The other *whole point of patents is that -- in exchange for this monopoly on a (presumed nonobvious) invention -- it is supposed to be disclosed to the public so that other inventors can see the discovery, go a-ha! wow! that roxorz!, license it, and then start productizing it, or making subsequent steps based on it.
If I've got it right, the way the patent office works is causing a lot of obviousness to be patented, but the way patents are written is causing that disclosure to be meaningless. These together combine to make US patents counterproductive.
Does any inventor go browsing through the published patents as an aid to hisher research?
Have they given up their "good for the artists" spiel? What's missing from this whole chapter is a group of high profile artists saying this is bullshit.
I mean an actual mutiny. If the artists you like listening to don't have the balls to fight this crap, how good could their music possibly be?
I don't mean to denigrate; my 2 favorite artists are RIAA members. But it all makes me wonder.
It is nice if Yahoo wants to "open up discussion". What I'd prefer is for a big name to come out and say "We're just going to distribute CC-licensed music to keep it simple"
Obviously theres a big 3.... ? before the profit, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Great post. Here I thought I was the only guy who doesn't necessarily want to get married to a "framework" as soon as possible. Yes, Rails can do CRUD more quickly and "better" than P5. But about 5% of my clients could be satisfied by basic, even customized CRUD. Two months into every project, you have to ditch the framework or refactor damn near every class in it.
1. They have a "loading" bar that I suppose they think explains why it takes >10 seconds to display a search box.
2. Their page disables the "Alt-left-arrow" sequence that I use to go back. Awesome.
3. They capitalize "search". i.e. "The more you Search, the more chances to Win"
If those things are important to you, I highly recommend their search.
So few people realize how insidious the DMCA is. GGP correctly points out what underlies DMCA logic:
Given that ideas are just like physical property we need a crime equivalent to breaking-and-entering, over and above the crime of stealing the property after you enter.
The anti-circumvention crap in the DMCA is a restriction on what you can do with property that you have purchased.
DMCA II: Electric Boogaloo will (I'm pretty sure) make it illegal for you to look at your computer with a magnifying glass. The reasoning will be that doing this enables you to discover/circumvent how the content-protection system works.
Companies are starting to build computers that only run binaries "signed" by them... in that sort of world, Free software is meaningless.
Isn't Linus saying that our beef is with the computer-builders? We need to just not buy those damn things. I was just-about persuaded by his Red Hat example. The software works; if you want the option, you can require signed binaries, as a way of being assured that the software is & remains the same as what RedHat provides/supports. For that you'd need DRMy hardware that could do this...
if you want freer hardware, this option isn't available. Isn't Linus saying most people should decline this option? Make the DRMy hardware very unpopular?
the fun and ugly thing is going to be when Vista forces 90% of users to buy DRMy hardware, if I understand correctly.
"I don't agree that our digital world should remove the rights of content creators to want to be compensated"
What a weird thing to say. Personally, I want to be compensated (let's start at $40,000/yr) for watching "The Thin Red Line" over and over again forever. It'd be tough to picture how someone could remove my right to want this.
Whether I will in fact get such a sum for providing this service depends on what's going on in the (free, or somewhat-free) market.
"If the content creator ("right" or "wrong", it doesn't matter) wants money from anyone who plays copies of his music, for example, are you saying that he doesn't have that right?"
The question of course is whether heshe can actaully get that. Here's my first proposal on how it could be done, for example with a piece of music.
1. build a soundproof box
2. develop an amnesia pill.
3. charge people to enter the box, listen to the song, and then force them to take the amnesia pill. And of course make sure they don't have any recording devices.
Absent such a system, I have to rely on a myth (intellectual property) that pretends that people who copy/derive/perform my song are somehow harming me, and puts the full force of law&punishment behind that non-existent harm.
You will say I have "lost sales" of copies of my song. Free markets do not decide, in advance, what a song is worth to the world. It's worth what people end up paying for it when you leave them alone. How much, or whether, you want do be compensated is irrelevant.
Leaving all that aside, I think a 5-year copyright term is reasonable in our current situation. Abolition of all copyright is too big a step for most people to ponder.
Some highlights, in case you actually want the information:
"Microsoft Corporation shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, make the Interoperability Information available to any undertaking having an interest in
developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the Interoperability Information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products"
"the Interoperability Information" means "the complete and accurate
specifications for all the Protocols implemented in Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems and that are used by Windows Work Group Servers to deliver file and print services and group and user administration services, including the Windows Domain Controller services, Active Directory services and Group Policy services, to
Windows Work Group Networks"
Man, that was EASY! It's almost like the Comission wanted me and everyone else to know what their requirements were!
Intellectual Property is a government-granted monopoly on actions (copying, modifying, distributing) you would otherwise be free to do.
It's not a blank slate. If you want this government protection of your (metaphorical, not natural) property, you will have to obey whatever funky laws they come up with.
If you get a $1 million govt. grant, contingent on your drinking pee, the government is not forcing you to drink pee.
In the sense that lots of people will have it...
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Heart disease is also important. But I'm not going to download it.
Also, for fun someone should look up how much first 4 internet got for that contract. Then we'll see if it's more than 0.00001% of the damages Sony eventually has to pay.
You wouldn't know from their stock price (eom)
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
I searched for "google" and got a long wait, then an error popup
I believe most of Congress is bought and paid for, but I also believe if there's a good egg or two in there we should point it out.
Carrot more than the stick, y'know. btw, we need some serious sticks, too.
If I've got it right, the way the patent office works is causing a lot of obviousness to be patented, but the way patents are written is causing that disclosure to be meaningless. These together combine to make US patents counterproductive.
Does any inventor go browsing through the published patents as an aid to hisher research?
Have they given up their "good for the artists" spiel? What's missing from this whole chapter is a group of high profile artists saying this is bullshit.
I mean an actual mutiny. If the artists you like listening to don't have the balls to fight this crap, how good could their music possibly be?
I don't mean to denigrate; my 2 favorite artists are RIAA members. But it all makes me wonder.
It's really long, but he's toward the beginning of it. Good stuff: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cf m?id=1705
They cried all the way to the supreme court! This is verse 900 of the exact same song.
Obviously theres a big 3. ... ? before the profit, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
We have to deal with the real world as it is. ...I mean, as we and our buddies made it.
co.'s proposing a tiered text-messaging protocol on account of congestion in their pipes?
Great post. Here I thought I was the only guy who doesn't necessarily want to get married to a "framework" as soon as possible. Yes, Rails can do CRUD more quickly and "better" than P5. But about 5% of my clients could be satisfied by basic, even customized CRUD. Two months into every project, you have to ditch the framework or refactor damn near every class in it.
1. They have a "loading" bar that I suppose they think explains why it takes >10 seconds to display a search box. 2. Their page disables the "Alt-left-arrow" sequence that I use to go back. Awesome. 3. They capitalize "search". i.e. "The more you Search, the more chances to Win" If those things are important to you, I highly recommend their search.
Given that ideas are just like physical property we need a crime equivalent to breaking-and-entering, over and above the crime of stealing the property after you enter.
The anti-circumvention crap in the DMCA is a restriction on what you can do with property that you have purchased.
DMCA II: Electric Boogaloo will (I'm pretty sure) make it illegal for you to look at your computer with a magnifying glass. The reasoning will be that doing this enables you to discover/circumvent how the content-protection system works.
Companies are starting to build computers that only run binaries "signed" by them... in that sort of world, Free software is meaningless.
Isn't Linus saying that our beef is with the computer-builders? We need to just not buy those damn things. I was just-about persuaded by his Red Hat example. The software works; if you want the option, you can require signed binaries, as a way of being assured that the software is & remains the same as what RedHat provides/supports. For that you'd need DRMy hardware that could do this...
if you want freer hardware, this option isn't available. Isn't Linus saying most people should decline this option? Make the DRMy hardware very unpopular?
the fun and ugly thing is going to be when Vista forces 90% of users to buy DRMy hardware, if I understand correctly.
What a weird thing to say. Personally, I want to be compensated (let's start at $40,000/yr) for watching "The Thin Red Line" over and over again forever. It'd be tough to picture how someone could remove my right to want this.
Whether I will in fact get such a sum for providing this service depends on what's going on in the (free, or somewhat-free) market.
"If the content creator ("right" or "wrong", it doesn't matter) wants money from anyone who plays copies of his music, for example, are you saying that he doesn't have that right?"
The question of course is whether heshe can actaully get that. Here's my first proposal on how it could be done, for example with a piece of music.
1. build a soundproof box
2. develop an amnesia pill.
3. charge people to enter the box, listen to the song, and then force them to take the amnesia pill. And of course make sure they don't have any recording devices.
Absent such a system, I have to rely on a myth (intellectual property) that pretends that people who copy/derive/perform my song are somehow harming me, and puts the full force of law&punishment behind that non-existent harm.
You will say I have "lost sales" of copies of my song. Free markets do not decide, in advance, what a song is worth to the world. It's worth what people end up paying for it when you leave them alone. How much, or whether, you want do be compensated is irrelevant.
Leaving all that aside, I think a 5-year copyright term is reasonable in our current situation. Abolition of all copyright is too big a step for most people to ponder.
Total Revenue: 39,788,000,000
Cost of Revenue: 6,200,000,000
Gross Profit: 33,588,000,000
minus $1.095 billion (365 days @ $3million/day -- my approximation of 2 million EUR ) --->
32,493,000,000
So that would cut their gross profit by a little over 3%.
here you go, it's long but pretty clear Decision
Some highlights, in case you actually want the information:
"Microsoft Corporation shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, make the Interoperability Information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the Interoperability Information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products"
"the Interoperability Information" means "the complete and accurate specifications for all the Protocols implemented in Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems and that are used by Windows Work Group Servers to deliver file and print services and group and user administration services, including the Windows Domain Controller services, Active Directory services and Group Policy services, to Windows Work Group Networks"
Man, that was EASY! It's almost like the Comission wanted me and everyone else to know what their requirements were!
It's not a blank slate. If you want this government protection of your (metaphorical, not natural) property, you will have to obey whatever funky laws they come up with.
If you get a $1 million govt. grant, contingent on your drinking pee, the government is not forcing you to drink pee.
Heart disease is also important. But I'm not going to download it.
Did you see any earlier versions of this thing? btw political is good.
here
i'm trying to look at the images/drawings for the hat, and it doesn't work. not even if i switch to the USPTO's favorite browser (blue e)
I can still order some of the CDs from Amazon. Anyone know the process?
Have you heard of this site called "Google"? I've found it a really quick way to find out if there's news about something-or-other
Also, for fun someone should look up how much first 4 internet got for that contract. Then we'll see if it's more than 0.00001% of the damages Sony eventually has to pay.
eom