate channel for pushing political objectives.