Patents *might* be great if you're a pure researcher who has absolutely no plan to ever use/sell/build outside of your laboratory.
Even with a patent, you will need to go to court and defend it.
Patents are relatively costly: only large companies with megabucks can afford more than a couple: certainly few basement inventors have a few ten/hundred thousand kicking around for legal.
Patents and Non-Disclosure Agreements are not mutually exclusive. You can pitch your idea to people who have signed a specific agreement with you. Not having patents does not equate to an inability to obtain VC.
An alterative to patents? How about nuthin'.
Now, I know that on the surface you're not going to like that idea, but here's the deal:
Lots of stuff got invented before patents... so I see no reason why patents are or ever were needed to encourage invention. All new invention is based on something that existed before. There is nothing new on this planet, just variations, modifications, additions and combinations... so as an inventor, you are reliant on the ability to re-use the ideas that came before yours: patents take away that ability. You can argue that it's temporarily - but let's face it: 20-yrs is 1/2 a (work) lifetime.
Without patents, there are no patent lawyers - you save big on legal.
Without patents, products could get to market 3-5yrs faster, providing revenue streams sooner.
Without patents, consumers would be given more choice, as companies innovate continually to compete, not simply creating one new idea and profiting indefinately. Lastly, troll/predatory companies can't exist: they can not simply engage in blocking tactics with a legal construct.
So, a world without patents would have an explosion of new ideas, run more efficiently, provide returns on investment sooner, and deliver new products to consumers faster and at a lower cost.
SURE, this guy won in the end... AFTER 25 YEARS. How many countless other inventors have simply given up?
but you ALSO have to look at how effective they are at allowing big corporations to squash the little guy flat.
So your argument about the imperfection of the patent system is that people who invent something, be it a small entity or a large entity, are treated as equals under the law?
I think we interpretted this comment sequence differently.
It's only equal if the two entities are of similar size... in other words, the little guy has to fight for 25yrs and spend more money on legal fees than the average individual earns in their lifetime: the corporations on the other hand have the millions to spend, and for them millions are a rounding error on the balance sheet.
I agree with the majority of this thread: Patents do little to encourage the small guy, and basically ensure that large corporations can run riot with little worry. Let's face it: No matter what Sony has to pay now, they have already re-profited from the earnings many times over. To many people the "walkman" is synonymous with "sony", and I would suggest that the walkman is what made sony the electronics giant that it is, in much the same way as the minivan made Chrysler profitable again...
Said if before, but I'll just repeat myself for fun: Patents are Bad.
Please, please stay away from Oracle Forms and in particular Oracle Reports. It's cruel and unusual punishment.
I did my Oracle cert as an 8i developer back in 2000, and I gotta agree with you...Oracle Reports is less than intuitive. It's a tricky lil' idea, where the placement of the objects in the design creates the hierarchies and dependencies. I'm glad to say I've never touched it since...
I'm sure someone thought it was a good idea, and imho all it proves is that something are in fact not better displayed graphically, but good ole fashioned code...
To the best of my knowledge, though, they wouldn't be able to prove that he did it as a result of their arrival. Circumstantial at best. Personally, I could see an innocent man OR a guilty man doing the exact same thing.
This reminds me of the "you have encryption tools, you must have something to hide" bit from a couple of months ago...
There is absolutely nothing illegal about having encryption tools, or having wiped your HDD with something stronger than a format.
Try:
He is cleaning an axe: he must be an axe murderer.
She has covered a car: the car underneath must be stolen.
He paid cash: he must be engaged in tax evasion.
There are lots of activities that honest people engage in every day for reasons that are their own... I think the reason we see this is because poeple don't understand technology, and so anything can be considered dangerous, malicious or evidence of illegal activity.
Why not set up internal Jabber and/or IRC servers? If you can give (and demonstrate) a reasonable alternative to ICQ etc., and present your concerns along with that, surely your opinion will be weighing much more heavily.
Shortest path rules says this gets you fired for hacking...
I read a story somewhere (can't find it now, maybe someone else knows this story?) some scientist-type guy working on defence stuff figured out the combinations on the safes or some-such. I don't remember the exact who or what, but instead of fixing the security problem (when he reported it) their solution was to send a memo stating that the guy wasn't allowed near the safes anymore...
...err, how long was it before anyone dared point out the gee-dub-yah had nothing to go into iraq with?
Nonsense. He had the most powerful army in the world to go into Iraq with.
dude - I was referring to a reason...he had no reason to into Iraq with... as in "he made it up". and c'mon, that wasn't even the point - it was that no one dared point it out...
Before PATRIOT, they would have had to tell the judge that I might be a mobster, and tap my phone under the RICO statutes.
So, since IANAL, can you tell me which part of RICO lets you lock people up indefinately without a court date? I think the patriot act has stripped at least one very basic right - you know, the bit where you're innocent until proven guilty, and get to be tried by a jury of your peers, and get a day in court to defend yourself...
If granting that state dictatorial powers is not a shocking change, then i suggest that your sense of shock has been well dulled.
I'll leave you with a note from the past: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
simply because no one dares point out that the Leader made a mistake.
...err, how long was it before anyone dared point out the gee-dub-yah had nothing to go into iraq with? The few that did were branded as anti-american: so, why do you hate america?
Having a democracy doesn't make a country immune to either error or immune to corrupt people pushing personal agendas.
I'm not saying I'd like to live in a dictatorship, since I do enjoy the personal freedoms we have... but let's not live in a fairy-make-believe-land where everything here is perfect....and anyways, it seems to me that we're making pretty quick with the give-up-the-freedoms-for-security gig right now and we could be just half a step away from losing large chunks of freedom, and being no better off than the chinese...
I agree - - it is called parenting.
And if anyone thinks for one moment that the kids aren't going to learn about sex and drugs and all kinds of nasty things on this planet, you are sadly mistakened. Keeping it 'hidden' from them, filtering it, just isn't going to work. Kids will learn about sex from somewhere. If you as a parent actually talk to them and discuss these issues then you have the opportunity to help them develop healthy attitudes. Ignore it, and they may find some pretty twisted views and rolemodels and use those to formulate their opinions and actions.
Of course the flaw in this lil' plan is that parents have to actually be involved in their children's lives, and can't just demand the state do a halfassed job for you...
What the Chinese are doing, and what Australia is discussing are two different things.
China blocks for all citizens, and they lock up people who work around it.
(So Far) the Aussie is only talking about adopting an opt-in policy. Meaning that people who want to see an unfiltered view of the net can request it. No one's going to get locked up for working around it, since anyone who wants pr0n can just ask...
I am glad that I'm not in Australia though, because all this means is an increased cost of internet to everyone for a system that can't possibly work, but will leave parents with a false sense of security and a higher taxation rate to pay for "enforcement"...oh, and a list of deviants for the governement to use if there's some kind of problem.
If an adult family wishes to restore its right to have access to pornographic and other material on the internet that may be deemed inappropriate, so be it, but if the family includes children then the parents must acknowledge their responsibility and duty of care to ensure their children do not become victims.
no... i think when cars ship w/o am/fm then radio is already dead.
i'd have to say that radio is already dying. right now. about the last place i regularly listen to the radio is in the car.
an am/fm tuner costs pennies to add to a multi-ten-thousand dollar product, so i don't see it being removed any time soon. my *2000* nissan altima still had a frikin' tape/cd combo unit...tape! who the hell still has tapes since 1985?!?
I think I saw recent numbers somewhere about total TV watching... it's (IIRC) a couple-three hours a day on average, so 14-28hrs a week depending on age etc.
Since most series are 1-hr, and most sit-coms are 30-min, that means most people watch only 2-6 shows on any given night.
Personally, I only watch about 3-5 shows a week - say $10/week = $40, which is pretty much my monthly cable bill... imho, $2/show is too much. Maybe $5-$10 for a series of (say 10-15 shows) like Lost or Prison Break, and they would be available for download at the same time as they air...otherwise, I'd rather either tape/Tivo/PVR/whatever it or download it later if I'm busy when it airs. They need to remember that they are competing with 'free-to-tape' when they set the price...
This is exactly why we still have town criers to read us the news from the village square.
This is exactly why we still transcribe the written word by hand.
This is why we still have the pony-express delivering mail.
This is why we still use the telegraph to send messages.
The "middleman" is anyone who performs no direct service other than to interface between two others. Over all of history, changes in technology have altered, diminished or even eliminated the middleman, as the two interested parties were able to more easily negotiate their own communication.
Today, my good friend, that change is called The Internet. And the label is the middleman. And the internet makes the label obsolete.
And yes, we would keep on inventing - as soon as we got done slaving away at Wal-Mart and McD's 60/h week in order to put a roof over our heads. And just imagine the fancy equipment we can afford on that wage!
hmmm... I see the middlemen have been here before me, spreading their fear that the world will come to an end if they don't get their cut.
In your vision of the world without middlemen you can't make a living by any means other than minimum wage jobs... that's sad.
The secret bit that they don't want you to realise is that marketers will look for products to market; and in the absence of existing products they will simply hire creative people to create stuff to market; so your "job" as a creator is 100% safe.
What's not safe is the middleman's income. The billions in profit that they make for selling your idea over and over again (while you only got paid once). And don't think that a scientist has a guaranteed job at any given company: If management feels that you specifically, or your group in general isn't making them their minimum return - you will be fired/layed-off/downsized/rightsized/whatever.
I'll say it again: The middleman needs the creator, the creator doesn't need the middleman.*
Want proof? Linux. With (essentially) zero marketing and no middleman, Linus has created a product that is used by everyone (directly or indirectly) in the industrialised world today. Better: the product has spawned income generation sources for private individuals on up to giant software companies.
So... if you really are a scientist, you of all people need worry the least about this anti-protectionist movement... you're the one everyone needs.
*those who wish to argue this statement should first contrast the words "need" and "want".
The poor guy is just conflicted, and wants the best of both worlds: he wants it free for people to listen to, but they gotta pay for it to make him rich.
I find it interesting that the more I read on music, the more apparent it is to me that there are a very few (dozens, maybe hundreds) out of the millions of bands that actually make rock-star kinda money.
For the rest: it's just a dream the label sold them.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that most bands are not giving up much 'fortune' without a major label. Most bands can probably make just as much money w/o the label as with, and this would leave the band to make their music, their way, and reach their fans which most claim to be the reason they started in the first place.
...and the shocking answer to who makes all the money? the middleman of course, the one selling this pipe-dream to the artist. The one putting locks on the music that keeps the fans from listening.
See the lil' secret that all middlemen don't want people to know is that they have no discernable skill of their own, other than profiting off the backs of others...(see patents & copyrights -- it's the middleman fighting for protections). The creators don't need middlemen, but middlemen sure as hell need the creative...
And [the pharmaceutical industry] would spend neither [on advertising nor on R&D] if they had no patent rights.
Ok, unless you have some special powers the rest of us don't, you don't know this as a fact. The current set of patent holders would like to convince everyone (and it's been quite successful) that w/o protections no one would invent.
As I pointed out earlier, for this to be true there could be no invention that predated protections. Reality #1: Drug companies make billions of dollars of profits. I'm not opposed to profits - that is what companies do, but the patent protection is giving them monopoly profits. Them there monopoly profits are much bigger than those that people can earn in a competative market place. Where do you think those profits come from? Does that help or hurt your personal bottom line as a consumer? Patents are (if anything) anti-capitalistic, not pro-capitalistic. Reality #2: For some reason Bayer continues to be able to sell 'Aspirin' right along side 'ASA' (here in Canada the trademark is valid), and for some reason, even though the cheaper house-brand sits right next to it on the shelf, people still shell out for the brand name... weird, huh? This tells me, that the 'inventor' even w/o protections can somehow still compete and make a profit...
What all this tells me is that there is still nothing that conclusively convinces me that the protections are needed. It's just middlemen fearmongering; telling you that the human spirit is somehow tied to their profits...of course their pitch is a little more slick than how I just said it.
Great Alternative:
Completely and utterly revoke all non-physical property laws.
The only people that seem to be calling out for protections are middlemen, not inventors. The human race has been creative since the dawn of time: whether it's music, art, or any one of inventions (like the lil' disk we call a "wheel") that predates all modern inventions, and upon which all modern inventions are based (in some way, shape or form) - - they all have one thing in common: they were made in the complete absence of any protection whatsoever.
Patents 'fixed' something that wasn't broken, and yes, an entire industry was built around it, and yes, if patents are removed some people will lose some money. But the more important issue is that the human race will win, and it will remove the imbalance and inherent problems created when artificial scarcity was created, and your physical property rights were usurped by the notion of intellect as property.
As the Federal Trade Commission noted in a 2003 report, firms in some high-tech fields must obtain licenses to "dozens, hundreds or even thousands of patents" to produce just one product.
If people can't see that having to deal with thousands of patents will only diminish innovation in the long run then... well f*^&@!!! people! I can't dumb it down much further. How about:
"Patents Bad"
That's my favorite part of the IP Myth: Give us protection, or there won't be any innovation!
Of course for that to be true, there couldn't have been any innovation or creation before IP... and yet...?
To be human is to be creative.
You're as likely to stop human creativity as to stop the tides, the winds or this little rock spinning 'round the sun.
Even these IP laws won't stop creativity: Creativity will just move to where it can be free. America was the destination for scientists and artists in the last hundred years because in America they were free to create. IP strips that freedom, and will cause the creative to seek refuge elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
An alterative to patents? How about nuthin'. ... so I see no reason why patents are or ever were needed to encourage invention. ... so as an inventor, you are reliant on the ability to re-use the ideas that came before yours: patents take away that ability. You can argue that it's temporarily - but let's face it: 20-yrs is 1/2 a (work) lifetime.
Now, I know that on the surface you're not going to like that idea, but here's the deal:
Lots of stuff got invented before patents
All new invention is based on something that existed before. There is nothing new on this planet, just variations, modifications, additions and combinations
Without patents, there are no patent lawyers - you save big on legal.
Without patents, products could get to market 3-5yrs faster, providing revenue streams sooner.
Without patents, consumers would be given more choice, as companies innovate continually to compete, not simply creating one new idea and profiting indefinately.
Lastly, troll/predatory companies can't exist: they can not simply engage in blocking tactics with a legal construct.
So, a world without patents would have an explosion of new ideas, run more efficiently, provide returns on investment sooner, and deliver new products to consumers faster and at a lower cost.
It's only equal if the two entities are of similar size... in other words, the little guy has to fight for 25yrs and spend more money on legal fees than the average individual earns in their lifetime: the corporations on the other hand have the millions to spend, and for them millions are a rounding error on the balance sheet.
I agree with the majority of this thread: Patents do little to encourage the small guy, and basically ensure that large corporations can run riot with little worry. Let's face it: No matter what Sony has to pay now, they have already re-profited from the earnings many times over. To many people the "walkman" is synonymous with "sony", and I would suggest that the walkman is what made sony the electronics giant that it is, in much the same way as the minivan made Chrysler profitable again...
Said if before, but I'll just repeat myself for fun: Patents are Bad.
I did my Oracle cert as an 8i developer back in 2000, and I gotta agree with you...Oracle Reports is less than intuitive. It's a tricky lil' idea, where the placement of the objects in the design creates the hierarchies and dependencies. I'm glad to say I've never touched it since...
I'm sure someone thought it was a good idea, and imho all it proves is that something are in fact not better displayed graphically, but good ole fashioned code...
This reminds me of the "you have encryption tools, you must have something to hide" bit from a couple of months ago...
There is absolutely nothing illegal about having encryption tools, or having wiped your HDD with something stronger than a format.
Try:
He is cleaning an axe: he must be an axe murderer.
She has covered a car: the car underneath must be stolen.
He paid cash: he must be engaged in tax evasion.
There are lots of activities that honest people engage in every day for reasons that are their own ... I think the reason we see this is because poeple don't understand technology, and so anything can be considered dangerous, malicious or evidence of illegal activity.
Shortest path rules says this gets you fired for hacking...
I read a story somewhere (can't find it now, maybe someone else knows this story?) some scientist-type guy working on defence stuff figured out the combinations on the safes or some-such. I don't remember the exact who or what, but instead of fixing the security problem (when he reported it) their solution was to send a memo stating that the guy wasn't allowed near the safes anymore...
shortest path.
So, since IANAL, can you tell me which part of RICO lets you lock people up indefinately without a court date? I think the patriot act has stripped at least one very basic right - you know, the bit where you're innocent until proven guilty, and get to be tried by a jury of your peers, and get a day in court to defend yourself...
If granting that state dictatorial powers is not a shocking change, then i suggest that your sense of shock has been well dulled.
I'll leave you with a note from the past:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Having a democracy doesn't make a country immune to either error or immune to corrupt people pushing personal agendas.
I'm not saying I'd like to live in a dictatorship, since I do enjoy the personal freedoms we have ... but let's not live in a fairy-make-believe-land where everything here is perfect. ...and anyways, it seems to me that we're making pretty quick with the give-up-the-freedoms-for-security gig right now and we could be just half a step away from losing large chunks of freedom, and being no better off than the chinese...
boy, won't you be pissed when you log in later and discover that your computer has already posted to /.
Blame Britain (for once it's not actually Canada! :)
And if anyone thinks for one moment that the kids aren't going to learn about sex and drugs and all kinds of nasty things on this planet, you are sadly mistakened.
Keeping it 'hidden' from them, filtering it, just isn't going to work. Kids will learn about sex from somewhere. If you as a parent actually talk to them and discuss these issues then you have the opportunity to help them develop healthy attitudes. Ignore it, and they may find some pretty twisted views and rolemodels and use those to formulate their opinions and actions.
Of course the flaw in this lil' plan is that parents have to actually be involved in their children's lives, and can't just demand the state do a halfassed job for you...
China blocks for all citizens, and they lock up people who work around it.
(So Far) the Aussie is only talking about adopting an opt-in policy. Meaning that people who want to see an unfiltered view of the net can request it. No one's going to get locked up for working around it, since anyone who wants pr0n can just ask...
I am glad that I'm not in Australia though, because all this means is an increased cost of internet to everyone for a system that can't possibly work, but will leave parents with a false sense of security and a higher taxation rate to pay for "enforcement"...oh, and a list of deviants for the governement to use if there's some kind of problem.
Charges are pending.
i'd have to say that radio is already dying. right now. about the last place i regularly listen to the radio is in the car.
an am/fm tuner costs pennies to add to a multi-ten-thousand dollar product, so i don't see it being removed any time soon. my *2000* nissan altima still had a frikin' tape/cd combo unit...tape! who the hell still has tapes since 1985?!?
I think I saw recent numbers somewhere about total TV watching ... it's (IIRC) a couple-three hours a day on average, so 14-28hrs a week depending on age etc.
Since most series are 1-hr, and most sit-coms are 30-min, that means most people watch only 2-6 shows on any given night.
Personally, I only watch about 3-5 shows a week - say $10/week = $40, which is pretty much my monthly cable bill... imho, $2/show is too much. Maybe $5-$10 for a series of (say 10-15 shows) like Lost or Prison Break, and they would be available for download at the same time as they air...otherwise, I'd rather either tape/Tivo/PVR/whatever it or download it later if I'm busy when it airs. They need to remember that they are competing with 'free-to-tape' when they set the price...
This is exactly why we still transcribe the written word by hand.
This is why we still have the pony-express delivering mail.
This is why we still use the telegraph to send messages.
The "middleman" is anyone who performs no direct service other than to interface between two others. Over all of history, changes in technology have altered, diminished or even eliminated the middleman, as the two interested parties were able to more easily negotiate their own communication.
Today, my good friend, that change is called The Internet. And the label is the middleman. And the internet makes the label obsolete.
hmmm ... I see the middlemen have been here before me, spreading their fear that the world will come to an end if they don't get their cut. ... that's sad.
In your vision of the world without middlemen you can't make a living by any means other than minimum wage jobs
The secret bit that they don't want you to realise is that marketers will look for products to market; and in the absence of existing products they will simply hire creative people to create stuff to market; so your "job" as a creator is 100% safe.
What's not safe is the middleman's income. The billions in profit that they make for selling your idea over and over again (while you only got paid once). And don't think that a scientist has a guaranteed job at any given company: If management feels that you specifically, or your group in general isn't making them their minimum return - you will be fired/layed-off/downsized/rightsized/whatever.
I'll say it again:
The middleman needs the creator, the creator doesn't need the middleman.*
Want proof? Linux. With (essentially) zero marketing and no middleman, Linus has created a product that is used by everyone (directly or indirectly) in the industrialised world today. Better: the product has spawned income generation sources for private individuals on up to giant software companies.
So ... if you really are a scientist, you of all people need worry the least about this anti-protectionist movement ... you're the one everyone needs.
*those who wish to argue this statement should first contrast the words "need" and "want".
I find it interesting that the more I read on music, the more apparent it is to me that there are a very few (dozens, maybe hundreds) out of the millions of bands that actually make rock-star kinda money.
For the rest: it's just a dream the label sold them.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that most bands are not giving up much 'fortune' without a major label. Most bands can probably make just as much money w/o the label as with, and this would leave the band to make their music, their way, and reach their fans which most claim to be the reason they started in the first place.
See the lil' secret that all middlemen don't want people to know is that they have no discernable skill of their own, other than profiting off the backs of others...(see patents & copyrights -- it's the middleman fighting for protections). The creators don't need middlemen, but middlemen sure as hell need the creative...
sadly my local library does not have this title ... please elaborate.
thnx.
Ok, unless you have some special powers the rest of us don't, you don't know this as a fact. The current set of patent holders would like to convince everyone (and it's been quite successful) that w/o protections no one would invent.
As I pointed out earlier, for this to be true there could be no invention that predated protections.
Reality #1: Drug companies make billions of dollars of profits. I'm not opposed to profits - that is what companies do, but the patent protection is giving them monopoly profits. Them there monopoly profits are much bigger than those that people can earn in a competative market place. Where do you think those profits come from? Does that help or hurt your personal bottom line as a consumer? Patents are (if anything) anti-capitalistic, not pro-capitalistic.
Reality #2: For some reason Bayer continues to be able to sell 'Aspirin' right along side 'ASA' (here in Canada the trademark is valid), and for some reason, even though the cheaper house-brand sits right next to it on the shelf, people still shell out for the brand name... weird, huh? This tells me, that the 'inventor' even w/o protections can somehow still compete and make a profit...
What all this tells me is that there is still nothing that conclusively convinces me that the protections are needed. It's just middlemen fearmongering; telling you that the human spirit is somehow tied to their profits...of course their pitch is a little more slick than how I just said it.
Completely and utterly revoke all non-physical property laws.
The only people that seem to be calling out for protections are middlemen, not inventors. The human race has been creative since the dawn of time: whether it's music, art, or any one of inventions (like the lil' disk we call a "wheel") that predates all modern inventions, and upon which all modern inventions are based (in some way, shape or form) - - they all have one thing in common: they were made in the complete absence of any protection whatsoever.
Patents 'fixed' something that wasn't broken, and yes, an entire industry was built around it, and yes, if patents are removed some people will lose some money. But the more important issue is that the human race will win, and it will remove the imbalance and inherent problems created when artificial scarcity was created, and your physical property rights were usurped by the notion of intellect as property.
If people can't see that having to deal with thousands of patents will only diminish innovation in the long run then... well f*^&@!!! people! I can't dumb it down much further. How about:
"Patents Bad"
Give us protection, or there won't be any innovation!
Of course for that to be true, there couldn't have been any innovation or creation before IP ... and yet...?
To be human is to be creative.
You're as likely to stop human creativity as to stop the tides, the winds or this little rock spinning 'round the sun.
Even these IP laws won't stop creativity: Creativity will just move to where it can be free. America was the destination for scientists and artists in the last hundred years because in America they were free to create. IP strips that freedom, and will cause the creative to seek refuge elsewhere.
Yes -- we wouldn't want more artists to expand on their work. This would take away, diminish, undermine and otherwise dammage the Beatles.
Afterall, it couldn't possibly bring a whole new generation to listen to their work?
Close ... it will be CowboyNeal's descendants (after the hostile take-over) ... not yours.
Hey let's try and keep a grip: neighbour is a relative term in Alaska...