Only for "ideas" that the market will not stand without artificial constraint.
Might I suggest you are neglecting to realize where and HOW THIS medium came about? Think of the massive amount of capital that 'created' it. This thing could not have existed with out intellectual property rights for no one would have funded most of it or the components it's built upon.
The hardware NEEDS software to have function. If the software was optional, the thing could function without it just fine, then you would have a point but as we all know the software is where the value is for it makes the hardware viable.
As for the cheep labor concepts, boy many have much to learn about the innovative process. Innovation happens in the garages, basements and sleepless nights tossing and turning as the idea takes form in the minds of those who have a simple gift, to ignore the naysayer and take the risks.
I should also add that 'cheep labor' benefits form the educated who author the patents in the expensive labor markets. The car before the horse, or was that cart before the wheel... the difference is clearly that cheep labor, the replicators of the world, have not grown into cutting edge, rather bleeding edge, innovators. They have taken on incremental improvements and true to form help the expensive labor markets fulfill the need to keep up with the Joneses hence the process continues and some are upset by what I suspect is their short sighted look at the current situation.
Knowledge transfer IS the public good. The patents provide YOU the opportunity to learn a considerable amount about technology being employed. They give YOU the opportunity to examine another's insight into how one 'solves' a 'problem'.
The reality of this static intellectual property documentation is that it is truly static and will remain collectively as an example of the thinking of the period. Go back and read the patents from the twenties and thirties then fold the page and read the patents form the late 1800's. It is most assuredly an eye opener when people hop on their high intellectual horse...
The meager protection a patent affords comes at significant cost to the innovators. The reaping the rewards form innovation is rare at the very best, at least that's the extrinsic take. The intrinsic rewards, on the flip side, makes it a very worthy process.:-)
For they can manage the crap out of anything. An example of what was a very good OS, far better then most of the Unix stuff out there today, was OS2. The problem, IBM. They managed that OS into the ground. Do you really want them involved with any other OS?
The idea behind the web is publishing, The idea behind publishing is to have readers. Boycotting a search engine is, well, stupid, when one looks at the simple fact that one wants to have their published content read.
Often times people miss the concept that is so bloody oblivious and yet they still manage to continue on... :-)
Re:Address Search URL, IE 5.5 registry entry.
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer
Item "SearchURL"
I changed mine to read: http://www.google.com/search?q=
This way it will fall to google, a far superior search tool, when entering into the address bar.
One of these day's I'll understand how to add it to the search button... one day...
The examiners, Maung, Zarni and assistant examiner Lin, Kenny should review possible prior art issues irrespective of what the application states. This is what most of their work entails and a good "reason" it takes so long to process an application.
Many choose to simply submit the patent and let the PTO verify prior art. In this case I suspect the prior art search by the examiners resulted in three sites:
Webpage: Netfirms, Sep. 1998.*
Webpage: Freeyellow.com, Apr., 1998.*
Webpage: switchboard.com, Jun. 1996.*
I believe that is what the asterisk entails, I could be wrong...
What is claimed is:
1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of:
assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and
assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "name@subdomain.domain;"
wherein the "name" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same and unique for each particular one of said members such that an only difference between said URL and said e-mail address for said member is that in said URL the "@" symbol of the e-mail address is replaced with a "." and wherein said "subdomain" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same for all members of said group.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said members of said group comprise members of a licensed profession.
How this patent made it past the obvious I am not clear on. Lord knows most patents sit in the quagmire of the PTO's review system for what seems like an eternity only to be rejected on something like obviousness and prior art.
I know I did not address your points directly but the nature of the examination is such where this is a gray area. The courts are supposed to be the final filter, seemingly making it guilty before innocents... when it comes to property rights infringements.
I know it sounds like a personal attack, really, that is not something I am trying to do. I am attacking the idea, something I think everyone should do when they believe and can present a factual reason why. Of course the idea holder sometimes takes it personally... sorry about that but such is in the eye of the beholder and if it works for you, so be it.
Assuming the copy protection was that effective, yah, and then the actual code that makes the game work is being replicated and remains on more then one desktop at the same time, hence is duplicated. IE the friends do not have to read the duplicated book at the same time, they do have a copy available to them sitting on their desk, no?
How about this, its not the actual experience it is the "physical" existence of it, on the computers hard drive that is copyrighted.
Copyright and patent are interfering with the free market!
The free market is that of IDEAS, something which holds far more value then the monetary pittance once can achieve by giving detailed information of it to the world. Jefferson's idea was simple, really, society grows by granting the innovators protection, monopoly. America proved this point many times over.
Copyright and patents have expirations, hence your dead argument looses meaning when one considers that an incentive to "kill" the creator is quite high as a means of turning over their work to public domain? Granted, Mickey Mouse was recently the catalyst for change... something I personally question the logic behind but then again Disney was able to line a whole lot of pockets...
BTW, if that was "finally" why did you continue to make points after that?
I could have written it as such:
Consider this as you are listening to the music you downloaded for 'free'.
It took someone time to dream up and lay down those tracks.
There was an investment of effort into the process few even want to consider as they pose the 'cost' arguments.
Finally we have the last step, facilitating future development.
Would that have made it clearer? In essence the paragraph is broken into parts and I neglected to place proper punctuation depicting the listing of sub points. It's far from proper grammar, something I am simply not capable of performing, but generally when one quasi lists out points in paragraph they can employ "lastly" or "finally"...:-) How was that for a line of BS? I do try...
Really, I extended the comment because I thought it needed qualification and did not double back to remove the statement...
My statment: The distinction, in regards to those of us who believe in intellectual property, is that the petty side of "it costs too much" argument is a waste of effort for those who espouse such thing are usually the same individuals who "know what your thinking." was intended to drive home a point about the logic people employ to make their point.
Example, when people bash political figures, they will often say "I know what X is thinking" when in reality there is little way of ever knowing what any human is thinking, regardless of one's insight into their personality. A reasonable alternative would be to say "I suspect X is thinking" or something to that effect.
In essence the attitude is elitist, knowing something that is not possible to be known.
Extrapolating the concept, if one does not create and have to live off of one's creations they have little to no idea of what it takes. It's like saying ball player X gets "paid to much"... of course the ignorance of all the hours dedicated to the game is lost on the individual who generates such comments.
The underlying tonality in the argument is simple, some want something for nothing and that's my point. Sometimes I wonder if it is a belief some hold about "deserve" it, free stuff that is. Like it's some form of "Right" to take because they can lazily do so (IE one rarely photo copies a novel because it's "not worth the time" but ripping a song off the latest Metallic CD, now that's as simple as point and click.
Did I? How would I know that? If I were able to perform a scientific study of life quality using patent/non-patent as a controlled variable, then I might be able to answer your question.
I believe you missed the point. I'll elaborate, I am saying to READ the patents then decide if you understand the nature of the inventions and who was creating these innovations. The conclusion I am firmly believing you will find if you put reasonable effort, read a few, into the experiment is the cost patenting has skyrocketed hence many of the kick around ideas, innovations, are lost, hence knowledge never to be transferred to
Computers, being relatively new and increasing in use fast, have been treated differently than earlier, normal copyright laws, for example, you can lend someone a book, but you (as many EULAs say) you cannot have a game installed on two computers, even if the game requires a CD to play.
The book, realistically speaking, can only be read by a human at a time. The Game on the other hand can be played by all ten of your friends at the same time on their computers because it was installed on each. It's akin to you photocopying the book ten times and handing it to your friends so everyone can read it at the same time.
In my humble opinion the laws are not the issue. What is the issue has more to do with support costs and an understanding of the impact duplication has on the innovators who created what is being duplicated (the moral catch...:-).
Being an inventor I can tell you most innovations are scrapped well before the patent process because of the overwhelming ease of theft. Those who disregard intellectual property force losses for everyone.
Consider this as you are listening to the music you downloaded for 'free'. It took someone time to dream up and lay down those tracks. There was an investment of effort into the process few even want to consider as they pose the 'cost' arguments. Finally we have the last step, facilitating future development.
As the process considers the looser are those who would like to enter the free market because it is more and more likely their efforts will not produce a return.
The distinction, in regards to those of us who believe in intellectual property, is that the petty side of "it costs too much" argument is a waste of effort for those who espouse such thing are usually the same individuals who "know what your thinking."
PS, if you really want to know what is happening in intellectual property read patents. Look at the patents in the one million range, then jump forward to those in the current almost seven million range. You will likely see a difference. Now ask your self, did you benefit by the change?
And one finds something very unique when it comes to ADD...
First the key points then the question.
Could the root cause be boredom?
Children and adults who "suffer" from Attention Defecate (what ever) can and do successfully concentrate on things they want to. This distinction clearly, in my humble opinion, points to the simple fact that these individuals are searching for something of interest.
Shame of it is to gather their attention, limited uptake narcotics are added to their diets as a control means.
Effected population seem to be increasing dramatically.
one could theorize that a transition from a literate/constructive culture to a passive observing culture is the culprit, leading back to the boredom clause.
Another reasonably well documented influence is accelerants, like caffeine intake, in moms during gestation.
Such effects brings about ample questions of possible evolutionary benefits (yep, I said benefits) such chemistry during human development.
Population density is also a substantial impact on children. It requires an awareness level substantially higher then would otherwise be required.
Consider that children mimic, pattern match, as a primary means of developing. As this fascinating process proceeds, with considerable input of our 'fast' society, one can ask, why?
Technological impact.
Earth's background EMF is below twenty hertz, usually considered 7 to 12. Today most of us live in conditions where the dominant energy around us is 60Hz, that's a significant increase. Are we simply adapting?
Before you dismiss this concept consider this, a swallow (you know the bird that catches flies) can see a light bulb flicker at 60Hz. It's brain is very similar. As such one can consider that we can achieve the same goal, it's just a case of training really.
Reading much on the subject I must remind anyone who chooses to re-research the subject matter to consider solutions identified and our societies dependence on 'quick fixes'. I would also want to remind you that reading on the subject is constructed with the prospective that this is a problem.
I'll tell you it is my firm belief that attention issues are a significant benefit. Ask your self this, when you are not feeling well is focusing on your ailment the way to fell better?
Being one who is distracted easily I must admit that I have a bias. So keen I have become to when I am being distracted that I have learned how to move from subject to subject with limited worry of returning to any given subject in the near future.
With all that said I'll give you a suggestion that may help. It helps me but I also have a secondary element that makes life far more entertaining, I am dyslexic. What I have learned to do is document my thoughts. I do so chronologically. It eases the burden of recall and that is a stabilizing factor. It takes time to do, and is interesting in the sense of writing the highlights and some off beat ideas as I encounter them. It also increases my productivity because solutions are for ever present, applying them is often just a moments inspiration, and if one jots it down it can be review in the future.
Such documenting also relives the burden of trying to remember these little moments, freeing the mind to explore for other inspiring "bright shinny objects" to observe.
To make it clear, the bio-feedback mechanism I am describing is simply a pen and paper. By actively taking that pen and jotting down notes of the day's events, moments spent daydreaming is my personal preference, one can return to the subject at hand with only minor interruption. In essence the idea is to retain the distractive quality and manage it effectively by accommodating it's true power.
All the dogs don't have to wag their tails the same way. But those who choose not to are soon displaced by the "majority", often forced to "conform" much to their dismay.
I suspect one could turn it because the material "acts as one molecule".
Perhaps, I also suspect, there are magnetic properties, the magnetic flux from the "fluid" motion should be more then enough to turn the turbine. Consider placing an existing magnetic to encompass the turbine (like a magnetic pickup for stringed musical instruments).
There is a cool thermal acoustic refrigeration technique that employs hemholtz principals described in
American Scientist a few moons ago. There is also a means of using a Hemholtz filter to create a kind of check valve (I have to look for that reference... if you need it ask) hence providing a "one-way" flow.
Consider the pathway is slow, measured in days. Not to mention the immune system's response to invaders and the very limited volume of material being transported due to the inadequate transport mechanism mechanics.
One element that I do not understand about the blood brain barrier is transport of waste away from the brain. I always assumed the way out of the brain does not have the same limitations as the way in, but I am unsure.
IBM already failed, think OS2. The mentality from upper management was always geared to leasing time on one of their mainframes... it's a model that just won't die, even thought it has been long since forgotten.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Might I suggest you are neglecting to realize where and HOW THIS medium came about? Think of the massive amount of capital that 'created' it. This thing could not have existed with out intellectual property rights for no one would have funded most of it or the components it's built upon.
The hardware NEEDS software to have function. If the software was optional, the thing could function without it just fine, then you would have a point but as we all know the software is where the value is for it makes the hardware viable.
As for the cheep labor concepts, boy many have much to learn about the innovative process. Innovation happens in the garages, basements and sleepless nights tossing and turning as the idea takes form in the minds of those who have a simple gift, to ignore the naysayer and take the risks.
I should also add that 'cheep labor' benefits form the educated who author the patents in the expensive labor markets. The car before the horse, or was that cart before the wheel... the difference is clearly that cheep labor, the replicators of the world, have not grown into cutting edge, rather bleeding edge, innovators. They have taken on incremental improvements and true to form help the expensive labor markets fulfill the need to keep up with the Joneses hence the process continues and some are upset by what I suspect is their short sighted look at the current situation.
The public good as seen by the beholder.
:-)
Knowledge transfer IS the public good. The patents provide YOU the opportunity to learn a considerable amount about technology being employed. They give YOU the opportunity to examine another's insight into how one 'solves' a 'problem'.
The reality of this static intellectual property documentation is that it is truly static and will remain collectively as an example of the thinking of the period. Go back and read the patents from the twenties and thirties then fold the page and read the patents form the late 1800's. It is most assuredly an eye opener when people hop on their high intellectual horse...
The meager protection a patent affords comes at significant cost to the innovators. The reaping the rewards form innovation is rare at the very best, at least that's the extrinsic take. The intrinsic rewards, on the flip side, makes it a very worthy process.
For they can manage the crap out of anything. An example of what was a very good OS, far better then most of the Unix stuff out there today, was OS2. The problem, IBM. They managed that OS into the ground. Do you really want them involved with any other OS?
Often times people miss the concept that is so bloody oblivious and yet they still manage to continue on...
:-)
Item "SearchURL"
I changed mine to read:
http://www.google.com/search?q=
This way it will fall to google, a far superior search tool, when entering into the address bar.
One of these day's I'll understand how to add it to the search button... one day...
Many choose to simply submit the patent and let the PTO verify prior art. In this case I suspect the prior art search by the examiners resulted in three sites:
- Webpage: Netfirms, Sep. 1998.*
- Webpage: Freeyellow.com, Apr., 1998.*
- Webpage: switchboard.com, Jun. 1996.*
I believe that is what the asterisk entails, I could be wrong... How this patent made it past the obvious I am not clear on. Lord knows most patents sit in the quagmire of the PTO's review system for what seems like an eternity only to be rejected on something like obviousness and prior art.The patent (6,671,714) is a worth read.
I know I did not address your points directly but the nature of the examination is such where this is a gray area. The courts are supposed to be the final filter, seemingly making it guilty before innocents... when it comes to property rights infringements.
That trick works for many other sites as well... Google is king...
I know it sounds like a personal attack, really, that is not something I am trying to do. I am attacking the idea, something I think everyone should do when they believe and can present a factual reason why. Of course the idea holder sometimes takes it personally... sorry about that but such is in the eye of the beholder and if it works for you, so be it.
Assuming the copy protection was that effective, yah, and then the actual code that makes the game work is being replicated and remains on more then one desktop at the same time, hence is duplicated. IE the friends do not have to read the duplicated book at the same time, they do have a copy available to them sitting on their desk, no?
How about this, its not the actual experience it is the "physical" existence of it, on the computers hard drive that is copyrighted.
The free market is that of IDEAS, something which holds far more value then the monetary pittance once can achieve by giving detailed information of it to the world. Jefferson's idea was simple, really, society grows by granting the innovators protection, monopoly. America proved this point many times over.
Copyright and patents have expirations, hence your dead argument looses meaning when one considers that an incentive to "kill" the creator is quite high as a means of turning over their work to public domain? Granted, Mickey Mouse was recently the catalyst for change... something I personally question the logic behind but then again Disney was able to line a whole lot of pockets...
I could have written it as such:
Would that have made it clearer? In essence the paragraph is broken into parts and I neglected to place proper punctuation depicting the listing of sub points. It's far from proper grammar, something I am simply not capable of performing, but generally when one quasi lists out points in paragraph they can employ "lastly" or "finally"... :-) How was that for a line of BS? I do try...
Really, I extended the comment because I thought it needed qualification and did not double back to remove the statement...
My statment: The distinction, in regards to those of us who believe in intellectual property, is that the petty side of "it costs too much" argument is a waste of effort for those who espouse such thing are usually the same individuals who "know what your thinking." was intended to drive home a point about the logic people employ to make their point.
Example, when people bash political figures, they will often say "I know what X is thinking" when in reality there is little way of ever knowing what any human is thinking, regardless of one's insight into their personality. A reasonable alternative would be to say "I suspect X is thinking" or something to that effect.
In essence the attitude is elitist, knowing something that is not possible to be known.
Extrapolating the concept, if one does not create and have to live off of one's creations they have little to no idea of what it takes. It's like saying ball player X gets "paid to much"... of course the ignorance of all the hours dedicated to the game is lost on the individual who generates such comments.
The underlying tonality in the argument is simple, some want something for nothing and that's my point. Sometimes I wonder if it is a belief some hold about "deserve" it, free stuff that is. Like it's some form of "Right" to take because they can lazily do so (IE one rarely photo copies a novel because it's "not worth the time" but ripping a song off the latest Metallic CD, now that's as simple as point and click.
I believe you missed the point. I'll elaborate, I am saying to READ the patents then decide if you understand the nature of the inventions and who was creating these innovations. The conclusion I am firmly believing you will find if you put reasonable effort, read a few, into the experiment is the cost patenting has skyrocketed hence many of the kick around ideas, innovations, are lost, hence knowledge never to be transferred to
The book, realistically speaking, can only be read by a human at a time. The Game on the other hand can be played by all ten of your friends at the same time on their computers because it was installed on each. It's akin to you photocopying the book ten times and handing it to your friends so everyone can read it at the same time.
In my humble opinion the laws are not the issue. What is the issue has more to do with support costs and an understanding of the impact duplication has on the innovators who created what is being duplicated (the moral catch... :-).
take too lightly.
Being an inventor I can tell you most innovations are scrapped well before the patent process because of the overwhelming ease of theft. Those who disregard intellectual property force losses for everyone.
Consider this as you are listening to the music you downloaded for 'free'. It took someone time to dream up and lay down those tracks. There was an investment of effort into the process few even want to consider as they pose the 'cost' arguments. Finally we have the last step, facilitating future development.
As the process considers the looser are those who would like to enter the free market because it is more and more likely their efforts will not produce a return.
The distinction, in regards to those of us who believe in intellectual property, is that the petty side of "it costs too much" argument is a waste of effort for those who espouse such thing are usually the same individuals who "know what your thinking."
PS, if you really want to know what is happening in intellectual property read patents. Look at the patents in the one million range, then jump forward to those in the current almost seven million range. You will likely see a difference. Now ask your self, did you benefit by the change?
And one finds something very unique when it comes to ADD...
First the key points then the question.
Children and adults who "suffer" from Attention Defecate (what ever) can and do successfully concentrate on things they want to. This distinction clearly, in my humble opinion, points to the simple fact that these individuals are searching for something of interest.
Shame of it is to gather their attention, limited uptake narcotics are added to their diets as a control means.
Such effects brings about ample questions of possible evolutionary benefits (yep, I said benefits) such chemistry during human development.
Consider that children mimic, pattern match, as a primary means of developing. As this fascinating process proceeds, with considerable input of our 'fast' society, one can ask, why?
Reading much on the subject I must remind anyone who chooses to re-research the subject matter to consider solutions identified and our societies dependence on 'quick fixes'. I would also want to remind you that reading on the subject is constructed with the prospective that this is a problem.
I'll tell you it is my firm belief that attention issues are a significant benefit. Ask your self this, when you are not feeling well is focusing on your ailment the way to fell better?
Being one who is distracted easily I must admit that I have a bias. So keen I have become to when I am being distracted that I have learned how to move from subject to subject with limited worry of returning to any given subject in the near future.
With all that said I'll give you a suggestion that may help. It helps me but I also have a secondary element that makes life far more entertaining, I am dyslexic. What I have learned to do is document my thoughts. I do so chronologically. It eases the burden of recall and that is a stabilizing factor. It takes time to do, and is interesting in the sense of writing the highlights and some off beat ideas as I encounter them. It also increases my productivity because solutions are for ever present, applying them is often just a moments inspiration, and if one jots it down it can be review in the future.
Such documenting also relives the burden of trying to remember these little moments, freeing the mind to explore for other inspiring "bright shinny objects" to observe.
To make it clear, the bio-feedback mechanism I am describing is simply a pen and paper. By actively taking that pen and jotting down notes of the day's events, moments spent daydreaming is my personal preference, one can return to the subject at hand with only minor interruption. In essence the idea is to retain the distractive quality and manage it effectively by accommodating it's true power.
All the dogs don't have to wag their tails the same way. But those who choose not to are soon displaced by the "majority", often forced to "conform" much to their dismay.
But how does one he
Helmholtz was born on 8/31/1821 in Potsdam, Germany. He ended his breathing on 9/8/1894 in Berlin, Germany.
Hence, he could not have been a Nazi...
PS, some info Helmholtz .
I suspect one could turn it because the material "acts as one molecule".
Perhaps, I also suspect, there are magnetic properties, the magnetic flux from the "fluid" motion should be more then enough to turn the turbine. Consider placing an existing magnetic to encompass the turbine (like a magnetic pickup for stringed musical instruments).
I know... one can dream can't they?
There is a cool thermal acoustic refrigeration technique that employs hemholtz principals described in American Scientist a few moons ago. There is also a means of using a Hemholtz filter to create a kind of check valve (I have to look for that reference... if you need it ask) hence providing a "one-way" flow.
Consider the pathway is slow, measured in days. Not to mention the immune system's response to invaders and the very limited volume of material being transported due to the inadequate transport mechanism mechanics.
One element that I do not understand about the blood brain barrier is transport of waste away from the brain. I always assumed the way out of the brain does not have the same limitations as the way in, but I am unsure.
Now there is a take on the story I am sure the BAR will be quite fond of... :-)
IBM already failed, think OS2. The mentality from upper management was always geared to leasing time on one of their mainframes... it's a model that just won't die, even thought it has been long since forgotten. :-)