"Obviously there is an 'on-demand' aspect, but really." - Are you for real? This is the crux issue and its HUGE. Free, on-demand music does not exist ANYWHERE, period. This is not radio, this is access to every song in Universal's music library at the moment you want it. Try that with radio. For that matter, try that with internet radio. Or satilite radio. You wont find it.
In todays music market, music is distributed in one of two ways - free with no user control or pay-for-use, on demand. This offering combines the free nature of radio with the on-demand element of download and subscription offerings. This is new, its innovative, and its definitly not radio.
Let me first say that I am a huge proponent of the open source movement. Yet, allow me to be a realist for just a second; the key to encouraging successful long-term open source development and deployment (necessarily including comprehensive support and QA) is an adequate incentive structure - no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Some would argue, perhaps rightly so, that meritocracy systems, goodwill, and/or self interest - all without monetary incentive - suffice to encourage successful open source production. While I agree that these are all extremely powerful incentives currently motivating amazing development, I do not think that open source will ever pose a comprehensive threat to closed source powerhouses (think Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, Sun, etc.) without introducing competitive monetary incentives.
Without debating the merits and pitfalls of capitalism here, there can be little disagreement that we do in fact live in a capitalist society necessitating a certain degree of capitalist methodology. In today's world, companies need to attract and retain the best and brightest, and to do so, they need to write employees a competitive pay-check.
With all this said, I believe that there are reasonable ways to monetize open source without destroying its ideological and developmental benefits, so I see little reason to bash money-making qua money-making.
I agree with your assessment, and it seems that we are not really disagreeing at all.
We both say the purpose of a patent is to promote increased scientific and technological innovation. And we both say that the USPTO needs to reform itself to implement the appropriate standard (which you point out is the 'trade-secret litmus test') for issuing patents.
Sounds about right to me.
My only point is that when the appropriate standard is applied correctly, patents are not innately evil and serve a valuable purpose.
First off, patents are not innately evil. Whether we like or not, there is a sound economic argument defending the purpose of patents; to promote R&D and innovation by offering financial protection and rewards for the investment of time and resources necessary to innovate.
Remember, on the one hand, patents can discourage competition when large companies patent items that prevent small companies from legitimately competing with them, and this is bad. But on the other hand, small companies can both enter and capture a new market and sustain themselves against assault from larger companies with exponentially greater resources, merely because of owning an innovative patent; this is good. Without protecting their intellectual property through the all-important barriers-to-entry of owning a patent, most small companies would never make it out of the gate.
Also, as much as most forward-thinking companies would like to change the way of the world, the fact generally remains that they still need to play by the same rules of the game as everyone else (i.e. the competition) while they are still the rules. If they fail to do so, they probably won't last long waiting for another company to come in, receive the relevant patent, and sue the pants off the new-world company. This might not be the idealistic approach, but it seems to be fairly realistic.
Nevertheless, the crux of the issue still remains; the USPTO needs to undergo substantial reform to focus their issuance of new patents on appropriate items.
Slashdot Mirror
"Obviously there is an 'on-demand' aspect, but really." - Are you for real? This is the crux issue and its HUGE. Free, on-demand music does not exist ANYWHERE, period. This is not radio, this is access to every song in Universal's music library at the moment you want it. Try that with radio. For that matter, try that with internet radio. Or satilite radio. You wont find it. In todays music market, music is distributed in one of two ways - free with no user control or pay-for-use, on demand. This offering combines the free nature of radio with the on-demand element of download and subscription offerings. This is new, its innovative, and its definitly not radio.
Do you, or anyone else, know which modules are used for the workflow and project management systems mentioned above?
Let me first say that I am a huge proponent of the open source movement. Yet, allow me to be a realist for just a second; the key to encouraging successful long-term open source development and deployment (necessarily including comprehensive support and QA) is an adequate incentive structure - no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Some would argue, perhaps rightly so, that meritocracy systems, goodwill, and/or self interest - all without monetary incentive - suffice to encourage successful open source production. While I agree that these are all extremely powerful incentives currently motivating amazing development, I do not think that open source will ever pose a comprehensive threat to closed source powerhouses (think Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, Sun, etc.) without introducing competitive monetary incentives.
Without debating the merits and pitfalls of capitalism here, there can be little disagreement that we do in fact live in a capitalist society necessitating a certain degree of capitalist methodology. In today's world, companies need to attract and retain the best and brightest, and to do so, they need to write employees a competitive pay-check.
With all this said, I believe that there are reasonable ways to monetize open source without destroying its ideological and developmental benefits, so I see little reason to bash money-making qua money-making.
I agree with your assessment, and it seems that we are not really disagreeing at all.
We both say the purpose of a patent is to promote increased scientific and technological innovation. And we both say that the USPTO needs to reform itself to implement the appropriate standard (which you point out is the 'trade-secret litmus test') for issuing patents.
Sounds about right to me.
My only point is that when the appropriate standard is applied correctly, patents are not innately evil and serve a valuable purpose.
First off, patents are not innately evil. Whether we like or not, there is a sound economic argument defending the purpose of patents; to promote R&D and innovation by offering financial protection and rewards for the investment of time and resources necessary to innovate.
Remember, on the one hand, patents can discourage competition when large companies patent items that prevent small companies from legitimately competing with them, and this is bad. But on the other hand, small companies can both enter and capture a new market and sustain themselves against assault from larger companies with exponentially greater resources, merely because of owning an innovative patent; this is good. Without protecting their intellectual property through the all-important barriers-to-entry of owning a patent, most small companies would never make it out of the gate.
Also, as much as most forward-thinking companies would like to change the way of the world, the fact generally remains that they still need to play by the same rules of the game as everyone else (i.e. the competition) while they are still the rules. If they fail to do so, they probably won't last long waiting for another company to come in, receive the relevant patent, and sue the pants off the new-world company. This might not be the idealistic approach, but it seems to be fairly realistic.
Nevertheless, the crux of the issue still remains; the USPTO needs to undergo substantial reform to focus their issuance of new patents on appropriate items.