It's one of the leading factors behind my motivation to stop working for someone else and start working for myself. After almost 3 years, the workload has increased to the point where I'm getting ready to build a team; my biggest fear is that I won't be able to find anyone who knows how to use what works.
You could have read the rest of the thread before posting and found an example of exactly what I'm talking about, including a screenshot and a link to where it was reported here in November. That would have been a good alternative to making yourself look like a MS shill by claiming that, since it doesn't happen to you, it must not happen at all.
They're not billing the Switch as a handheld, they're calling it a full-blown console with a portable mode, which is precisely what it is. Proof? What console did it replace? The DS? No, the Wii U.
To be honest, this is the first console I've seen from them that made me think they should just leave the hardware market altogether. I had hints of that thought with the Wii, but the execution was interesting and novel, so I went with it. I ended up buying a Wii U, as well, and certainly do not regret it. In all likelihood, though, I'll not be getting a Switch
Almost certainly not, as they've just released a system that is actually less capable than the Wii U it is supposed to replace; the Wii U being a relatively short-lived system, seeing a production run of only 5 years, with support ending rather abruptly at the end. The Switch runs an underclocked Tegra X1 CPU, 4 ARM cores running at 1.02Ghz; the Wii U runs on 3 PPC cores clocked at 1.24Ghz. The switch may have 1 more core, but the cores, overall, are slower once you factor in IPC and several other factors; at best, performance may be comparable. It may have a better GPU, but that's arguable; BotW comparisons I've seen have roughly half favored the Wii U and half favored the Switch. Perhaps if they weren't also severely underclocking the GPU, even when docked? Honestly, the Switch seems more like a regression than an upgrade; single display output only, which rules out games like Super Mario Maker and Mario Party 10's Bowser Party Mode. Keep in mind, SMM was one of the top selling Wii U games. Mario Party may not have been a top seller, but Bowser Party Mode was damn cool, and can't really be done without giving the player playing as Bowser their own screen.
In all, the Switch is a downgrade across the board. It's, flat out, a less capable system than the Wii U. I wouldn't think it a loser if it were replacing one of Nintendo's handhelds, or adding to the handheld lineup; it would be quite the winner at that, but that's not what it is. It's a loser at what it's intended to be: an upgrade to the Wii U.
You know, I was actually with you this time, right up until compulsory licensing. That's a gray area, at best. It's certainly something to discuss, but... consider that forcing the sale or licensing of an idea or product is, itself, a fairly strict control.
I'm only up at the moment because I was woken by a client for a server issue (since resolved), so don't take what I'm writing here as my final word on this post; it's just a quick note to let you know: I hear you and I'll write something more thoughtful when I'm not encumbered by a sleep addled brain.
It's rare to see a well-reasoned post like this on Slashdot, anymore; please, keep it up. I learn something every day; it's become increasingly rare for it to happen here, though.
My argument was not that there was still progress, it was that we did not see a decline in progress. That is, progress did not slow. A net negative is a decline; absent that, there is no net negative; there was no decline when patents were introduced; ergo, patents are not a net negative.
I also reference pre- and post-1450 Venice and pre- and post-500BC Rome. It is also worth pointing out that, if patents were a net negative as you claim, we'd see a decline where patents are introduced; and we do not. I never claimed they were a leading contribution to progress, let alone the leading contribution; those are words you put in my mouth. And here you are, trying to stuff them back in there again.
Sorry, not gonna swallow that pill.
Your argument was that patents were a net negative. I've shown plenty of evidence to disprove that. Pharmaceutical advancements, alone, are a net positive when weighed against all of the negatives; anything beyond that is simply icing on the cake.
Any time there were two otherwise similar countries, the one without patents, or even the weaker patent system, was the more innovative.
And that's why post-500BC Greeks were the most technologically advanced and best educated society of their time, right? Because they didn't have patents? Wait. No. They actually did! They exchanged temporary protection of profit for public release of information, and the result was that everyone who was interested could learn from that information, leading to a more enlightened society.
Also, and this is very important, the ones without patents had much more competition and much less consolidation.
Yes, the competition was the guy who spent his time and money, and had R&D costs to recoup and, therefore must sell at a higher price to do so, versus the many other guys who stole his invention and did not have those costs. Do you not see how that disincentives invention? Yes, let me sink all of my time and my life savings into making something to improve the world, just so some asshole can come along and undercut me so I lose everything.
There is still competition with patents; make something better. It's really that simple. Find a better way to do what I'm doing than I found. Hell, it really doesn't even have to be better, just different.
Recent bouts of bad (vague and/or obvious) patents have undercut that a bit, I won't even argue that point. However, those can be fought and thrown out; and that's often what happens when such a patent is used offensively. If you're not inventing because you're afraid some dipshit with an invalid patent might sue you, the real reason you're not inventing is that you simply don't have ideas.
The real question, though, is what would you rather have? A world with limited intellectual protection, where you might spend billions to develop a life saving drug, knowing that you'll make that money back once the drug hits the market? Or a world where nobody wants to put up those billions because they'll be undercut for pennies on the dollar right out of the gate, when you really need that drug.
As someone who has to compete on that playing field, you know what? I'll concede to letting someone who spent their time and money developing something have a limited monopoly on it, during which I may find a way to improve upon their work. And, if someone finds a way to improve upon my work, more power to them as well.
Sure, $20 gadgets could be $5 gadgets if they could be made by companies that didn't have to repay investors who put up R&D funding; but, then, who would invest in that R&D? We're well past the guy building a printing press in his garage, my thanks to Gutenberg for his contribution, and well into the era where your typical inventor can't bring a product to market without investors; and you can't get investors without some guarantee (no matter how tenuous) of profit. No funding = no R&R. No R&D = no gadgets, $5, $20, or otherwise. Or, are you proposing we only allow the wealthy to invent?
Perhaps I am ignoring it because it's simply not true. What is your proof for this extraordinary claim?
The internet? Built on privately held and developed communication infrastructure.
The power grid? Privately held and developed.
Military arms? Sure, that's largely government funded, but still patent protected; were it not, the government could lead one contractor on to develop a weapon, then take the plans to another contractor, who didn't have R&D costs to recoup, for cheaper manufacturing.
Pharma? Private, and exorbitantly expensive to develop and bring to market without investors, who you won't find without some guarantee that, should the drug, treatment, procedure, or device be successful in its goals, money will come in. That guarantee is called a patent; without it, a company that didn't have billions invested in R&D for a drug could step in and start making that drug on day one, selling for pennies when the company that developed it has to sell for dollars. Does it get abused as an excuse for charging way more than necessary? Sure it does. The alternative, though, is nobody having funding to create these drugs, treatments, procedures, and devices in the first place. Without patents, we'd still have an average 40 year lifespan.
Had Bloom patented it (he did not), in addition to failing to bring it to market, I might be inclined to agree that patents hurt that situation. However, not only did Bloom fail to bring the product to market, he failed to patent the idea, and we should all be damn glad for that, lest Sadow not have been able to bring his invention to market in 1970 due to Bloom's abandoned patent, which would have been valid until at least 1975.
While invention is great and should be encouraged, it's really and truly useless unless it results in a usable product, which Bloom's invention (which differed greatly in design from Sadow's, mind you, so it is quite unrealistic to say Sadow did not invent) did not. As in the other thread re: Apple, perhaps a Jobs-esque personality could have stepped in and brought Bloom's invention to market, but that did not happen and, thus, nobody talks about Bloom luggage.
Woz wasn't interested in turning his creation into a business, he wanted to publish the schematics openly. Had Jobs not convinced him otherwise (making a concession in allowing him to publish technical information and schematics in the manual), history would never have heard of The Apple Computer Company.
Thank you for affirming as much of my argument as you did and, also, for the corrections in the second half of that post. That's some good information, of which I was not aware. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on shortening the term (of both, but primarily patents, as that's your focus)?
Right? The amount of shit I take for spending an hour writing and testing Bash scripts for deployment automation, instead of spending weeks learning and implementing $ci_tool_of_the_day, is insane! In the entirety of my career, I don't think I've spent as long writing and maintaining deployment scripts, for all of my projects, combined, as I'd have spent learning, installing, configuring, tracking down plugins for, testing, and fixing $ci_tool_of_the_day just once. And that, even, is ignoring the fact that, by the time the next project rolls around, $ci_tool_of_the_day will have changed and I'll still take shit for using the old tool on the new project.
Just because something is newer, or bigger, or flashier, or more expensive does not make it better! If you have something old, well-tested, reliable, small, lightweight, efficient, even if it's boring and free, that does the job in less time than another solution, the other solution is not better.
Conductive foam is cheap, it's been around for years, we know its properties, we know how it works, and it solves this problem. Like you, I think Nintendo made the right choice in implementing this fix.
I still think the Switch is an abysmal failure in design, but that's beside the point; this fix is good.
If you run that marathon and I do not, but I am legally allowed to claim your marathon run as my own and reap whatever rewards your hard work may have sewn... well, actually, a marathon is a really bad analogy here as, for a lot of people, simply running in the marathon is the reward.
Instead, let's have you spend billions of dollars and several years developing a new drug, which you have to sell at a price point of several dollars per pill in order to recover your costs in the time in which it is protected by a patent.
Now, let's take away that patent and allow competition on day one. Competition who didn't spend billions of dollars on R&D and, as a result, can sell for pennies per pill.
Do you still spend billions to develop that drug?
Let's assume you'll say yes, because you want to save lives, you'll spend those billions out of the goodness of your precious little heart.
You didn't have those billions when you decided you wanted to develop that drug. Those billions came from investors looking to turn a profit.
The question, then, becomes can you still develop that drug?
The answer, then, becomes no.
Patent protection ensures that the drug company that developed the drug is the only source for the drug, at least for long enough that they can recoup their costs and repay investors, assuming the drug works. Does it get abused by drug companies to waaaaaaaaaaaay overcharge for essential medications? Of course it does! Would those essential medications even exist without patent protection? Hell no.
That. Right there. That is how patents aid progress.
And I'm making that argument from a very anti-western-medicine (as it's currently practiced, as least) point of view.
patent holders change laws so that patents CAN be vague
In that world, do you think we'd successfully get rid of patents? Also, have you given thought to the implications of getting rid of patents?
use case law where patents can be vague
Case law that is contrary to the letter and spirit of the written law can be thrown out. It just takes a judge with a pair of balls to do it; just as it would require a judge with a pair of balls to enforce the existing laws in the first place.Then you ass
You are proposing that we roll back status quo, and assuming we won't end up in the same place we were before.
That is, in fact what I am proposing; and, it can actually be done if we get a judge or two to actually stand up for the law as written. As for the assumption, I'll refer you to your own point about case law, and what I said in response to that point. The difference, in my scenario, is that the case law which might be contested is actually supported by the letter and spirit of the written law and could not, thusly, be thrown out. It's not an assumption that it won't happen, it's a fact that, given substantive case law supporting the spirit and word of written law, it can't happen. Even if I'm wrong, we'd be no worse off than we are now, so there's no downside in trying.
Then you assume that activists won't bribe politicians to change the laws in their favor.
You assume I assume that. See scenario 1, as described in your previous post. Yes, it could happen, and we'd be no worse off than we are now if it did; there's still no downside in trying.
History shows us that you propose a completely unrealistic scenario.
History bears my scenario being much more likely to play out than the complete abolition of patents that others here are calling for.
I, myself, am not a statistician; I simply have a slightly above-average understanding of statistics. I was replying to someone who started their post with "As a statistician" and was referring to them "as a statistician". I also conceded that the post to which he was replying (not mine, by the way) was, as you're so astutely pointing out, poorly worded.
If the original event had a 1% probability, three compoundings at 1000% only makes it 99.001% probable.
I'd honestly like to see your math on that, as I'm fairly certain you're wrong. That said, I was simplifying the problem; here's my math:
It seems that, due to mathematical error, you were off by nearly 0.9% (ABS[999.001 - 99.001] = 0.8991; 0.8991 / 99.9001 = *.899%) and my simplification of the problem was off by less than 0.1% (ABS[99.9001 - 100] = 0.0999' 0.0999 / 99.9001 = 0.099%), on top of being faster to calculate and easier for the lay person to follow. How's that pedantry working out for you? Now I'm calling you out on basic math.
In any case, it seems we're both in agreement that Steve Jackson wasn't claiming >100% likelihood, as the poster to which I was replying seemed to imply.
Actually, you know what? I never argued that patents were "in the top 20 factors for progress". You, however, did argue the following:
No, patents inhibit progress more than they promote it.
Then, you later conceded:
You can make a sane argument that patents have had a positive net effect
Check and mate, my friend. Something can't inhibit progress more than it promotes it, while simultaneously having a positive net effect on progress. Again, you seek to defy logic or, at a minimum, wish to avoid admitting you've changed your position.
Sorry I missed that in my original post, I'm tracking several different threads of this conversation and hadn't initially realized it was you who made that ridiculous claim.
Things that happened after patents did not necessarily happen BECAUSE of patents.
And things that happened before telecommunications, effective transportation, strong economy, and even personal liberties (those are a relatively new phenomenon, remember) can't be said to track tightly to those things, either. Yet you made that claim.
You're just calling dibs on all the progress that happened after 1790 in the name of patents
And you're attributing progress that was made before 1790 to things that were not available until after. I, at least, have centuries of historical evidence backing my position. Venetian patents in 1450, most of which covered glass manufacturing processes, leading to massive advances in that field, which could have come about in centuries before, but didn't because... why? The many advances attributed to the post-500BC Roman empire, which could have come about in the centuries before the Greek patent system, bud didn't because... why? Your position, on the other hand, defies logic.
although I have no idea why you are using that date, instead of the 1624 date of the statute of monopolies
Because we are discussing US patent law, and the US didn't exist prior to 1776. That said, as I am referencing older patent systems as evidence of my position, I would consider it if it were anything like the patent systems I am referencing. However, it was not; the Statute of Monopolies required only that information be disseminated within a guild in order to be protected; that is, if the information leaked to, or a similar process or product was developed by another guild, the protected guild could prevent the use of that information or process, or the sale of that product. While the protections were very much the same, the requirement to enrich public knowledge was missing. You'll also note relatively slow progress in England, during the period when the Statute was in effect, when compared to regions which had proper patent systems in place; or, even, no patents at all. You'll also note faster progress coming out of places with proper patent systems, versus no patents at all.
When you consider history and facts, it's all pretty clear, really.
Your problem is that you don't isolate variables, so your data is useless garbage.
The reality is that it is impossible to isolate the relevant variables, here. Your problem is that you ignore history and logic.
You just use simple correlation without even considering basic context.
Oh, I considered context; just because I didn't write a 1000 page dissertation in a fucking Slashdot comment, detailing every consideration I made, does not mean I didn't make those considerations. What's in it for me to do so? Winning some imaginary fight with some anonymous dick on a messageboard? Yay.
and yet even before patents, we went from spears to printing presses
Yes, and in 1400, when that progress was made, it took years to manufacture a single one and the manufacturer knew the buyer and their intentions before manufacturing even began. Fast-forward a bit and we can now build the while thing in hours, popping a new one off the assembly line in minutes; the entire process of reverse-engineering and tooling for production would take less time today than it took Gutenberg to build that first press. He'd have spent all that time and money, just to be undercut on day one; he'd be ruined, today, without protection of some sort.
And you TOTALLY missed the point about personal liberties. Whether or not competition is too fierce for me to innovate without a legal monopoly is totally irrelevant if I'm a serf who can only be a serf, no matter how smart I am.
Oh, no, I got that. I even addressed it directly when I said
Go back and read that again. The lithographic masks (and, by extension, the physical layout of the chips) can't be protected by patents, but the manufacturing processes can be, and certainly were from day one. In 1989, an international treaty was signed which enacted copyright-like protections for those masks (and, by extension, the physical layout of the chips); however, the physical processes by which the chips are manufactured were (and still are as advances are made) covered by patents.
You can buy pre-1989 chips for cheap today because a 1989 manufacturing process patent would have expired in 2006 and a 1989 IPIC layout design protection would have expired in 1997. IPIC was replaced with some wording in a more recent WTO (TRIPS) treaty, which increases the minimum protection period from 8 years to 10, allowing WTO members to, at their discertion, offer protection terms of up to 15 years. This happened in 1995, so we even have open access to TRIPS-protected ICs designed between as recently as 2007 (and all of them designed before 2002).
We even have open access to manufacturing processes as recent as 1997 (more than modern enough for anything less complex than a post-2000 CPU, and even good enough for many of those) and very permissive licensing on all but the newest processes. You wouldn't want to use the newest processes, anyway, unless you were involved in their development and have a fine-grained understanding of how to develop for them; lacking that, the older processes are actually better, as they allow you to make a working chip, something you can't do on the newer processes without that understanding.
If you're going to quote history, at least know your history first. And, if you can't make it work with pre-2007 parts, I dare say you don't know what you're doing.
Are you implying that the wheeled suitcase was invented 1000 years ago, but nobody could make one because of a 17 year patent that couldn't have existed more than 227 years ago?
In fact, it was not invented into 1970, with the patent being granted in 1972; it was available in stores before the patent was granted. Upright wheeled luggage was invented and hit the market in 1987, a full two years before the roll-flat luggage patent expired. Prior to roll-flat luggage, collapsible luggage carts were available; they were quite popular in the 1960's.
No prior patent existed which prevented the invention or sale of the 1970 roll-flat luggage, and the 1972 roll-flat patent did not prevent the 1987 invention of the upright wheeled design, nor did it delay its entry into the marketplace.
The plural of anecdote is data; I have several, therefore I have data. There's really no confusion there. I'm also not ignoring the possibility of learning other information through other means; I'm acknowledging reality. If someone doesn't have the means to reverse engineer a product, and the schematics are not available, they have no other venue for learning how it works. If a product never physically exists, and the schematics are not available, there is no other venue for learning how it works.
If I'm wrong, please, show me. I relish the thought of being wrong, it's a learning opportunity. I don't fear it, I welcome it, and will be quite grateful to you if you can prove it.
Woz, as much as I respect the man, was only successful because of Jobs. Without the Jobs' of the world, bringing us packaged and ready-to-use products, the work of the Woz's of the world would be accessible only to the few who share similar knowledge and the ability to directly apply that knowledge. That is to say that, while Woz may have released his work into the public domain if Jobs hadn't been there to market it, you wouldn't be able to walk into an Apple store today and walk out with a fully functioning computer if he had.
In fact, without the Jobs' of the world, it's highly likely that chip fabs wouldn't have been built and Woz would never have been able to build the first Apple computer. Without some protection for the millions (back then; billions today) of dollars of R&D that go into building a fab and actually producing a chip, nobody in their right mind ever would have done so. Patents provide that protection; what's your proposed alternative?
Yes and no... Many patents are worded way too broadly, yet still granted. This is, indeed, a problem, as it prevents one from working around the patent. Of course, US patent law is written to prevent this, but it needs to be enforced as written in order to be effective.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one of the leading factors behind my motivation to stop working for someone else and start working for myself. After almost 3 years, the workload has increased to the point where I'm getting ready to build a team; my biggest fear is that I won't be able to find anyone who knows how to use what works.
You could have read the rest of the thread before posting and found an example of exactly what I'm talking about, including a screenshot and a link to where it was reported here in November. That would have been a good alternative to making yourself look like a MS shill by claiming that, since it doesn't happen to you, it must not happen at all.
How did you get "I don't like their hardware" out of what I wrote?
They're not billing the Switch as a handheld, they're calling it a full-blown console with a portable mode, which is precisely what it is. Proof? What console did it replace? The DS? No, the Wii U.
To be honest, this is the first console I've seen from them that made me think they should just leave the hardware market altogether. I had hints of that thought with the Wii, but the execution was interesting and novel, so I went with it. I ended up buying a Wii U, as well, and certainly do not regret it. In all likelihood, though, I'll not be getting a Switch
Almost certainly not, as they've just released a system that is actually less capable than the Wii U it is supposed to replace; the Wii U being a relatively short-lived system, seeing a production run of only 5 years, with support ending rather abruptly at the end. The Switch runs an underclocked Tegra X1 CPU, 4 ARM cores running at 1.02Ghz; the Wii U runs on 3 PPC cores clocked at 1.24Ghz. The switch may have 1 more core, but the cores, overall, are slower once you factor in IPC and several other factors; at best, performance may be comparable. It may have a better GPU, but that's arguable; BotW comparisons I've seen have roughly half favored the Wii U and half favored the Switch. Perhaps if they weren't also severely underclocking the GPU, even when docked? Honestly, the Switch seems more like a regression than an upgrade; single display output only, which rules out games like Super Mario Maker and Mario Party 10's Bowser Party Mode. Keep in mind, SMM was one of the top selling Wii U games. Mario Party may not have been a top seller, but Bowser Party Mode was damn cool, and can't really be done without giving the player playing as Bowser their own screen.
In all, the Switch is a downgrade across the board. It's, flat out, a less capable system than the Wii U. I wouldn't think it a loser if it were replacing one of Nintendo's handhelds, or adding to the handheld lineup; it would be quite the winner at that, but that's not what it is. It's a loser at what it's intended to be: an upgrade to the Wii U.
You know, I was actually with you this time, right up until compulsory licensing. That's a gray area, at best. It's certainly something to discuss, but... consider that forcing the sale or licensing of an idea or product is, itself, a fairly strict control.
I'm only up at the moment because I was woken by a client for a server issue (since resolved), so don't take what I'm writing here as my final word on this post; it's just a quick note to let you know: I hear you and I'll write something more thoughtful when I'm not encumbered by a sleep addled brain.
It's rare to see a well-reasoned post like this on Slashdot, anymore; please, keep it up. I learn something every day; it's become increasingly rare for it to happen here, though.
My argument was not that there was still progress, it was that we did not see a decline in progress. That is, progress did not slow. A net negative is a decline; absent that, there is no net negative; there was no decline when patents were introduced; ergo, patents are not a net negative.
I also reference pre- and post-1450 Venice and pre- and post-500BC Rome. It is also worth pointing out that, if patents were a net negative as you claim, we'd see a decline where patents are introduced; and we do not. I never claimed they were a leading contribution to progress, let alone the leading contribution; those are words you put in my mouth. And here you are, trying to stuff them back in there again.
Sorry, not gonna swallow that pill.
Your argument was that patents were a net negative. I've shown plenty of evidence to disprove that. Pharmaceutical advancements, alone, are a net positive when weighed against all of the negatives; anything beyond that is simply icing on the cake.
You mean the arguments you've been attributing to me, as I've certainly never made them. I think we might be done here.
Any time there were two otherwise similar countries, the one without patents, or even the weaker patent system, was the more innovative.
And that's why post-500BC Greeks were the most technologically advanced and best educated society of their time, right? Because they didn't have patents? Wait. No. They actually did! They exchanged temporary protection of profit for public release of information, and the result was that everyone who was interested could learn from that information, leading to a more enlightened society.
Also, and this is very important, the ones without patents had much more competition and much less consolidation.
Yes, the competition was the guy who spent his time and money, and had R&D costs to recoup and, therefore must sell at a higher price to do so, versus the many other guys who stole his invention and did not have those costs. Do you not see how that disincentives invention? Yes, let me sink all of my time and my life savings into making something to improve the world, just so some asshole can come along and undercut me so I lose everything.
There is still competition with patents; make something better. It's really that simple. Find a better way to do what I'm doing than I found. Hell, it really doesn't even have to be better, just different.
Recent bouts of bad (vague and/or obvious) patents have undercut that a bit, I won't even argue that point. However, those can be fought and thrown out; and that's often what happens when such a patent is used offensively. If you're not inventing because you're afraid some dipshit with an invalid patent might sue you, the real reason you're not inventing is that you simply don't have ideas.
The real question, though, is what would you rather have? A world with limited intellectual protection, where you might spend billions to develop a life saving drug, knowing that you'll make that money back once the drug hits the market? Or a world where nobody wants to put up those billions because they'll be undercut for pennies on the dollar right out of the gate, when you really need that drug.
As someone who has to compete on that playing field, you know what? I'll concede to letting someone who spent their time and money developing something have a limited monopoly on it, during which I may find a way to improve upon their work. And, if someone finds a way to improve upon my work, more power to them as well.
Sure, $20 gadgets could be $5 gadgets if they could be made by companies that didn't have to repay investors who put up R&D funding; but, then, who would invest in that R&D? We're well past the guy building a printing press in his garage, my thanks to Gutenberg for his contribution, and well into the era where your typical inventor can't bring a product to market without investors; and you can't get investors without some guarantee (no matter how tenuous) of profit. No funding = no R&R. No R&D = no gadgets, $5, $20, or otherwise. Or, are you proposing we only allow the wealthy to invent?
Sorry, patents are a necessary evil today.
Perhaps I am ignoring it because it's simply not true. What is your proof for this extraordinary claim?
The internet? Built on privately held and developed communication infrastructure.
The power grid? Privately held and developed.
Military arms? Sure, that's largely government funded, but still patent protected; were it not, the government could lead one contractor on to develop a weapon, then take the plans to another contractor, who didn't have R&D costs to recoup, for cheaper manufacturing.
Pharma? Private, and exorbitantly expensive to develop and bring to market without investors, who you won't find without some guarantee that, should the drug, treatment, procedure, or device be successful in its goals, money will come in. That guarantee is called a patent; without it, a company that didn't have billions invested in R&D for a drug could step in and start making that drug on day one, selling for pennies when the company that developed it has to sell for dollars. Does it get abused as an excuse for charging way more than necessary? Sure it does. The alternative, though, is nobody having funding to create these drugs, treatments, procedures, and devices in the first place. Without patents, we'd still have an average 40 year lifespan.
Had Bloom patented it (he did not), in addition to failing to bring it to market, I might be inclined to agree that patents hurt that situation. However, not only did Bloom fail to bring the product to market, he failed to patent the idea, and we should all be damn glad for that, lest Sadow not have been able to bring his invention to market in 1970 due to Bloom's abandoned patent, which would have been valid until at least 1975.
While invention is great and should be encouraged, it's really and truly useless unless it results in a usable product, which Bloom's invention (which differed greatly in design from Sadow's, mind you, so it is quite unrealistic to say Sadow did not invent) did not. As in the other thread re: Apple, perhaps a Jobs-esque personality could have stepped in and brought Bloom's invention to market, but that did not happen and, thus, nobody talks about Bloom luggage.
Woz wasn't interested in turning his creation into a business, he wanted to publish the schematics openly. Had Jobs not convinced him otherwise (making a concession in allowing him to publish technical information and schematics in the manual), history would never have heard of The Apple Computer Company.
To clarify my point.
Thank you for affirming as much of my argument as you did and, also, for the corrections in the second half of that post. That's some good information, of which I was not aware. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on shortening the term (of both, but primarily patents, as that's your focus)?
Right? The amount of shit I take for spending an hour writing and testing Bash scripts for deployment automation, instead of spending weeks learning and implementing $ci_tool_of_the_day, is insane! In the entirety of my career, I don't think I've spent as long writing and maintaining deployment scripts, for all of my projects, combined, as I'd have spent learning, installing, configuring, tracking down plugins for, testing, and fixing $ci_tool_of_the_day just once. And that, even, is ignoring the fact that, by the time the next project rolls around, $ci_tool_of_the_day will have changed and I'll still take shit for using the old tool on the new project.
Just because something is newer, or bigger, or flashier, or more expensive does not make it better! If you have something old, well-tested, reliable, small, lightweight, efficient, even if it's boring and free, that does the job in less time than another solution, the other solution is not better.
Conductive foam is cheap, it's been around for years, we know its properties, we know how it works, and it solves this problem. Like you, I think Nintendo made the right choice in implementing this fix.
I still think the Switch is an abysmal failure in design, but that's beside the point; this fix is good.
The games won't stop, just the consoles. They'll have to release for 3rd party consoles sooner rather than later or, well, they really are done.
If you run that marathon and I do not, but I am legally allowed to claim your marathon run as my own and reap whatever rewards your hard work may have sewn... well, actually, a marathon is a really bad analogy here as, for a lot of people, simply running in the marathon is the reward.
Instead, let's have you spend billions of dollars and several years developing a new drug, which you have to sell at a price point of several dollars per pill in order to recover your costs in the time in which it is protected by a patent.
Now, let's take away that patent and allow competition on day one. Competition who didn't spend billions of dollars on R&D and, as a result, can sell for pennies per pill.
Do you still spend billions to develop that drug?
Let's assume you'll say yes, because you want to save lives, you'll spend those billions out of the goodness of your precious little heart.
You didn't have those billions when you decided you wanted to develop that drug. Those billions came from investors looking to turn a profit.
The question, then, becomes can you still develop that drug?
The answer, then, becomes no.
Patent protection ensures that the drug company that developed the drug is the only source for the drug, at least for long enough that they can recoup their costs and repay investors, assuming the drug works. Does it get abused by drug companies to waaaaaaaaaaaay overcharge for essential medications? Of course it does! Would those essential medications even exist without patent protection? Hell no.
That. Right there. That is how patents aid progress.
And I'm making that argument from a very anti-western-medicine (as it's currently practiced, as least) point of view.
patent holders change laws so that patents CAN be vague
In that world, do you think we'd successfully get rid of patents? Also, have you given thought to the implications of getting rid of patents?
use case law where patents can be vague
Case law that is contrary to the letter and spirit of the written law can be thrown out. It just takes a judge with a pair of balls to do it; just as it would require a judge with a pair of balls to enforce the existing laws in the first place.Then you ass
You are proposing that we roll back status quo, and assuming we won't end up in the same place we were before.
That is, in fact what I am proposing; and, it can actually be done if we get a judge or two to actually stand up for the law as written. As for the assumption, I'll refer you to your own point about case law, and what I said in response to that point. The difference, in my scenario, is that the case law which might be contested is actually supported by the letter and spirit of the written law and could not, thusly, be thrown out. It's not an assumption that it won't happen, it's a fact that, given substantive case law supporting the spirit and word of written law, it can't happen. Even if I'm wrong, we'd be no worse off than we are now, so there's no downside in trying.
Then you assume that activists won't bribe politicians to change the laws in their favor.
You assume I assume that. See scenario 1, as described in your previous post. Yes, it could happen, and we'd be no worse off than we are now if it did; there's still no downside in trying.
History shows us that you propose a completely unrealistic scenario.
History bears my scenario being much more likely to play out than the complete abolition of patents that others here are calling for.
If the original event had a 1% probability, three compoundings at 1000% only makes it 99.001% probable.
I'd honestly like to see your math on that, as I'm fairly certain you're wrong. That said, I was simplifying the problem; here's my math:
1000 / 100 = 10
0.1 * 10 = 1
1 * 10 = 10
10 * 10 = 100
And here's the correct math for the method you were attempting to apply:
100 - 0.1 = 99.9
99.9 * (1 / 10) = 99.9 * 0.1 = 9.99
9.99 * 0.1 = 0.999
0.999 * 0.1 = 0.0999
100 - 0.0999 = 99.9001%
It seems that, due to mathematical error, you were off by nearly 0.9% (ABS[999.001 - 99.001] = 0.8991; 0.8991 / 99.9001 = *.899%) and my simplification of the problem was off by less than 0.1% (ABS[99.9001 - 100] = 0.0999' 0.0999 / 99.9001 = 0.099%), on top of being faster to calculate and easier for the lay person to follow. How's that pedantry working out for you? Now I'm calling you out on basic math.
In any case, it seems we're both in agreement that Steve Jackson wasn't claiming >100% likelihood, as the poster to which I was replying seemed to imply.
No, patents inhibit progress more than they promote it.
Then, you later conceded:
You can make a sane argument that patents have had a positive net effect
Check and mate, my friend. Something can't inhibit progress more than it promotes it, while simultaneously having a positive net effect on progress. Again, you seek to defy logic or, at a minimum, wish to avoid admitting you've changed your position.
Sorry I missed that in my original post, I'm tracking several different threads of this conversation and hadn't initially realized it was you who made that ridiculous claim.
Correlation dose not equal causation.
Right.
Things that happened after patents did not necessarily happen BECAUSE of patents.
And things that happened before telecommunications, effective transportation, strong economy, and even personal liberties (those are a relatively new phenomenon, remember) can't be said to track tightly to those things, either. Yet you made that claim.
You're just calling dibs on all the progress that happened after 1790 in the name of patents
And you're attributing progress that was made before 1790 to things that were not available until after. I, at least, have centuries of historical evidence backing my position. Venetian patents in 1450, most of which covered glass manufacturing processes, leading to massive advances in that field, which could have come about in centuries before, but didn't because... why? The many advances attributed to the post-500BC Roman empire, which could have come about in the centuries before the Greek patent system, bud didn't because... why? Your position, on the other hand, defies logic.
although I have no idea why you are using that date, instead of the 1624 date of the statute of monopolies
Because we are discussing US patent law, and the US didn't exist prior to 1776. That said, as I am referencing older patent systems as evidence of my position, I would consider it if it were anything like the patent systems I am referencing. However, it was not; the Statute of Monopolies required only that information be disseminated within a guild in order to be protected; that is, if the information leaked to, or a similar process or product was developed by another guild, the protected guild could prevent the use of that information or process, or the sale of that product. While the protections were very much the same, the requirement to enrich public knowledge was missing. You'll also note relatively slow progress in England, during the period when the Statute was in effect, when compared to regions which had proper patent systems in place; or, even, no patents at all. You'll also note faster progress coming out of places with proper patent systems, versus no patents at all.
When you consider history and facts, it's all pretty clear, really.
Your problem is that you don't isolate variables, so your data is useless garbage.
The reality is that it is impossible to isolate the relevant variables, here. Your problem is that you ignore history and logic.
You just use simple correlation without even considering basic context.
Oh, I considered context; just because I didn't write a 1000 page dissertation in a fucking Slashdot comment, detailing every consideration I made, does not mean I didn't make those considerations. What's in it for me to do so? Winning some imaginary fight with some anonymous dick on a messageboard? Yay.
and yet even before patents, we went from spears to printing presses
Yes, and in 1400, when that progress was made, it took years to manufacture a single one and the manufacturer knew the buyer and their intentions before manufacturing even began. Fast-forward a bit and we can now build the while thing in hours, popping a new one off the assembly line in minutes; the entire process of reverse-engineering and tooling for production would take less time today than it took Gutenberg to build that first press. He'd have spent all that time and money, just to be undercut on day one; he'd be ruined, today, without protection of some sort.
And you TOTALLY missed the point about personal liberties. Whether or not competition is too fierce for me to innovate without a legal monopoly is totally irrelevant if I'm a serf who can only be a serf, no matter how smart I am.
Oh, no, I got that. I even addressed it directly when I said
Go back and read that again. The lithographic masks (and, by extension, the physical layout of the chips) can't be protected by patents, but the manufacturing processes can be, and certainly were from day one. In 1989, an international treaty was signed which enacted copyright-like protections for those masks (and, by extension, the physical layout of the chips); however, the physical processes by which the chips are manufactured were (and still are as advances are made) covered by patents.
Texas Instruments patented the manufacturing process in 1958. They largely ignored infringement until everybody started suing everybody else over it from 1962 to 1966.
You can buy pre-1989 chips for cheap today because a 1989 manufacturing process patent would have expired in 2006 and a 1989 IPIC layout design protection would have expired in 1997. IPIC was replaced with some wording in a more recent WTO (TRIPS) treaty, which increases the minimum protection period from 8 years to 10, allowing WTO members to, at their discertion, offer protection terms of up to 15 years. This happened in 1995, so we even have open access to TRIPS-protected ICs designed between as recently as 2007 (and all of them designed before 2002).
We even have open access to manufacturing processes as recent as 1997 (more than modern enough for anything less complex than a post-2000 CPU, and even good enough for many of those) and very permissive licensing on all but the newest processes. You wouldn't want to use the newest processes, anyway, unless you were involved in their development and have a fine-grained understanding of how to develop for them; lacking that, the older processes are actually better, as they allow you to make a working chip, something you can't do on the newer processes without that understanding.
If you're going to quote history, at least know your history first. And, if you can't make it work with pre-2007 parts, I dare say you don't know what you're doing.
Are you implying that the wheeled suitcase was invented 1000 years ago, but nobody could make one because of a 17 year patent that couldn't have existed more than 227 years ago?
In fact, it was not invented into 1970, with the patent being granted in 1972; it was available in stores before the patent was granted. Upright wheeled luggage was invented and hit the market in 1987, a full two years before the roll-flat luggage patent expired. Prior to roll-flat luggage, collapsible luggage carts were available; they were quite popular in the 1960's.
No prior patent existed which prevented the invention or sale of the 1970 roll-flat luggage, and the 1972 roll-flat patent did not prevent the 1987 invention of the upright wheeled design, nor did it delay its entry into the marketplace.
How did patents hurt us, here?
The plural of anecdote is data; I have several, therefore I have data. There's really no confusion there. I'm also not ignoring the possibility of learning other information through other means; I'm acknowledging reality. If someone doesn't have the means to reverse engineer a product, and the schematics are not available, they have no other venue for learning how it works. If a product never physically exists, and the schematics are not available, there is no other venue for learning how it works.
If I'm wrong, please, show me. I relish the thought of being wrong, it's a learning opportunity. I don't fear it, I welcome it, and will be quite grateful to you if you can prove it.
Woz, as much as I respect the man, was only successful because of Jobs. Without the Jobs' of the world, bringing us packaged and ready-to-use products, the work of the Woz's of the world would be accessible only to the few who share similar knowledge and the ability to directly apply that knowledge. That is to say that, while Woz may have released his work into the public domain if Jobs hadn't been there to market it, you wouldn't be able to walk into an Apple store today and walk out with a fully functioning computer if he had.
In fact, without the Jobs' of the world, it's highly likely that chip fabs wouldn't have been built and Woz would never have been able to build the first Apple computer. Without some protection for the millions (back then; billions today) of dollars of R&D that go into building a fab and actually producing a chip, nobody in their right mind ever would have done so. Patents provide that protection; what's your proposed alternative?
Yes and no... Many patents are worded way too broadly, yet still granted. This is, indeed, a problem, as it prevents one from working around the patent. Of course, US patent law is written to prevent this, but it needs to be enforced as written in order to be effective.