Let's not forget the other thing patents are supposed to do: disclose to the public an invention, in exchange for exclusive control of that invention.
NB:
-If the invention is, e.g. "one-click shopping" the public will reply "who gives a fuck?! duh!" Hence the non-obviousness requirement.
This is why patent-trolling is not just name-calling. Many companies (and here it seems we have the epitome) have, as their business model, making-it-impossible-for-others-to-do-their-work-w ithout-paying-us-a-fee.
Patents are supposed to be about collecting-a-fee-for-helping-others-do-their-work- better. In particular: helping them do it better in a way they might never have imagined.
"one would be able to identify a 'homosexual character' somehow. Tell me, oh wise one, how exactly would you be able to do that?"
Perhaps the character would kiss another character of the same gender? As I read the law, this -- as an act of homosexuality -- is forbidden, even though it is not an act of intercourse.
That choice in that battle is the only thing that the military has ever done that has been brought to our attention.
In the spirit of this thread, I'm continuing with the tinfoil: I bet the people who produce news programming *know that 99% of publically-funded culture is noncontroversial and well appreciated. I bet they also know that 99% of the stories they broadcast about publically-funded culture are about controversies and clashes.
I bet they also know that publically-funded culture is -- or rather, could be if well supported -- one of their *competitors.
I'm sorry; I hear this argument all the time and I don't buy it. I think the overall shape of people's taste -- how many of them want art that provokes thought; how many want escape/diversion -- is fairly constant.
*But, even if it has "deteriorated" as implied by parent, who's to say what caused that? it's always assumed that the "content industries" are just responding to consumers' taste. Does that hold water? These are powerful industries, are we sure that they're strictly passive/re-active about their work?
I doubt it. If there's a deterioration in general cultural sophistication I'd look for the cause in the way, way higher profits to be made from stamping out generic boybands, madonna reincarnations/wannabes, etc. Combine this with limiting the diversity of art that people are generally exposed to, so that they think all mainstream music should sound like this. Combine this with marketing saturation -- to the point that a lot of people feel like they know Britney better than their next door neighbor.
All I'm saying is that the industries shape taste as well as react to it. Exactly how deliberately is tough to say.
Record industry execs announce that all music will be in C major or A minor from now on.
"We hate to do it, 'cause the fans really have enjoyed the other key signatures. But we can't afford black keys on our pianos anymore. Sorry. It's 'cause of piracy. So really it's the listeners' fault."
Please use RIAA radar to avoid giving these tools another cent, ever.
All replies above me need a + or two.
Regarding "content": when did anyone ever own any of it, ever. What's content? First replier nailed it -- the broadcaster owns fuck all inside my house. If the broadcaster wants to stop shooting EM rays into my house, that's hisher prerogative what do I care?
But there isn't any content anywhere to be "owned". There's my hardware and the broadcaster's hardware and what we do with our stuff is our own lookout. If I decide that a coffee maker is the ideal tool for colleting these EM rays and translating them into quality entertainment, that's my business.
One thing's pretty sure: if I decide to go into the TV- or remote-control-manufacturing business, I won't be infringing this patent at any point. Until DMCA3 outlaws the sale of any hardware that doesn't have this technology in it.
If I have my patent law right, the combining of claims -- all of which appeared elsewhere -- can still qualify as new if that particular combination hasn't been patented.
i.e. if a patent exists for "fooing" using bars and another exists for "bazzing" using quxes, you can still patent fooing with quxes.
Nice post. Saas just has a stinky aura to it. It adds a new possibility to ye olde adage:
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day
Teach him how to fish; he'll eat forever
Sell him fishing-as-a-service, and pretty much his entire physiological development is subject to the vagaries of *your busines model, because he wanted to concentrate on his core competencies
>Let's be clear about these things. They are *laws* debated and agreed to by >*represented officials* and can be changed at any time if society at large decides >these rules need to be changed.
I think parent is of the opinion that no laws represent the "society at large" because there's no such thing as a societal goal. I know a guy like this; everything is the individual, it is not possible for a community to draft/alter a law that applies to everyone, because not everyone has the same goals. etc.
But the principle in question is the observation of entities external to the observer. So your example isn't from the same problem space.
If *you are in the box, you "really" exist in the same wave-superimposition state as the cat. But that state's effect on you is different from its effect on others.
Not sure if these are in strictly chronological order, but:
1. We shouldn't have to give out documentation because we're not a monopoly
2. We can't give out documentation.
3. We gave out source code; that's the same as documentation
4. We can't figure out what exactly it is you want us to give out.
5. We don't need to give out documentation; the stuff is already interoperable enough.
6. We shouldn't have to give out documentation 'cause that would mean giving away our intellectual property.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so damaging to the marketplace. Could someone point me to the part of the EU's decision where Microsoft is required to sign over its intellectual property to someone?
Cool, I'll look into those guys. The ones I mentioned were impressive in the senate commerce committee hearings I've been watching. I'm not an avid follower of the congress, though, so it was a prima facie thing.
Without suggesting that these guys got it right, this concept could be done somewhat-well. Would need to be fairly "intelligent". e.g.
-prolly have to find vast tracts of non-copyrighted stuff, or
-bulk license a lot of stuff
-need to configure/personalize your content as part of the setup, AND
-def. have to start sniffing and analyzing what the user gravitates toward, and grab another few megabytes of that sort of stuff whenever the machine gets back near a link.
If it's just 80 gigs of hard-coded "most popular pages on the net", it's going to tank.
But there's an assumption in the reasoning: if the elected officials are deficient w/r/t X, it proves that those who elected them are as well. The assumption is that the democratic process works and that the people are effectively represented/cross-sectioned by the elected officials.
On the contrary, I think there are power centers that go to great lengths to prevent ordinary people from being represented in the legislature. So that the makeup of the Congress reflects the interests of established powers, not the "nature" of the electorate.
Incidentally, I think you dismiss the legislators too generally. Some are interested in -- gasp! -- using their power to make human life better. I particularly like McCain, Wyden (D-OR), and Sununu (R-NH)
Slashdot Mirror
I hope so, 'cause I didn't really care for that one.
asdf
NB:
-If the invention is, e.g. "one-click shopping" the public will reply "who gives a fuck?! duh!" Hence the non-obviousness requirement.
This is why patent-trolling is not just name-calling. Many companies (and here it seems we have the epitome) have, as their business model, making-it-impossible-for-others-to-do-their-work-w ithout-paying-us-a-fee.
Patents are supposed to be about collecting-a-fee-for-helping-others-do-their-work- better. In particular: helping them do it better in a way they might never have imagined.
"one would be able to identify a 'homosexual character' somehow. Tell me, oh wise one, how exactly would you be able to do that?"
Perhaps the character would kiss another character of the same gender? As I read the law, this -- as an act of homosexuality -- is forbidden, even though it is not an act of intercourse.
In the spirit of this thread, I'm continuing with the tinfoil: I bet the people who produce news programming *know that 99% of publically-funded culture is noncontroversial and well appreciated. I bet they also know that 99% of the stories they broadcast about publically-funded culture are about controversies and clashes.
I bet they also know that publically-funded culture is -- or rather, could be if well supported -- one of their *competitors.
*But, even if it has "deteriorated" as implied by parent, who's to say what caused that? it's always assumed that the "content industries" are just responding to consumers' taste. Does that hold water? These are powerful industries, are we sure that they're strictly passive/re-active about their work?
I doubt it. If there's a deterioration in general cultural sophistication I'd look for the cause in the way, way higher profits to be made from stamping out generic boybands, madonna reincarnations/wannabes, etc. Combine this with limiting the diversity of art that people are generally exposed to, so that they think all mainstream music should sound like this. Combine this with marketing saturation -- to the point that a lot of people feel like they know Britney better than their next door neighbor.
All I'm saying is that the industries shape taste as well as react to it. Exactly how deliberately is tough to say.
Seriously. I have a little, ordinary TV and I thought all my netflix DVDs were normal 4- or 5-GB ones?
"We hate to do it, 'cause the fans really have enjoyed the other key signatures. But we can't afford black keys on our pianos anymore. Sorry. It's 'cause of piracy. So really it's the listeners' fault."
Please use RIAA radar to avoid giving these tools another cent, ever.
Regarding "content": when did anyone ever own any of it, ever. What's content? First replier nailed it -- the broadcaster owns fuck all inside my house. If the broadcaster wants to stop shooting EM rays into my house, that's hisher prerogative what do I care?
But there isn't any content anywhere to be "owned". There's my hardware and the broadcaster's hardware and what we do with our stuff is our own lookout. If I decide that a coffee maker is the ideal tool for colleting these EM rays and translating them into quality entertainment, that's my business.
One thing's pretty sure: if I decide to go into the TV- or remote-control-manufacturing business, I won't be infringing this patent at any point. Until DMCA3 outlaws the sale of any hardware that doesn't have this technology in it.
i.e. if a patent exists for "fooing" using bars and another exists for "bazzing" using quxes, you can still patent fooing with quxes.
Dizzy?
wik says 2003
link
I'm damned if it doesn't say something about the militia being "well regulated" somewhere in there...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day
Teach him how to fish; he'll eat forever
Sell him fishing-as-a-service, and pretty much his entire physiological development is subject to the vagaries of *your busines model, because he wanted to concentrate on his core competencies
Didn't that company -- the one that comes up first in the results -- invent http? And/or didn't they purchase it? embrace it? extend it? etc.?
>Let's be clear about these things. They are *laws* debated and agreed to by >*represented officials* and can be changed at any time if society at large decides >these rules need to be changed. I think parent is of the opinion that no laws represent the "society at large" because there's no such thing as a societal goal. I know a guy like this; everything is the individual, it is not possible for a community to draft/alter a law that applies to everyone, because not everyone has the same goals. etc.
You might consider going into the board and saying "point me to an image I can use". It'd be fun to see them try.
I think I'd rather have someone with a sense of right and wrong, and a brain. Heshe can pick up the technical stuff on the job.
If *you are in the box, you "really" exist in the same wave-superimposition state as the cat. But that state's effect on you is different from its effect on others.
Actually the kittens exist in a 50% "drowned", 50% "sunk" state until you open the box.
1. We shouldn't have to give out documentation because we're not a monopoly
2. We can't give out documentation.
3. We gave out source code; that's the same as documentation
4. We can't figure out what exactly it is you want us to give out.
5. We don't need to give out documentation; the stuff is already interoperable enough.
6. We shouldn't have to give out documentation 'cause that would mean giving away our intellectual property.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so damaging to the marketplace. Could someone point me to the part of the EU's decision where Microsoft is required to sign over its intellectual property to someone?
True, but there's also quite a bit of CC-licensed or GDL stuff. Not yet huge tracts of web, but I don't think it'll be long...
Cool, I'll look into those guys. The ones I mentioned were impressive in the senate commerce committee hearings I've been watching. I'm not an avid follower of the congress, though, so it was a prima facie thing.
-prolly have to find vast tracts of non-copyrighted stuff, or
-bulk license a lot of stuff
-need to configure/personalize your content as part of the setup, AND
-def. have to start sniffing and analyzing what the user gravitates toward, and grab another few megabytes of that sort of stuff whenever the machine gets back near a link.
If it's just 80 gigs of hard-coded "most popular pages on the net", it's going to tank.
I'm getting only 37 from 75209 (Dallas)
On the contrary, I think there are power centers that go to great lengths to prevent ordinary people from being represented in the legislature. So that the makeup of the Congress reflects the interests of established powers, not the "nature" of the electorate.
Incidentally, I think you dismiss the legislators too generally. Some are interested in -- gasp! -- using their power to make human life better. I particularly like McCain, Wyden (D-OR), and Sununu (R-NH)