Here's another obvious solution. Write a law that's obviously constitutional - like this: It shall be a felony to distribute indecent and obscene material to minors across state lines without first obtaining written parental consent. The determination of what material is indecent or obscene shall be based on the community standards of the recipient.
It's just that simple. Notice that there is no mention of computers or the interwebs. I just don't get this mentality that computers ought to somehow be regulated any different from the rest of normal life. I've got nothing against porn, but I don't think 12 year old kids should have access to it either. Or at the very least, they should be getting it the old fashioned way - finding a stack of dirty magazines underneath their best friend's dad's bed.
In any event, all we need to do is sit back and wait for the bird flu to solve a lot of problems. For the survivors anyway. If we can get the world popualtion down to a billion or so, just think how much copper and oil will be available per person.
My understanding is that the US is basically the same way. A database constitutes a compilation and is thus subject to copyright. When someone liscenses a database, there are usually detailed restrictions on what you are and aren't allowed to do with the data. On the other hand, if it is a database of raw facts, those facts themselves aren't subject to copyright. You can't copyright a fact. If you independantly compile a bunch of baseball statistics, there isn't anything (theoretically) that Major League Baseball can do about it (other than harass you into submission). But if you want access to their database, you have to play by their rules.
Similarly, the game itself is not subject to copyright, though the television and radio broadcasts are (since they're being fixed in a permanenet form as it happens). If you had a vantage point where you could see the game without buying a ticket you could watch, video tape and even broadcast the game. At least until MLB starts crying. Take for example Wriggley field and the fight they had with several building owners who sell seating on their rooftops.
My thought exactly. I don't know why we can't apply existing law to the internet. If you hand my kid some graphic porn, you've committed a felony. Why should it be different if you use a computer to do the same thing?
In any event, I ought to be able to post a policy on my server about what is acceptable content and sue anyone that violates that. While this might only apply to the US, I'm content to block messages from IPs that are assigned to non-US networks. That just leaves open relays and zombie PCs. Can we have those declared a public nuisance?
We've so far been spared Barney and the Teletubbies. On the other hand, the Dora addicition is bad enough that we removed the DVD player and within a couple of days her behavior started to improve. Given the chance, she would sit on the couch and wet her pants before she got up and missed a minute of Dora. She also digs Elmo and Bob the Builder. I at least approve of Bob.:)
That's why old people like me (age 29) just spend what little spare time we have playing Civilization, occasionally venturing into an RPG or RTS. But I'm not allowed to play RPGs anymore. They suck up too much time. Civ or RTS, you can play for an hour or two and then stop. A good RPG will suck me in. Heck, even a mediocre one will; I can't remember how many hours I wasted on Might and Magic 9.
On the plus side, in a few years my daughter will be old enough to play games with me. Let's here it for Barbie Horse Adventures!. Hey, it beats the hell out of anything pretaining to Dora the Explorer.
Isopropanol is too ionic. It'll behave a lot like the distilled water did in the article. Furthermore, isopropyl is very flamable (in it's pure state), is volatile, and moderately toxic. In any event, any lightweight alcohol will be highly susceptible to disolved ions and will short out your components. Minearal oil, motor oil, or other petroleum based oils would work better. Flourinert would be better because it is overkill. That's really the whole point of this application/discussion, I would think.:)
I gotta agree with you on this one. Granted, if the case is sealed to the air, that won't be a problem. But a lightweight mineral oil is still going to have superior clarity. Also, if it's an oil that tends to oxidize, then there could be problems down the road with leakage currents. I should call 3M and see if they can find me a non-conductive, inert, non-volitale chemical to submerge a PC in. I'm sure they make one.
Nah, Juniper still has to prove actual damages and convince a jury that anyone actually took those idiotic posts seriously. Sadly, I never get called for jury duty.
The costs to protect a patent are properly on the person/company holding the patent. On the other hand, police sting operations targeting counterfitters shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary. They're going after criminals committing a real crime: fraud. But if you think someone is infringing your patent, you should be paying the costs to litigate it.
I work for a small company. We've invested a lot of research money in a neat little product which we now have a patent application out on. At current prices, even with hiring a lawyer, it's a no brainer to file for a patent, which we think we'll be awarded. Jack the price up by another $50k and a people like us get shut out. Not every invention or patent is worth millions of dollars. Not all patent litigation costs millions of dollars either. If a larger company came in and cloned our product, we'd probably go under. I cringe anytime someone feels the law should be taken away from the ordianry person.
This isn't to say that there isn't a lot of junk that makes it through the patent office, and a lot of it should get tossed. A bounty system isn't going to do anything about that. It just makes patent holders subject to all comers instead of just parties with a real interest.
The real solution is to reform the patent office. Be more skeptical about what is non-obvious. Issue far fewer patents. If it costs a little more to do a better review of prior art, then sure, roll that into the application cost. Make it easier to request a re-exam. The patent office should be run entirely on patent application fees.
All of which adds a new question: Would IPTV or Digital Broadcast TV fall within the scope of the patent? The patent talks a lot about embedding information in the Vertical Blanking Interval which doesn't exist in IP or DBTV.
In any event, I'm not too worried as the primary focus of the claim invloves pausing TV to go to a web page. [yawn]. Although it also talks about a general DVR concept. Well the courts can sort it out. Too bad I never get called for jury duty.
I like your first 2 ideas. You started out well, but points 3 and 4 pretty much tank it. 5 is a little dubious as well. A working implementation should be fundamental. Patents should also be readable in plain English, as should the entire legal system. That you need to hire a professional to deal with the legal system indicates that it is fundamentally flawed.
Let's start with 3 - raising the price. The price should only reflect what the average actual cost is to research, review and approve or reject the patent. For a small operation that thinks they have a good product, a patent can be a life saver. $1000 is no problem, but $50K is a gamble most can't afford to take.
That takes us to 4 - a bounty system. That's just plain dumb. The problem is that both the courts and the patent office duck the issue. The courts generally defer to the patent office while the patent office refuses to revist an issued patent. Courts need to be authorized and encouraged to invalidate a patent when presented with prior art. Documenting that you developed your product without being exposed to someone else's patented product should also prove the obviousness of it.
5 - patent terms. What's the median time required to recoup research and development costs and a reasonable profit? Where's the balance point? I'd like to see some serious research on this so that objective decisions can be made.
At least patents haven't devolved into the same mess as copyrights. At one point, copyrights were about the best interests of society. Now, writing a book somehow gives you a devine moral right to it transferable down to your great-grandchildren.
Fortunately for you, in the not too distant future, Apple will be producing a Macintosh capable of properly running Windows. Then, all the Mac fans out there can finally enjoy all the software the rest of the world has taken for granted for years. Since these new fangled wonder computers have yet to be released, you will likely have to wait until they are and then upgrade.
Funny thing. My dad is looking at a new TV. He gets digital cable. But from his easy chair (about 15 feet from the TV), with his eyesight (he's just starting to need glasses) he can't tell the diffence between HD and SD. Maybe if he got a big enough TV it would help. That's what I'm telling him, anyway.
I can't count the number of times I've dug this sort of pit for myself. You cut corners to get a project out the door, but then you have to go back and re-engineer pretty much the entire program to really make it work right and secure. Microsoft is a lot like the rest of us... There's a lot of code that we never go back and fix becuase there are other more pressing needs. Or as is usually the case for Microsoft, they can't fix one thing without fixing 100 others. And certainly I've encountered that before too.
What I find troubling is his contention that Bell South and Wikipedia should be treated like a newspaper in libel cases. In reality, the former is more like the delivery boy and the latter is more like the bullieten board at the local YMCA. In this case, I think the law is perfectly correct. If he contacted Wikipedia and they took down the article, there shouldn't be any beef there. And if he wants justice with the jackass that wrote the piece in the first place, he ought to file a lawsuit and subpoena Bell South. But that would just be an exercise in futility. Even if he did track down the kid that wrote the entry, that kid certainly wouldn't have enough money to waste a lawsuit on. That's what he's pissed about, really. He wants someone with money to sue, but there isn't anyone.
Well, I did my part for the cyber economy yesterday (and Slashdot as well). I clicked on an add from ThinkGeek and bought my sister-in-law an Xmas present. I wasn't actually out looking for anything, but it caught my eye and conicidentally, happend to be on "Cyber-Monday". Oh, well.
I think it's more about instant gratification. Developing a high quality product takes time. Releasing a beta panders to the impatitent and provides a large testing base for low cost to the developer and often at no cost to the user. Everyone's as happy as they're going to get.
I can. In fact, I currently am. A previous employer of mine has me on retainer to maintain the code I wrote for them. I'm also maintaining the servers I setup. Any time they call, I fix their problem and charge a couple hundread bucks for it. Once I rack up a few more former employers, I could really start raking in the consulting $$. Always remember, if you're not part of the solution, there's a lot of money to be made in prolonging the problem.
I don't really care about a subsidy, I'm still just looking for the mythical $50 set top converter box at my local electronics superstore. Nearly every article on the switchover talks about how their will be a $50 set top box for those of us who can't or won't shell out for the big screen. I'm fine with that, and I want one... but they don't exist. The closest things on the market I can find are around $250.
Anyone know where that $50 figure originated from?
Ad supported software can be done perfectly legitimately. Take for example Google. And ummm, ok, let's take for example Google, 'cuz I can't think of any others the do ads without raping your PC.
False! Supply did not change at all, only the unit cost. It was already trivial to mass produce millions of a CD very cheaply, so not much has changed on that front, either. Most of the costs in recorded music are marketing related. You can write a great song, but you need to get it in front of consumers and convince them to buy it. It still takes a wad of cash to "convince" radio stations that they want to play your song and promote your concert. And no one really wants to waste their time dealing with one little independant act. So the real unit cost is still ($promotion expenses)/(number of units sold). If you spend $100k to sell 300k songs, your unit cost is about 33 cents.
Now, it is easier to get your product into a digital store that has to stock no inventory and carry no overhead. But unless you've got a truly great song, word of mouth from you playing at the neighborhood bar isn't going to move a lot of product.
I boycott Best Buy because the cheapest USB cable they carry is $20. NewEgg will sell me an equivilent cable with next day air shipping for a few bucks less than that. I support a small business, and when we need new hardware, I drive past Best Buy to go to CompUSA. Not a huge improvement, but they're not gouging on cables as bad. And I tell people exactly why I won't shop at Best Buy. From me alone, they're out about 5K in sales so far all over a stupid $3 cable. Another thing you can do is when you start boycotting something, write them a letter. Often times they'll give you free stuff to not badmouth them.
As far as Sony is concerned, I don't have autorun enabled on my CD drives and I haven't encountered their rootkit, so I have no real reason to boycott them. On the other hand, I've only bought one CD in the last year, so even if I did decide to boycott them, it wouldn't amount to much.
No can do. First of all, he's not the inventor, that would be his parents. Secondly, after 25 years of being made available to the public, it's far too late to get a patent. Otherwise, it would be a very good idea. Now, if he could find the specific gene involved, he might have something to work with. In fact, if I were him, I'd be demanding a cut of any medications, vaccines or treatments arising from the study of him. And I'd make sure that was gross, not net. Net is for suckers.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's another obvious solution. Write a law that's obviously constitutional - like this: It shall be a felony to distribute indecent and obscene material to minors across state lines without first obtaining written parental consent. The determination of what material is indecent or obscene shall be based on the community standards of the recipient.
It's just that simple. Notice that there is no mention of computers or the interwebs. I just don't get this mentality that computers ought to somehow be regulated any different from the rest of normal life. I've got nothing against porn, but I don't think 12 year old kids should have access to it either. Or at the very least, they should be getting it the old fashioned way - finding a stack of dirty magazines underneath their best friend's dad's bed.
In any event, all we need to do is sit back and wait for the bird flu to solve a lot of problems. For the survivors anyway. If we can get the world popualtion down to a billion or so, just think how much copper and oil will be available per person.
My understanding is that the US is basically the same way. A database constitutes a compilation and is thus subject to copyright. When someone liscenses a database, there are usually detailed restrictions on what you are and aren't allowed to do with the data. On the other hand, if it is a database of raw facts, those facts themselves aren't subject to copyright. You can't copyright a fact. If you independantly compile a bunch of baseball statistics, there isn't anything (theoretically) that Major League Baseball can do about it (other than harass you into submission). But if you want access to their database, you have to play by their rules.
Similarly, the game itself is not subject to copyright, though the television and radio broadcasts are (since they're being fixed in a permanenet form as it happens). If you had a vantage point where you could see the game without buying a ticket you could watch, video tape and even broadcast the game. At least until MLB starts crying. Take for example Wriggley field and the fight they had with several building owners who sell seating on their rooftops.
My thought exactly. I don't know why we can't apply existing law to the internet. If you hand my kid some graphic porn, you've committed a felony. Why should it be different if you use a computer to do the same thing?
In any event, I ought to be able to post a policy on my server about what is acceptable content and sue anyone that violates that. While this might only apply to the US, I'm content to block messages from IPs that are assigned to non-US networks. That just leaves open relays and zombie PCs. Can we have those declared a public nuisance?
We've so far been spared Barney and the Teletubbies. On the other hand, the Dora addicition is bad enough that we removed the DVD player and within a couple of days her behavior started to improve. Given the chance, she would sit on the couch and wet her pants before she got up and missed a minute of Dora. She also digs Elmo and Bob the Builder. I at least approve of Bob. :)
That's why old people like me (age 29) just spend what little spare time we have playing Civilization, occasionally venturing into an RPG or RTS. But I'm not allowed to play RPGs anymore. They suck up too much time. Civ or RTS, you can play for an hour or two and then stop. A good RPG will suck me in. Heck, even a mediocre one will; I can't remember how many hours I wasted on Might and Magic 9.
On the plus side, in a few years my daughter will be old enough to play games with me. Let's here it for Barbie Horse Adventures!. Hey, it beats the hell out of anything pretaining to Dora the Explorer.
Isopropanol is too ionic. It'll behave a lot like the distilled water did in the article. Furthermore, isopropyl is very flamable (in it's pure state), is volatile, and moderately toxic. In any event, any lightweight alcohol will be highly susceptible to disolved ions and will short out your components. Minearal oil, motor oil, or other petroleum based oils would work better. Flourinert would be better because it is overkill. That's really the whole point of this application/discussion, I would think. :)
I gotta agree with you on this one. Granted, if the case is sealed to the air, that won't be a problem. But a lightweight mineral oil is still going to have superior clarity. Also, if it's an oil that tends to oxidize, then there could be problems down the road with leakage currents. I should call 3M and see if they can find me a non-conductive, inert, non-volitale chemical to submerge a PC in. I'm sure they make one.
Nah, Juniper still has to prove actual damages and convince a jury that anyone actually took those idiotic posts seriously. Sadly, I never get called for jury duty.
The costs to protect a patent are properly on the person/company holding the patent. On the other hand, police sting operations targeting counterfitters shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary. They're going after criminals committing a real crime: fraud. But if you think someone is infringing your patent, you should be paying the costs to litigate it.
I work for a small company. We've invested a lot of research money in a neat little product which we now have a patent application out on. At current prices, even with hiring a lawyer, it's a no brainer to file for a patent, which we think we'll be awarded. Jack the price up by another $50k and a people like us get shut out. Not every invention or patent is worth millions of dollars. Not all patent litigation costs millions of dollars either. If a larger company came in and cloned our product, we'd probably go under. I cringe anytime someone feels the law should be taken away from the ordianry person.
This isn't to say that there isn't a lot of junk that makes it through the patent office, and a lot of it should get tossed. A bounty system isn't going to do anything about that. It just makes patent holders subject to all comers instead of just parties with a real interest.
The real solution is to reform the patent office. Be more skeptical about what is non-obvious. Issue far fewer patents. If it costs a little more to do a better review of prior art, then sure, roll that into the application cost. Make it easier to request a re-exam. The patent office should be run entirely on patent application fees.
All of which adds a new question: Would IPTV or Digital Broadcast TV fall within the scope of the patent? The patent talks a lot about embedding information in the Vertical Blanking Interval which doesn't exist in IP or DBTV.
In any event, I'm not too worried as the primary focus of the claim invloves pausing TV to go to a web page. [yawn]. Although it also talks about a general DVR concept. Well the courts can sort it out. Too bad I never get called for jury duty.
I like your first 2 ideas. You started out well, but points 3 and 4 pretty much tank it. 5 is a little dubious as well. A working implementation should be fundamental. Patents should also be readable in plain English, as should the entire legal system. That you need to hire a professional to deal with the legal system indicates that it is fundamentally flawed.
Let's start with 3 - raising the price. The price should only reflect what the average actual cost is to research, review and approve or reject the patent. For a small operation that thinks they have a good product, a patent can be a life saver. $1000 is no problem, but $50K is a gamble most can't afford to take.
That takes us to 4 - a bounty system. That's just plain dumb. The problem is that both the courts and the patent office duck the issue. The courts generally defer to the patent office while the patent office refuses to revist an issued patent. Courts need to be authorized and encouraged to invalidate a patent when presented with prior art. Documenting that you developed your product without being exposed to someone else's patented product should also prove the obviousness of it.
5 - patent terms. What's the median time required to recoup research and development costs and a reasonable profit? Where's the balance point? I'd like to see some serious research on this so that objective decisions can be made.
At least patents haven't devolved into the same mess as copyrights. At one point, copyrights were about the best interests of society. Now, writing a book somehow gives you a devine moral right to it transferable down to your great-grandchildren.
Fortunately for you, in the not too distant future, Apple will be producing a Macintosh capable of properly running Windows. Then, all the Mac fans out there can finally enjoy all the software the rest of the world has taken for granted for years. Since these new fangled wonder computers have yet to be released, you will likely have to wait until they are and then upgrade.
:)
Peace out and flame on.
Funny thing. My dad is looking at a new TV. He gets digital cable. But from his easy chair (about 15 feet from the TV), with his eyesight (he's just starting to need glasses) he can't tell the diffence between HD and SD. Maybe if he got a big enough TV it would help. That's what I'm telling him, anyway.
I'd like to see the code broken down (and searchable) by license type. BSD vs. GPL vs. Public Domain vs. Other?
I can't count the number of times I've dug this sort of pit for myself. You cut corners to get a project out the door, but then you have to go back and re-engineer pretty much the entire program to really make it work right and secure. Microsoft is a lot like the rest of us... There's a lot of code that we never go back and fix becuase there are other more pressing needs. Or as is usually the case for Microsoft, they can't fix one thing without fixing 100 others. And certainly I've encountered that before too.
What I find troubling is his contention that Bell South and Wikipedia should be treated like a newspaper in libel cases. In reality, the former is more like the delivery boy and the latter is more like the bullieten board at the local YMCA. In this case, I think the law is perfectly correct. If he contacted Wikipedia and they took down the article, there shouldn't be any beef there. And if he wants justice with the jackass that wrote the piece in the first place, he ought to file a lawsuit and subpoena Bell South. But that would just be an exercise in futility. Even if he did track down the kid that wrote the entry, that kid certainly wouldn't have enough money to waste a lawsuit on. That's what he's pissed about, really. He wants someone with money to sue, but there isn't anyone.
Well, I did my part for the cyber economy yesterday (and Slashdot as well). I clicked on an add from ThinkGeek and bought my sister-in-law an Xmas present. I wasn't actually out looking for anything, but it caught my eye and conicidentally, happend to be on "Cyber-Monday". Oh, well.
I think it's more about instant gratification. Developing a high quality product takes time. Releasing a beta panders to the impatitent and provides a large testing base for low cost to the developer and often at no cost to the user. Everyone's as happy as they're going to get.
I can. In fact, I currently am. A previous employer of mine has me on retainer to maintain the code I wrote for them. I'm also maintaining the servers I setup. Any time they call, I fix their problem and charge a couple hundread bucks for it. Once I rack up a few more former employers, I could really start raking in the consulting $$. Always remember, if you're not part of the solution, there's a lot of money to be made in prolonging the problem.
I don't really care about a subsidy, I'm still just looking for the mythical $50 set top converter box at my local electronics superstore. Nearly every article on the switchover talks about how their will be a $50 set top box for those of us who can't or won't shell out for the big screen. I'm fine with that, and I want one... but they don't exist. The closest things on the market I can find are around $250.
Anyone know where that $50 figure originated from?
Ad supported software can be done perfectly legitimately. Take for example Google. And ummm, ok, let's take for example Google, 'cuz I can't think of any others the do ads without raping your PC.
supply effectively went to infinity
False! Supply did not change at all, only the unit cost. It was already trivial to mass produce millions of a CD very cheaply, so not much has changed on that front, either. Most of the costs in recorded music are marketing related. You can write a great song, but you need to get it in front of consumers and convince them to buy it. It still takes a wad of cash to "convince" radio stations that they want to play your song and promote your concert. And no one really wants to waste their time dealing with one little independant act. So the real unit cost is still ($promotion expenses)/(number of units sold). If you spend $100k to sell 300k songs, your unit cost is about 33 cents.
Now, it is easier to get your product into a digital store that has to stock no inventory and carry no overhead. But unless you've got a truly great song, word of mouth from you playing at the neighborhood bar isn't going to move a lot of product.
I boycott Best Buy because the cheapest USB cable they carry is $20. NewEgg will sell me an equivilent cable with next day air shipping for a few bucks less than that. I support a small business, and when we need new hardware, I drive past Best Buy to go to CompUSA. Not a huge improvement, but they're not gouging on cables as bad. And I tell people exactly why I won't shop at Best Buy. From me alone, they're out about 5K in sales so far all over a stupid $3 cable. Another thing you can do is when you start boycotting something, write them a letter. Often times they'll give you free stuff to not badmouth them.
As far as Sony is concerned, I don't have autorun enabled on my CD drives and I haven't encountered their rootkit, so I have no real reason to boycott them. On the other hand, I've only bought one CD in the last year, so even if I did decide to boycott them, it wouldn't amount to much.
No can do. First of all, he's not the inventor, that would be his parents. Secondly, after 25 years of being made available to the public, it's far too late to get a patent. Otherwise, it would be a very good idea. Now, if he could find the specific gene involved, he might have something to work with. In fact, if I were him, I'd be demanding a cut of any medications, vaccines or treatments arising from the study of him. And I'd make sure that was gross, not net. Net is for suckers.