It's not a new idea. When the Germans were making their last big push into Russia near the end of WWII, they brought forward their newest toughest tanks; near indestructable even to the venerable T-34's that were winning the war for the Soviets.
You know how the russian soldiers defeated them? They poured gasoline on them and set them on fire. They didn't have any anti-tank weapons that were effective, but the gas did the trick fine.
It's easy to get sucked in by wanting the "best" but the best is expensive, and expensive is always in short supply. Get functional and available first, before you try the sexy crap.
This is complete and utter crap. Read a little history. Look at tank losses for the Germans and Russians on the East Front in WWII. The M1 Abrams is orders of magnitude more complex and cost 5 times what a T-72 costs. I'll take the 10 Abrams vs 50 T-72's every time. Even go back to when the technological advances were moving slower and in much smaller increments. The 19th century is rife with examples in the series of wars leading up to WWI. In the 1859 Franco-Austrian war the French rifled cannon gave them an advantage that likely determined the outcome. In the 1866 Austro-Prussian war the breech loading needle rifle used by the Prussian was a piece of crap that often sprayed the shooter with hot gases leaked from the breech seal when shot. Yet it allowed new tactics that resulted in almost 4 to 1 causality ratio in all the battles in defiance of the conventional wisdom of the experts at the start of the war.
Although technology alone is rarely decisive, when combine with tactics that maximize the effects of a technological advantage it is always decisive. This new technology requires a change in tactics. Intelligence is a mobility multiplier. You don't need to be as mobile if your intelligence allows you to move directly to the decisive position. Although I was never in combat I spent 4 years as a grunt so I do know a little about this. I could most assuredly see the bitching that would accompany the orders to lug this crap around. But being somewhat smarter than the average grunt and a student of military history I could also see the possibilities. After a little operational usage they'll find the extra weight will be well worth the tremendous gain in instantaneous operational intelligence.
That's the approach we successfully employed in Afghanistan. We taught the mujaheddin how to resist the Soviet invaders and taught them the principles of insurgency, which they haven't seem to have forgotten yet.
Hmmm...So I guess "we" (assuming you mean the US) taught them this in the early 19th century. The Afghans were pretty effective at expelling the British in 1839. As a matter of fact they were one of the only aboriginal groups to expel the British from a Colonial occupation until the mid 20th century. A little historical knowledge pretty much shows "we" didn't teach the Afghans anything. At best "we" made them a little more effective by giving a small number some training and equipment.
It's really strange that a copyright watchdog group wouldn't understand that under US law every video on Google Video (or ever created for that matter) is copyrighted. The question is whether the copyright holders want the videos on Google Video. It's a copyright watchdog that doesn't even understand the most basic concept of copyright law.
Sprint filed this lawsuit in October of 2005, asserting infringement of sixty-one claims
from seven representative patents from its patent portfolio. The patents in suit can be divided
into essentially two groups: the '301 Family Patents and the '605 Family Patents. The '301
Family Patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,429 (the '429 Patent), U.S. Patent No.
6,665,294 (the '294 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,298,064 (the '064 Patent). These three
patents are collectively referred to as the '301 Family Patents because they all share an
identical written description and drawings with U.S. Patent No. 5,991,301 and were filed as
continuation applications of the '301 Patent. For priority purposes they all claim the filing
date of the '301 Patent, which is September 8, 1995. Each of these patents is entitled
"Broadband Telecommunications System," and generally discloses an invention which is "a
system for providing virtual connections through an ATM interworking multiplexer on a call-
by-call basis." '429 Patent, Abstract.
The '605 Family Patents include U.S. Patent No. 6,452,932 (the '932 Patent), U.S.
Patent No. 6,304,572 (the '572 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,463,052 (the '052 Patent), and U.S.
Patent No. 6,633,561 (the '561 Patent). These four patents are collectively referred to as the
'605 Family Patents because they all share an identical written description and drawings with
U.S. Patent Application No. 08/238,605 (the '605 Application, now abandoned) and were
filed as continuation applications to the '605 Application. For priority purposes they all
claim the filing date of the '605 Application, which is May 5, 1994. Each of these patents
is entitled "Method, System and Apparatus for Telecommunications Control," and generally
discloses an invention that "includes a method, system, and apparatus for providing
communication control." '932 Patent, Abstract.
I'm not sure what their long-term plan is. Simply bridging between the Internet and POTS can't be all that hard.
It is when the only way you can implement it is with the approval of and huge payoffs to the industry oligarchs that currently control telecommunications and who's market VoIP is undermining.
What I want to know is what the hell could cost 1.7 billion dollars? Are they putting HA systems with redundant fiber channel SANs on every desktop? How big is the DHS? If were talking even 100,000 people that's over $17,000 per person in IT costs. For that kind of money they should have had big time segmentation with all kinds of traffic monitoring and IDSes along with honeypots and tarpits. Hell, for that kinda money I would even include fart detectors.
I realize I'm way late getting to this, but I had to comment for the record. You're not even close. Hopefully even if no one else does at least you'll read this.
The reason people oppose the RIAA/MPAA is because they are getting the government to enact and alter laws for the sole purpose of preserving a business model that has been made obsolete by technology and in the process are criminalizing technological advancement (DMCA, HDMI, internet radio, podcasting, myth TV, DVD player hardware restrictions) that encroaches on what is essentially their monopoly control over the entertainment industry. Their business model entails an oligarchy that in collusion has monopolistic control over the production and distribution of all forms visual and audio media. They were able to establish this monopoly because in the past the costs for production and distribution were prohibitive for entry into the market. Technology has reduced those cost to a level that democratizes the ability to produce and distribute media so they are changing the laws to retain their oligarchic control in the face of a democratic revolution. For some examples: An internet radio station has to pay large amounts of money to the RIAA even if they only play creative commons or copyright expired material. In Canada the government has enacted a tax on blank media that the government collects on behalf of these cartels even though I have never in my life burned a song onto a CD. They are trying desperately to get "fair use" which is enacted in law reduced or eliminated by propaganda campaigns, judicial legislation and/or changes to the law.
The promotion of progress comes after the expiration of the copyright, and again, by definition:
You need to go reread that sentence and actually comprehend the words instead of making up stuff to support your position. The sentence starts with "To promote progress". That is the only constitutional purpose of any IP laws. You're claiming that part comes only after the IP laws no longer apply? Well then the laws are unconstitutional. Again "To promote progress" is suppose to be the only purpose for granting the extraordinary rights. There is no "carrot and stick" in that sentence. There is only "To promote progress". The only part you and everyone who supports the current system sees in that sentence is the words "exclusive right" while you completely ignore the conditions for those "exclusive rights" and claim the constitution grants those rights to anyone and everyone for any reason whatsoever. I'm going to say it again so maybe you'll finally actually comprehend the words. The only reason those extraordinary rights should be granted is "to promote progress". Not to promote progress after the extraordinary rights no longer apply.
People in general don't know what property means, and they don't know what "real" means either, and instead they decide that somehow "Intellectual Property" causes people to think in false terms, as though it has any consequence whatsoever on the legal community.
People like you don't seem to understand what the English word "promote" means because you and all the other disingenuous supporters of the current system seem to think it means profit. The only constitutional reason for any kind of extraordinary control granted over ideas to an individual or company are to promote progress. You show me anywhere that word "profit" is mentioned. Nowhere is there any hint that the granting of those extraordinary rights purpose is to help anyone profit on anything. This is where your arguments in support of the current system fall apart since the current system has been shown again and again to retard progress (except progress for IP lawyers) rather than promote it and is therefore unconstitutional.
Hmm, no mention of IP here. But, keep fighting the power.
Also, more importantly no mention of profit anywhere. Patents and copyrights were never in any way intended to help anyone make a profit much less guarantee a profit. Any idiot I see supporting the current system trots that argument out as did the GP. The current system is unconstitutional as I see it.
Total music industry revenue is about $40 billion worldwide, and about $12 billion in the United States, per year.
But you see, that's because they're losing $1.4 trillion due to piracy. There have been studies done proving this. For every song downloaded they are losing the $20 dollars the downloader would have payed for the CD. And don't get me started on the massive losses those leach radio stations are causing. They've got dozens of studies back this stuff up. Just ask them.
Just a guess here but I think it's likely the men were spotted acting suspiciously while scouting a military post. So the soldiers were likely in their designated play area.
A similar war story from my own experience: Back in the 80's I was a grunt in the US Army in Germany. I was hung over and trying to take a nap in the drivers seat of my M577 with the hatch mostly closed in the motor pool during lunch. Pretty much the rest of the post was in the barracks watching "Days of Our Live's" or one of those soaps. I was pretty much invisible but I could still see around me well. I see a civilian just outside the motor pool fence taking pictures of the newly arrived state of the art M901 ITVs. In my hang over stupor the coherent thought that something ain't right about that managed to sneak to the surface. Then my conscience started harassing me telling me I really should check this out. So I shook off the stupor and followed the guy after he left. He headed towards the back of the post where you aren't suppose to have egress or ingress to the post (unless you're drink as shit coming back from downtown after the foose gate is closed and you're climbing the fence in the back 40 to avoid the dickhead MP's at the main gate) and where civilians have no business going anyway. I jog over to battalion HQ and reported what I had seen. The MP's caught the guy climbing the fence trying to get out the back of the post. He was a German national who had no authorization to be on post in the first place.
People have been using their iPhone for weeks without realizing that there is a difference between sleep/wake and power-off.
So I guess what you're saying is that iPhone users either never get on airplanes or are complete idiots. You see whenever I get a new phone figuring out how to turn the radio off is a pretty high priority because in the modern world you're often in situations where that's useful. Amazingly my palm phones all have had a little button that allows you to just turn off the radio so you can actually use all the other rather useful functionality without the radio being on. This comes in real handy when flying or when I don't want to talk to anyone.
Really, before calling someone a troll (I am not a patent lawyer, I do middleware development) you really should bother to learn about a topic you express yourself as though you cared about.
Apparently you didn't get this from the context of my post but I wasn't addressing you specifically. I have no clue what you do. I'm not paying millions in a patent case against you either yet I refer to that in the same way as I did the patent lawyer comment. Also I used troll in the sense of "patent troll" not posting troll as you seem to be referencing.
Now. Mostly you are just ignorant, and spewing your ignorance as fact. Which, in the course of these things, really annoys me. Close to everything you say is just wrong.
No doubt. I'm not lawyer. I prefer to actually create things for a living although the patent lawyers are rapidly making that nearly an impossible way to make a living. Yet it's strange you state that everything I said is wrong yet only counter one statement I made.
No. To violate a patent something has to have all the elements of one claim. Same as for finding prior art. That is exactly what a claim is. It claims a right to a temporary monopoly on a method or apparatus the comprises all of the steps or features that it outlines. If something has all of those steps or features, then it is infringing, or can be used as prior art. If it has most, but not all of those steps or features, then it neither infringes, nor can be used as prior art.
Strangely that doesn't seem to be the case in the numerous patent cases I've followed. Idiotically trivial claims are upheld built upon claims that have obvious prior art. In the Verizon vs. Vonage case Verizon patented a lookup table. You're telling me that just because their lookup table contained IPs and phone numbers there was no prior art for lookup tables?
The one industry which really does spend time filing tens of terribly similar patents, is the pharmaceutical industry.
Apparently you haven't been follow all the business process and software patents being granted in the last few years. I would be willing to bet that Microsoft spends more on patent lawyers and their output than any pharmaceutical company. The patent lawyers who became patent judges, by order of some genius who thought this might actually help the patent system, basically legislated from the bench that such things are patentable. Once their fellow patent lawyers jumped on this it became the fiasco that is todays patent system. The patent lawyers are rapidly making up for lost time in trying to catch up with the pharmaceutical industry patent idiocy for the software and business process patents. And don't even bring up patenting genes.
To develop a new software product today you (again I don't mean you specifically) have to set aside a significant amount of money, likely more than it will take to develop the product, from day one to fight all the patent trolls sure to come after you. Yeah, that really promotes innovation. If something is independently developed numerous times it should not qualify as being significant enough to qualify for a 17 year monopoly. The sole Constitutional reason for the patent system in the US is to promote innovation. It's clearly stated in a couple very simple lines. That's it. It is suppose to serve no other purpose. It's not there so people, let alone lawyers and patent trolls, can make money. The patent system as it is implemented in the US today violates the Constitution. It stifles innovation rather than promote it.
Invalidating a claim, by prior art, means you have to find something which has, or some description of something which has, all the elements of that claim. If something has MOST of the elements of the claim, or something has some of the elements of that claim, or 2 things have all of the elements of the claim, but neither alone has all the elements of the claim, then you haven't invalidated the claim, by prior art (if you find 2 things which independently have all the elements of a claim, you may be able to argue obviousness, but that is an uphill battle once the patent has been issued. Not unwinnable, just harder.).
This is one of the primary problems of the patent system. To invalidate due to prior art something must have all elements of the claim exactly as they are claimed. To violate a patent something just has to have one element of the claim. This means I can have something that existed long before your patent and yet it violates your patent. Yeah, that works out really well. Also once it's granted it cost huge amounts of money to invalidate a patent. Why the hell should it cost me millions to just to show you defrauded the patent system. But you see you're a patent lawyer (or patent troll). So most of those millions from both sides for filing, suing for infringement and then invalidating a patent goes to leeches like you rather than being used to do things like innovate and improve things (wow, imagine, that's the opposite of what the patent system is suppose to do). So of coarse you think the patent system works perfect because your getting rich gaming the system in a manner that perverts it's intended puspose and hampering people who are actually trying to innovate and make something useful to society.
As for it being hard to invalidate a patent with proper prior art, it isn't. The issue, is FINDING proper prior art. One thing that a patent attorney will do, is they will spend a lot of time researching prior art (or more likely hiring someone who knows the field better than they do to research it) and they will structure the claims to get near, but not actually touch, the prior art. That is one of the things that you pay for, when you pay an patent attorney to write a patent. Often, you will find something that very closely, but not quite, resembles the primary claim, and as you get deeper and deeper into the dependent claims, they will be more and more distinct. The claims are built that way, on purpose. The idea is "claim as much IP space as you can, without hitting prior art".
You've got to be kidding me. This is the problem with patent lawyers. Patent lawyer: "Ok, we're going to take this patent change a few words and file it as a new patent that covers essentially the same thing. That way we can have 5000 patents that cover the same thing. Oh and we'll make it so broad that it can be interpreted as covering breathing air." Fucking patent lawyers. As to obviousness, the US patent office doesn't reject any patents on obviousness. Prior to the recent SC rulings the only test for obviousness even in the courts was prior art. I challenge you to show me one patent that was invalidated due to obviousness.
As for the small businesses you worked for, I'm sorry they got squished under the strong arm of bigger companies, but my question still stands; was the patent infringement legitimate?
Yeah, they stole truly innovative programming techniques like linked list. So they could either license this innovative technology for $x of they could fight the patent which would cost anywhere from $x to $5x. Oh and the cost for fighting would tend towards the higher since the case was filed in the patent friendliest court in the US, good old Marshall, Texas Just the fact of that patent being granted shows how broken the current patent system is.
What, do you want to wipe the patent slate clean and have everyone start from scratch? Well that would certainly suck. Should companies with X amount of patents have to give up all their patents and start anew with a one patent per year ruling? Doesn't sound fair to them, now does it.
No. They should have to give up the idiotic patents like the one above. Unfortunately the current system has fostered a climate where 1000's of such patents (I dare say the vast majority) are not only granted but prove profitable for the owners of the patents. The idea of patents was put in the US Constitutions, despite the reservations of most of the framers of the US Constitution, for the exclusive purpose of fostering competition. You need to show me how the current system is in any way fostering innovation because the examples of the current patent system stifling innovation are rife. Until you do that, to bad if some poor little company making money and/or destroying truly innovative companies loses their business model of blackmailing with idiotic patents. The reservations of the founding fathers have been proven more than valid. I'm sure they would be scribbling that little part out if they saw the system as it is today.
Seriously, if simply revising what seems to be an alright system for many companies (not just big companies, small ones as well profit from the patent system) is not enough, then what is the answer? How should it work?
You are completely clueless as to the purpose of the patent system. It's not there so some companies can profit from it. No shit some companies profit by being granted a monopoly. But they generally profit by stopping innovation. The whole point of the patent system is supposed to be to stimulate innovation. Until you grasp this fundamental point you'll never see how broken the current system is.
In fast moving tech fields granting monopolies do nothing but stifle innovation because the company holding the monopoly no longer has to innovate to compete.
Actually they're both right but Apple is also wrong
The issue that Lutton takes with Google's stance is that it's destructive and costly, and basically calls for something else, without any real indication of what that else is.
The problem isn't with Google's stance. The problem is that the current patent system is destructive and costly. It's slowly destroying innovation especially in fast moving technology fields. It is currently impossible to develop a non-trivial computer program without violating one or more patents. To even try you are forced to hire a battery of lawyers to poor over patents since a technical person won't understand the subtle nuances of legalese in a patent. But that won't do any good because a lawyer isn't going to understand the complex details of a piece of software. So the only thing to do is to push on and hope and pray no one notices you before you have enough money to deal with the patent trolls.
Apple certainly has had fun with patent whores in the past, but they usually come out on top or take care of the issue. Lutton wasn't saying that the patent system is absolutely perfect, that is, without flaws or error. What they did acknowledge is that given the alternative options in other parts of the world, it's best for them. Why is that so bad?
They're not unhappy with the current system because they have the money to game the current patent system for profit. It's the new innovators that might challenge Apple that are prevented by the current patent system from entering the market.
Apple also stated that the patent court system needs to be fixed. They're right on that account because there is no financially viable way to challenge a patent no matter how idiotic it is. The patent holder either makes the licensing fees less than what it will cost you to invalidate the patent or if the patent holder feels the patent fight will destroy a challenge to their current market they simple set price to license too high for competitors to make it in the market or they refuse to license it. Either way there is no financially viable way to get rid of a bad patent.
Also, on the other hand, a major contribution to fixing the patent court system would be to fix the way patents are issued such that they actually do what they were intended to do. If you don't remember what that was, I believe the US Constitution said something about "promoting innovation" which is the exact opposite of what the current system is doing in the vast majority of cases.
It depends on the hardware, and really there tends to be little windows of time where some hardware is so new compared to how old the Windows CDs are that you might have to look for drivers elsewhere.
Yeah, maybe little things like installing on SATA drives. They've been around how long? You know like a little 5 year window. Just pop in the Windows CD and spend the next 4 hours trying to get it to recognize your hard drive.
Re:An argument for doing away with drug patents
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
So my question then, is if you honestly believe that this R&D isnt producing anything meaningful, where on earth is this money going? You think they are just flushing money down a rathole since according to you they have never actually produced anything meaningful? Really, I want to know, do you seriously believe that all these billions in R&D are just wasted? Do you think that for the past century they have continued blowing all this money, never seen any results from it, and noone ever stopped to say "oh hey where are all those billions going?"
I couldn't find the article but I read recently that the large majority of pharmaceutical research dollars are spent on developing one off molecules clinically similar to current drugs that are about to go off patent e.g. Clarinex. They're cheaper and easier to get through the FDA. Depending on your perspective it's not exactly throwing the money down a rat hole but from a clinical perspective it's a tremendous waste of money.
Yes you can. I've done it. And not voluntarily. Veggies, along with meat, are a complement to the core of rice and beans and are only needed in fairly small quantities. Fruit is a bigger problem than veggies but if you're frugal with the core of your meals they can be added in sufficient quantities. And as someone already posted the nutritional value of McDonalds is in no way even comparable to what I lived on. I worked out regularly and was in very good shape and condition. There's no way I would have had the energy for all that if I had been living on McDonalds crap.
Slashdot Mirror
This is complete and utter crap. Read a little history. Look at tank losses for the Germans and Russians on the East Front in WWII. The M1 Abrams is orders of magnitude more complex and cost 5 times what a T-72 costs. I'll take the 10 Abrams vs 50 T-72's every time. Even go back to when the technological advances were moving slower and in much smaller increments. The 19th century is rife with examples in the series of wars leading up to WWI. In the 1859 Franco-Austrian war the French rifled cannon gave them an advantage that likely determined the outcome. In the 1866 Austro-Prussian war the breech loading needle rifle used by the Prussian was a piece of crap that often sprayed the shooter with hot gases leaked from the breech seal when shot. Yet it allowed new tactics that resulted in almost 4 to 1 causality ratio in all the battles in defiance of the conventional wisdom of the experts at the start of the war.
Although technology alone is rarely decisive, when combine with tactics that maximize the effects of a technological advantage it is always decisive. This new technology requires a change in tactics. Intelligence is a mobility multiplier. You don't need to be as mobile if your intelligence allows you to move directly to the decisive position. Although I was never in combat I spent 4 years as a grunt so I do know a little about this. I could most assuredly see the bitching that would accompany the orders to lug this crap around. But being somewhat smarter than the average grunt and a student of military history I could also see the possibilities. After a little operational usage they'll find the extra weight will be well worth the tremendous gain in instantaneous operational intelligence.
Hmmm...So I guess "we" (assuming you mean the US) taught them this in the early 19th century. The Afghans were pretty effective at expelling the British in 1839. As a matter of fact they were one of the only aboriginal groups to expel the British from a Colonial occupation until the mid 20th century. A little historical knowledge pretty much shows "we" didn't teach the Afghans anything. At best "we" made them a little more effective by giving a small number some training and equipment.
It's really strange that a copyright watchdog group wouldn't understand that under US law every video on Google Video (or ever created for that matter) is copyrighted. The question is whether the copyright holders want the videos on Google Video. It's a copyright watchdog that doesn't even understand the most basic concept of copyright law.
From the parent post pdf:
Sprint filed this lawsuit in October of 2005, asserting infringement of sixty-one claims from seven representative patents from its patent portfolio. The patents in suit can be divided into essentially two groups: the '301 Family Patents and the '605 Family Patents. The '301 Family Patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,429 (the '429 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,665,294 (the '294 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,298,064 (the '064 Patent). These three patents are collectively referred to as the '301 Family Patents because they all share an identical written description and drawings with U.S. Patent No. 5,991,301 and were filed as continuation applications of the '301 Patent. For priority purposes they all claim the filing date of the '301 Patent, which is September 8, 1995. Each of these patents is entitled "Broadband Telecommunications System," and generally discloses an invention which is "a system for providing virtual connections through an ATM interworking multiplexer on a call- by-call basis." '429 Patent, Abstract. The '605 Family Patents include U.S. Patent No. 6,452,932 (the '932 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,304,572 (the '572 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,463,052 (the '052 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,633,561 (the '561 Patent). These four patents are collectively referred to as the '605 Family Patents because they all share an identical written description and drawings with U.S. Patent Application No. 08/238,605 (the '605 Application, now abandoned) and were filed as continuation applications to the '605 Application. For priority purposes they all claim the filing date of the '605 Application, which is May 5, 1994. Each of these patents is entitled "Method, System and Apparatus for Telecommunications Control," and generally discloses an invention that "includes a method, system, and apparatus for providing communication control." '932 Patent, Abstract.Here's an ars technica analysis of the three disputed Verizon patents.
This blog references 2 Sprint patents 6,373,930 and 6,731,735 but I can't seem to find any references listing the patents in the Sprint lawsuit.
A ZDNet analysis of the disputed Verizon patents 6,104,711, 6,282,574 and 6,359,880.
I haven't been able to find a list of the Sprint patents yet.
It is when the only way you can implement it is with the approval of and huge payoffs to the industry oligarchs that currently control telecommunications and who's market VoIP is undermining.
What I want to know is what the hell could cost 1.7 billion dollars? Are they putting HA systems with redundant fiber channel SANs on every desktop? How big is the DHS? If were talking even 100,000 people that's over $17,000 per person in IT costs. For that kind of money they should have had big time segmentation with all kinds of traffic monitoring and IDSes along with honeypots and tarpits. Hell, for that kinda money I would even include fart detectors.
I realize I'm way late getting to this, but I had to comment for the record. You're not even close. Hopefully even if no one else does at least you'll read this.
The reason people oppose the RIAA/MPAA is because they are getting the government to enact and alter laws for the sole purpose of preserving a business model that has been made obsolete by technology and in the process are criminalizing technological advancement (DMCA, HDMI, internet radio, podcasting, myth TV, DVD player hardware restrictions) that encroaches on what is essentially their monopoly control over the entertainment industry. Their business model entails an oligarchy that in collusion has monopolistic control over the production and distribution of all forms visual and audio media. They were able to establish this monopoly because in the past the costs for production and distribution were prohibitive for entry into the market. Technology has reduced those cost to a level that democratizes the ability to produce and distribute media so they are changing the laws to retain their oligarchic control in the face of a democratic revolution. For some examples: An internet radio station has to pay large amounts of money to the RIAA even if they only play creative commons or copyright expired material. In Canada the government has enacted a tax on blank media that the government collects on behalf of these cartels even though I have never in my life burned a song onto a CD. They are trying desperately to get "fair use" which is enacted in law reduced or eliminated by propaganda campaigns, judicial legislation and/or changes to the law.
You need to go reread that sentence and actually comprehend the words instead of making up stuff to support your position. The sentence starts with "To promote progress". That is the only constitutional purpose of any IP laws. You're claiming that part comes only after the IP laws no longer apply? Well then the laws are unconstitutional. Again "To promote progress" is suppose to be the only purpose for granting the extraordinary rights. There is no "carrot and stick" in that sentence. There is only "To promote progress". The only part you and everyone who supports the current system sees in that sentence is the words "exclusive right" while you completely ignore the conditions for those "exclusive rights" and claim the constitution grants those rights to anyone and everyone for any reason whatsoever. I'm going to say it again so maybe you'll finally actually comprehend the words. The only reason those extraordinary rights should be granted is "to promote progress". Not to promote progress after the extraordinary rights no longer apply.
People like you don't seem to understand what the English word "promote" means because you and all the other disingenuous supporters of the current system seem to think it means profit. The only constitutional reason for any kind of extraordinary control granted over ideas to an individual or company are to promote progress. You show me anywhere that word "profit" is mentioned. Nowhere is there any hint that the granting of those extraordinary rights purpose is to help anyone profit on anything. This is where your arguments in support of the current system fall apart since the current system has been shown again and again to retard progress (except progress for IP lawyers) rather than promote it and is therefore unconstitutional.
Also, more importantly no mention of profit anywhere. Patents and copyrights were never in any way intended to help anyone make a profit much less guarantee a profit. Any idiot I see supporting the current system trots that argument out as did the GP. The current system is unconstitutional as I see it.
But you see, that's because they're losing $1.4 trillion due to piracy. There have been studies done proving this. For every song downloaded they are losing the $20 dollars the downloader would have payed for the CD. And don't get me started on the massive losses those leach radio stations are causing. They've got dozens of studies back this stuff up. Just ask them.
Just a guess here but I think it's likely the men were spotted acting suspiciously while scouting a military post. So the soldiers were likely in their designated play area.
A similar war story from my own experience: Back in the 80's I was a grunt in the US Army in Germany. I was hung over and trying to take a nap in the drivers seat of my M577 with the hatch mostly closed in the motor pool during lunch. Pretty much the rest of the post was in the barracks watching "Days of Our Live's" or one of those soaps. I was pretty much invisible but I could still see around me well. I see a civilian just outside the motor pool fence taking pictures of the newly arrived state of the art M901 ITVs. In my hang over stupor the coherent thought that something ain't right about that managed to sneak to the surface. Then my conscience started harassing me telling me I really should check this out. So I shook off the stupor and followed the guy after he left. He headed towards the back of the post where you aren't suppose to have egress or ingress to the post (unless you're drink as shit coming back from downtown after the foose gate is closed and you're climbing the fence in the back 40 to avoid the dickhead MP's at the main gate) and where civilians have no business going anyway. I jog over to battalion HQ and reported what I had seen. The MP's caught the guy climbing the fence trying to get out the back of the post. He was a German national who had no authorization to be on post in the first place.
Yeah, but who filed the patent first. That's all that matters.
So I guess what you're saying is that iPhone users either never get on airplanes or are complete idiots. You see whenever I get a new phone figuring out how to turn the radio off is a pretty high priority because in the modern world you're often in situations where that's useful. Amazingly my palm phones all have had a little button that allows you to just turn off the radio so you can actually use all the other rather useful functionality without the radio being on. This comes in real handy when flying or when I don't want to talk to anyone.
Ummm...Do you know where OSX came from? I kinda think FOSS might have had just a bit of an influence on OSX.
Apparently you didn't get this from the context of my post but I wasn't addressing you specifically. I have no clue what you do. I'm not paying millions in a patent case against you either yet I refer to that in the same way as I did the patent lawyer comment. Also I used troll in the sense of "patent troll" not posting troll as you seem to be referencing.
Now. Mostly you are just ignorant, and spewing your ignorance as fact. Which, in the course of these things, really annoys me. Close to everything you say is just wrong.No doubt. I'm not lawyer. I prefer to actually create things for a living although the patent lawyers are rapidly making that nearly an impossible way to make a living. Yet it's strange you state that everything I said is wrong yet only counter one statement I made.
No. To violate a patent something has to have all the elements of one claim. Same as for finding prior art. That is exactly what a claim is. It claims a right to a temporary monopoly on a method or apparatus the comprises all of the steps or features that it outlines. If something has all of those steps or features, then it is infringing, or can be used as prior art. If it has most, but not all of those steps or features, then it neither infringes, nor can be used as prior art.Strangely that doesn't seem to be the case in the numerous patent cases I've followed. Idiotically trivial claims are upheld built upon claims that have obvious prior art. In the Verizon vs. Vonage case Verizon patented a lookup table. You're telling me that just because their lookup table contained IPs and phone numbers there was no prior art for lookup tables?
The one industry which really does spend time filing tens of terribly similar patents, is the pharmaceutical industry.Apparently you haven't been follow all the business process and software patents being granted in the last few years. I would be willing to bet that Microsoft spends more on patent lawyers and their output than any pharmaceutical company. The patent lawyers who became patent judges, by order of some genius who thought this might actually help the patent system, basically legislated from the bench that such things are patentable. Once their fellow patent lawyers jumped on this it became the fiasco that is todays patent system. The patent lawyers are rapidly making up for lost time in trying to catch up with the pharmaceutical industry patent idiocy for the software and business process patents. And don't even bring up patenting genes.
To develop a new software product today you (again I don't mean you specifically) have to set aside a significant amount of money, likely more than it will take to develop the product, from day one to fight all the patent trolls sure to come after you. Yeah, that really promotes innovation. If something is independently developed numerous times it should not qualify as being significant enough to qualify for a 17 year monopoly. The sole Constitutional reason for the patent system in the US is to promote innovation. It's clearly stated in a couple very simple lines. That's it. It is suppose to serve no other purpose. It's not there so people, let alone lawyers and patent trolls, can make money. The patent system as it is implemented in the US today violates the Constitution. It stifles innovation rather than promote it.
This is one of the primary problems of the patent system. To invalidate due to prior art something must have all elements of the claim exactly as they are claimed. To violate a patent something just has to have one element of the claim. This means I can have something that existed long before your patent and yet it violates your patent. Yeah, that works out really well. Also once it's granted it cost huge amounts of money to invalidate a patent. Why the hell should it cost me millions to just to show you defrauded the patent system. But you see you're a patent lawyer (or patent troll). So most of those millions from both sides for filing, suing for infringement and then invalidating a patent goes to leeches like you rather than being used to do things like innovate and improve things (wow, imagine, that's the opposite of what the patent system is suppose to do). So of coarse you think the patent system works perfect because your getting rich gaming the system in a manner that perverts it's intended puspose and hampering people who are actually trying to innovate and make something useful to society.
As for it being hard to invalidate a patent with proper prior art, it isn't. The issue, is FINDING proper prior art. One thing that a patent attorney will do, is they will spend a lot of time researching prior art (or more likely hiring someone who knows the field better than they do to research it) and they will structure the claims to get near, but not actually touch, the prior art. That is one of the things that you pay for, when you pay an patent attorney to write a patent. Often, you will find something that very closely, but not quite, resembles the primary claim, and as you get deeper and deeper into the dependent claims, they will be more and more distinct. The claims are built that way, on purpose. The idea is "claim as much IP space as you can, without hitting prior art".You've got to be kidding me. This is the problem with patent lawyers. Patent lawyer: "Ok, we're going to take this patent change a few words and file it as a new patent that covers essentially the same thing. That way we can have 5000 patents that cover the same thing. Oh and we'll make it so broad that it can be interpreted as covering breathing air." Fucking patent lawyers. As to obviousness, the US patent office doesn't reject any patents on obviousness. Prior to the recent SC rulings the only test for obviousness even in the courts was prior art. I challenge you to show me one patent that was invalidated due to obviousness.
Yeah, they stole truly innovative programming techniques like linked list. So they could either license this innovative technology for $x of they could fight the patent which would cost anywhere from $x to $5x. Oh and the cost for fighting would tend towards the higher since the case was filed in the patent friendliest court in the US, good old Marshall, Texas Just the fact of that patent being granted shows how broken the current patent system is.
What, do you want to wipe the patent slate clean and have everyone start from scratch? Well that would certainly suck. Should companies with X amount of patents have to give up all their patents and start anew with a one patent per year ruling? Doesn't sound fair to them, now does it.No. They should have to give up the idiotic patents like the one above. Unfortunately the current system has fostered a climate where 1000's of such patents (I dare say the vast majority) are not only granted but prove profitable for the owners of the patents. The idea of patents was put in the US Constitutions, despite the reservations of most of the framers of the US Constitution, for the exclusive purpose of fostering competition. You need to show me how the current system is in any way fostering innovation because the examples of the current patent system stifling innovation are rife. Until you do that, to bad if some poor little company making money and/or destroying truly innovative companies loses their business model of blackmailing with idiotic patents. The reservations of the founding fathers have been proven more than valid. I'm sure they would be scribbling that little part out if they saw the system as it is today.
Seriously, if simply revising what seems to be an alright system for many companies (not just big companies, small ones as well profit from the patent system) is not enough, then what is the answer? How should it work?You are completely clueless as to the purpose of the patent system. It's not there so some companies can profit from it. No shit some companies profit by being granted a monopoly. But they generally profit by stopping innovation. The whole point of the patent system is supposed to be to stimulate innovation. Until you grasp this fundamental point you'll never see how broken the current system is.
In fast moving tech fields granting monopolies do nothing but stifle innovation because the company holding the monopoly no longer has to innovate to compete.
Actually they're both right but Apple is also wrong
The issue that Lutton takes with Google's stance is that it's destructive and costly, and basically calls for something else, without any real indication of what that else is.The problem isn't with Google's stance. The problem is that the current patent system is destructive and costly. It's slowly destroying innovation especially in fast moving technology fields. It is currently impossible to develop a non-trivial computer program without violating one or more patents. To even try you are forced to hire a battery of lawyers to poor over patents since a technical person won't understand the subtle nuances of legalese in a patent. But that won't do any good because a lawyer isn't going to understand the complex details of a piece of software. So the only thing to do is to push on and hope and pray no one notices you before you have enough money to deal with the patent trolls.
Apple certainly has had fun with patent whores in the past, but they usually come out on top or take care of the issue. Lutton wasn't saying that the patent system is absolutely perfect, that is, without flaws or error. What they did acknowledge is that given the alternative options in other parts of the world, it's best for them. Why is that so bad?They're not unhappy with the current system because they have the money to game the current patent system for profit. It's the new innovators that might challenge Apple that are prevented by the current patent system from entering the market.
Apple also stated that the patent court system needs to be fixed. They're right on that account because there is no financially viable way to challenge a patent no matter how idiotic it is. The patent holder either makes the licensing fees less than what it will cost you to invalidate the patent or if the patent holder feels the patent fight will destroy a challenge to their current market they simple set price to license too high for competitors to make it in the market or they refuse to license it. Either way there is no financially viable way to get rid of a bad patent.
Also, on the other hand, a major contribution to fixing the patent court system would be to fix the way patents are issued such that they actually do what they were intended to do. If you don't remember what that was, I believe the US Constitution said something about "promoting innovation" which is the exact opposite of what the current system is doing in the vast majority of cases.
Yeah, maybe little things like installing on SATA drives. They've been around how long? You know like a little 5 year window. Just pop in the Windows CD and spend the next 4 hours trying to get it to recognize your hard drive.
You forgot the squirrel-mounted laser in there somewhere.
I couldn't find the article but I read recently that the large majority of pharmaceutical research dollars are spent on developing one off molecules clinically similar to current drugs that are about to go off patent e.g. Clarinex. They're cheaper and easier to get through the FDA. Depending on your perspective it's not exactly throwing the money down a rat hole but from a clinical perspective it's a tremendous waste of money.
Yes you can. I've done it. And not voluntarily. Veggies, along with meat, are a complement to the core of rice and beans and are only needed in fairly small quantities. Fruit is a bigger problem than veggies but if you're frugal with the core of your meals they can be added in sufficient quantities. And as someone already posted the nutritional value of McDonalds is in no way even comparable to what I lived on. I worked out regularly and was in very good shape and condition. There's no way I would have had the energy for all that if I had been living on McDonalds crap.