You need to differentiate between proper patents that do apply, and ones that abuse the rules. I am talking about ones that are properly utilized. Loopholes in the law do not mean the law should be destroyed - it means it should be fixed.
I can understand someone saying that if you want to utilize our techonological breakthrough (in this case, the improved seeds) you gotta pay. However, the law is faulty because apparantly farmers could be growing these suped up seeds without realizing it. But that just means the process (of the law) needs to be improved - not abolished. Again, most people here on/. argue that patents need to be done away with. While I agree the system needs fixing - I disagree that it needs to be removed. And I disagree that patents should not be applied to programs just because it is not tangeable.
As far as I knew, patents are there to protect the inventors not the public. In fact, according to the patent office Here "The role of the USPTO is to grant patents for the protection of inventions and to register trademarks. It serves the interest of inventors and businesses with respect to their inventions and corporate products, and service identifications."
I am not sure if I understand the misconception here. It seems pretty self-explanetory. Now I know someone here will say that is because the businesses "p0wned" us, but it applies to anyone. So Joe Schmoe can invent something in his garage, patent it and then not have to worry that big multi-billion dollar business does some espionage and steal his idea. It works both ways.
As far as patents and public interest - most people could care less other then the fact that they want to get everything for free (thats too bad, because life doesn't work that way). A minority actually cares about patents - and they are people like us who talk about this stuff and people who utilize patents or have some direct involvement.
I think the caveman example is bad - for multiple reasons: 1) his patent expired 2) you cannot patent something you did not invent - and fire was not a man-made function. Now a better example to is patenting the process of creating fire (i.e. I invented flint & steal process to make sparks to help make fire)...well someone could patent that process - nothing wrong with it. If I spend my time creating a process that makes life easier for people - I should have the right to make some money on it (nothing wrong with this). Obviously if I am trying to patent a process invented by someone else (a good example is the "one click" process) that is morally wrong and should be shot down - but I am talking on a legitimate process.
You mention "inherent nature of inventions is to spread and to be used by anyone who..." You seem to be hopping from natural law to man made law quickly. The natural process in life does not include a monetary system (or even a barter system), it does not include computers, or anything of the sort. This is a unique process to humans (barring aliens). Just because we were not utilizing patents 10,000 years ago does not mean we shouldn't now...it was a different time then - also harder to do such a thing.
Farmers get subsidies to help them deal with bad seasons, poor prices for food. They work hard and barely scratch a living. It serves our interest to help them because if we don't - soon you will find that only major corporations own the farms (i personally hate KFC). We cannot discuss about "natural right" because almost everything in human usage is not natural - cars, mathematics, money, houses, computers, laws, gov't, etc..
Here is a question: If an inventor should not have a right to collect a profit (as he see's fit) for something that he spent his time/money creating ---- why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?
What discoveries have been patented? I did not know that human genes were patented. Are you sure the patent isn't with machines that are able to detect/view/manipulate human genes?Notwithstanding the "one-click" process which apparantly harps on prior art, why is programming a discovery and not an invention. A discovery as far as I know: finding something that was already there. An invention as far as I know: creating something that was not already there. If this is true, then I am pretty sure that Microsoft was not hidden - buried underneath the planet somewhere waiting for Bill Gates to find it. The same thing with any program.
That has been happening for many years though. Someone invents one process, and it is then invented in some other part of the world at the same time. We have always been of the play that first come, first serve (assuming that no foul play was involved.) I remember (vaguly) in grade school we were discussing human tendencies to do the same thing without any connections (i.e. the Egyptian pyramids and Aztec pyramids). There was one particular case (which eludes me to the specifics) but a scientist in the US created and patented an invention two or three days before someone else in a European country did (maybe Germany). It sucks for the person in Germany - but that is what happens.
Now if someone is getting a patent for some prior art that they did not create - the fault resides with the patent office process - NOT the notion of having a patent. Patent officers need to be re-trained and the process refined - but most people on/. argue that patents need to be abolished period, irrespective of the process. So what gives?
Would someone please explain to me (logically, not emotionally) what is wrong with a patent? What is wrong with someone saying "this is my product, and if you want to use it you gotta play by my rules". I know people say that open source is better because it can help make a better product, but what is wrong with the people who create the software to choose how the software should be managed? Why is it better for someone OTHER then the creators of the program to decide what should happen to it?
fantasy economy. The shared economy where it is "open source" is a socialist type economy. It doesn't work, cannot work, until greed & laziness is abolished and each person wants to see each and every person next to them to be equals.
Unfortunately we run into these scenarios:
1) Some people are greedy and want to have more then everyone else
2) Some people are lazy, and do not want to work - and won't if they don't have to. The people who are supporting them get frustrated.
3) Resources are scarce - and people will want to hoarde the resources for many reasons (including #1)
4) Not all career choices are equal. The neurosurgeon worked a lot harder then the shoe-shine boy and IMHO deserves more. In a complete shared economy we cannot really have this.
5) If information = money (and i think it does) it will not become main-stream open source for a very long time (if ever)
Just my thoughts - I will await the thirty responses telling me how I am wrong.
And then you gotta think, will you live there for the next 20 years....personally I do not plan on living in any one spot for a 20 year span EVER in my lifetime. I plan on moving every 10 years (at most)...and I would presume a lot of people are like that...
But it is a good point on the investment issue. It would involve:
Up front cost (then calculate the loss of investment opportunity...say on a low yield 2% for now a-days, but up to 20% in the early 80s).
THen calculate the cost of electricity today and of the past.
I think this would be feasible...the person put the money up front (loss of interest) - but he can spend the money he would have used on electricity bills and apply that to investing purposes. In the end - (probably sooner then 20 years) he will realize a nice savings.
Ok the fact that well over 1 billion birds die each year? Good grief man - how many birds are out there? That is insane...maybe they do need to die in wind tunnels - otherwise it might be like the movie "the birds" (i think thats what its called)
Not true. Many people come to the US with valid visa's and then decide to stick around long after their Visa's expire. So, once, they were legal now they are not.
You are correct that immigrants are subject to the law of the US including its protection - this amendment was not broken. Illegal immigrants are breaking other laws (violating their VISA expiration date). Once they do that - their world of rights starts to shrink by a whole heck of a lot --- then again, this happens to anyone who breaks the law.
If someone is here on a temp visa, it should be published on their license. If they want to encode it in a strip so nobody but the proper authorities can view this then fine - but at least the police can find out and deport those who are not here legally.
She looked at your online photo - that should be good enough. I am in good shape and if you look at my photo - it seems to bear a striking resemblance to me. The process shouldn't be hard, it should just be secure - and with your picture available thats pretty good.
"Dammit Vladimir, you forgot to go to the grocery store again!"
Hmm if I was one of the astronauts, I would seriously be cutting my calories even more to help avoid any chance of having to come back home... not that I have any problem with mother russia...i mean mother earth, but space is just too damn cool!
A parasite, by definition, is an organism that lives off another organism. It may harm them, but not always. We have tons of parasites on our bodies - for the most part they help us out... on occasion we get harmful ones (tape-worm, body lice, etc.). In technicality - even a baby in it's mothers womb is a parasite because it lives off the host. (ready...aim....start the religious barrage of flames)
Uhm, for the same reason the law protects my rights. Just because M$ are multi-billionaires does not mean they are less entitled to federal protection then joe schmoe.
and thats why I keep the inside of my router booby-trapped...go ahead crack it open boy.
In the meantime, the real router (the wireless one) is tucked away in the upstairs, cute neighbors unit under her couch. Just close enough to get a good signal & use her inet connection bwahahahahahah.
FF7 is the reason why I own a PS2. My brother wanted to trade his X-box for my PS2...i was going to and then i remembered that without it i couldn't play my fav game series.
Most likely they took games from the used game bin's (already opened boxes) and copied them. Actually, most stores have a display box that HAD a game inside of it but was taken out (to help prevent shoplifting of an actual game).
These guys are plain ole stupid for having these things on open display. In fact, they shouldn't have any modded units in existance unless an order is placed...
Will people stop harping on "smartest"...you are like the fifth post. It is a general statement - I am not a neuro scientist so I have no idea under what part of the brain or what term to use (and I doubt most people on here do). Smartest is good enough.
An analogy does not have to be exact - hence an analogy.
And "physically capable" also had the attachment of (hand to eye coordination). The correlation should be fairly simple...damn don't people have better things to do with their lives then nit pick something that really does not call for nit picking.
because I, like the rest of you, have other uses for our hands while surfing the net.
On a real note (though the above is true), imagine playing CS or any FPS game with mind control. Now it will even mean that shooter games will be won by the smartest - not the most physically capable (hand to eye coordination).
Is tech moving so slow that we have to wait until 2015....a decade?
I would think that something like this would appear (implemented) in a couple of years at most - with new phones going for some crazy price so about 3-4 years before the average person gets one.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to differentiate between proper patents that do apply, and ones that abuse the rules. I am talking about ones that are properly utilized. Loopholes in the law do not mean the law should be destroyed - it means it should be fixed.
I can understand someone saying that if you want to utilize our techonological breakthrough (in this case, the improved seeds) you gotta pay. However, the law is faulty because apparantly farmers could be growing these suped up seeds without realizing it. But that just means the process (of the law) needs to be improved - not abolished. Again, most people here on /. argue that patents need to be done away with. While I agree the system needs fixing - I disagree that it needs to be removed. And I disagree that patents should not be applied to programs just because it is not tangeable.
As far as I knew, patents are there to protect the inventors not the public. In fact, according to the patent office Here "The role of the USPTO is to grant patents for the protection of inventions and to register trademarks. It serves the interest of inventors and businesses with respect to their inventions and corporate products, and service identifications."
I am not sure if I understand the misconception here. It seems pretty self-explanetory. Now I know someone here will say that is because the businesses "p0wned" us, but it applies to anyone. So Joe Schmoe can invent something in his garage, patent it and then not have to worry that big multi-billion dollar business does some espionage and steal his idea. It works both ways.
As far as patents and public interest - most people could care less other then the fact that they want to get everything for free (thats too bad, because life doesn't work that way). A minority actually cares about patents - and they are people like us who talk about this stuff and people who utilize patents or have some direct involvement.
I think the caveman example is bad - for multiple reasons: 1) his patent expired 2) you cannot patent something you did not invent - and fire was not a man-made function. Now a better example to is patenting the process of creating fire (i.e. I invented flint & steal process to make sparks to help make fire)...well someone could patent that process - nothing wrong with it. If I spend my time creating a process that makes life easier for people - I should have the right to make some money on it (nothing wrong with this). Obviously if I am trying to patent a process invented by someone else (a good example is the "one click" process) that is morally wrong and should be shot down - but I am talking on a legitimate process.
You mention "inherent nature of inventions is to spread and to be used by anyone who..." You seem to be hopping from natural law to man made law quickly. The natural process in life does not include a monetary system (or even a barter system), it does not include computers, or anything of the sort. This is a unique process to humans (barring aliens). Just because we were not utilizing patents 10,000 years ago does not mean we shouldn't now...it was a different time then - also harder to do such a thing.
Farmers get subsidies to help them deal with bad seasons, poor prices for food. They work hard and barely scratch a living. It serves our interest to help them because if we don't - soon you will find that only major corporations own the farms (i personally hate KFC). We cannot discuss about "natural right" because almost everything in human usage is not natural - cars, mathematics, money, houses, computers, laws, gov't, etc..
Here is a question: If an inventor should not have a right to collect a profit (as he see's fit) for something that he spent his time/money creating ---- why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?
What discoveries have been patented? I did not know that human genes were patented. Are you sure the patent isn't with machines that are able to detect/view/manipulate human genes?Notwithstanding the "one-click" process which apparantly harps on prior art, why is programming a discovery and not an invention. A discovery as far as I know: finding something that was already there. An invention as far as I know: creating something that was not already there. If this is true, then I am pretty sure that Microsoft was not hidden - buried underneath the planet somewhere waiting for Bill Gates to find it. The same thing with any program.
That has been happening for many years though. Someone invents one process, and it is then invented in some other part of the world at the same time. We have always been of the play that first come, first serve (assuming that no foul play was involved.) I remember (vaguly) in grade school we were discussing human tendencies to do the same thing without any connections (i.e. the Egyptian pyramids and Aztec pyramids). There was one particular case (which eludes me to the specifics) but a scientist in the US created and patented an invention two or three days before someone else in a European country did (maybe Germany). It sucks for the person in Germany - but that is what happens.
/. argue that patents need to be abolished period, irrespective of the process. So what gives?
Now if someone is getting a patent for some prior art that they did not create - the fault resides with the patent office process - NOT the notion of having a patent. Patent officers need to be re-trained and the process refined - but most people on
Would someone please explain to me (logically, not emotionally) what is wrong with a patent? What is wrong with someone saying "this is my product, and if you want to use it you gotta play by my rules". I know people say that open source is better because it can help make a better product, but what is wrong with the people who create the software to choose how the software should be managed? Why is it better for someone OTHER then the creators of the program to decide what should happen to it?
fantasy economy. The shared economy where it is "open source" is a socialist type economy. It doesn't work, cannot work, until greed & laziness is abolished and each person wants to see each and every person next to them to be equals.
Unfortunately we run into these scenarios:
1) Some people are greedy and want to have more then everyone else
2) Some people are lazy, and do not want to work - and won't if they don't have to. The people who are supporting them get frustrated.
3) Resources are scarce - and people will want to hoarde the resources for many reasons (including #1)
4) Not all career choices are equal. The neurosurgeon worked a lot harder then the shoe-shine boy and IMHO deserves more. In a complete shared economy we cannot really have this.
5) If information = money (and i think it does) it will not become main-stream open source for a very long time (if ever)
Just my thoughts - I will await the thirty responses telling me how I am wrong.
And then you gotta think, will you live there for the next 20 years....personally I do not plan on living in any one spot for a 20 year span EVER in my lifetime. I plan on moving every 10 years (at most)...and I would presume a lot of people are like that...
But it is a good point on the investment issue. It would involve:
Up front cost (then calculate the loss of investment opportunity...say on a low yield 2% for now a-days, but up to 20% in the early 80s).
THen calculate the cost of electricity today and of the past.
I think this would be feasible...the person put the money up front (loss of interest) - but he can spend the money he would have used on electricity bills and apply that to investing purposes. In the end - (probably sooner then 20 years) he will realize a nice savings.
Ok the fact that well over 1 billion birds die each year? Good grief man - how many birds are out there? That is insane...maybe they do need to die in wind tunnels - otherwise it might be like the movie "the birds" (i think thats what its called)
has caused the cost of renewable energy to finally reach the price of nonrenewables.
With increasing costs in non-reusables, don't they mean that the non-reusables have caught up in cost to wind/water?
Not true. Many people come to the US with valid visa's and then decide to stick around long after their Visa's expire. So, once, they were legal now they are not.
You are correct that immigrants are subject to the law of the US including its protection - this amendment was not broken. Illegal immigrants are breaking other laws (violating their VISA expiration date). Once they do that - their world of rights starts to shrink by a whole heck of a lot --- then again, this happens to anyone who breaks the law.
If someone is here on a temp visa, it should be published on their license. If they want to encode it in a strip so nobody but the proper authorities can view this then fine - but at least the police can find out and deport those who are not here legally.
God forbid we deport illegal immigrants - what are they thinking.
She looked at your online photo - that should be good enough. I am in good shape and if you look at my photo - it seems to bear a striking resemblance to me. The process shouldn't be hard, it should just be secure - and with your picture available thats pretty good.
"Dammit Vladimir, you forgot to go to the grocery store again!"
Hmm if I was one of the astronauts, I would seriously be cutting my calories even more to help avoid any chance of having to come back home... not that I have any problem with mother russia...i mean mother earth, but space is just too damn cool!
A parasite, by definition, is an organism that lives off another organism. It may harm them, but not always. We have tons of parasites on our bodies - for the most part they help us out... on occasion we get harmful ones (tape-worm, body lice, etc.). In technicality - even a baby in it's mothers womb is a parasite because it lives off the host. (ready...aim....start the religious barrage of flames)
I think it would do society good to make sure most of the guys here don't breed. So I agree.
Uhm, for the same reason the law protects my rights. Just because M$ are multi-billionaires does not mean they are less entitled to federal protection then joe schmoe.
and thats why I keep the inside of my router booby-trapped...go ahead crack it open boy.
In the meantime, the real router (the wireless one) is tucked away in the upstairs, cute neighbors unit under her couch. Just close enough to get a good signal & use her inet connection bwahahahahahah.
FF7 is the reason why I own a PS2. My brother wanted to trade his X-box for my PS2...i was going to and then i remembered that without it i couldn't play my fav game series.
I highly doubt it - and so should you.
Most likely they took games from the used game bin's (already opened boxes) and copied them. Actually, most stores have a display box that HAD a game inside of it but was taken out (to help prevent shoplifting of an actual game).
These guys are plain ole stupid for having these things on open display. In fact, they shouldn't have any modded units in existance unless an order is placed...
Will people stop harping on "smartest"...you are like the fifth post. It is a general statement - I am not a neuro scientist so I have no idea under what part of the brain or what term to use (and I doubt most people on here do). Smartest is good enough.
An analogy does not have to be exact - hence an analogy.
And "physically capable" also had the attachment of (hand to eye coordination). The correlation should be fairly simple...damn don't people have better things to do with their lives then nit pick something that really does not call for nit picking.
because I, like the rest of you, have other uses for our hands while surfing the net.
On a real note (though the above is true), imagine playing CS or any FPS game with mind control. Now it will even mean that shooter games will be won by the smartest - not the most physically capable (hand to eye coordination).
Is tech moving so slow that we have to wait until 2015....a decade?
I would think that something like this would appear (implemented) in a couple of years at most - with new phones going for some crazy price so about 3-4 years before the average person gets one.
....the search engine looks you up.