no, it definitely villifies patents. basically if patents are detrimental to human progress and knowledge for any given duration, it means that they are detrimental for any duration.
and are you aware that profiting rights are basically as same as ownership rights ? after all, no feudal lords really owned the land they were sitting on - all of their profits were leased to them and their heirs for life by their king.
doesnt the need to 'readjust' patent durations because of the differences in different industry sectors direct out imply that longer 'ownership' 'rights' are detrimental to those sectors, and therefore villify patents.
second,
no, you are still not getting the point and point of the quote. in the quoted article, he says that claiming ownership of a thought or idea is illogical. that is a solid reason for unreasonability of patents.
consider jefferson's time to ours. its 1800s, a time when life, leave aside everything else, moves slow. everything takes long, including inventions and their subsequent implementation.
now consider our date. today, even a patent that has an 10 year duration is too long, because life is fast, technology moves fast.
in that context, a lifetime patent may have been logical in early 19th century, but, even 5 years, leave aside a decade, is too long for 21st century.
i didnt 'misread' the quote. i have provided the quote in order to stress the invalidity of the 'patents spur innovation' bullshit, and through that, invalidity of the concept of patents, through jefferson's words.
for, once you write off the 'patents spur innovation' delusion, only thing that remains is whether anyone can hold the right to concepts and ideas, like property. and jefferson further discredits that idea in his text. read the full text.
yea they cant do that, because they set precedent. if they didnt explicitly allow google to do that in their eula, they cannot discern against that website, on-demand.
he does. since he iterates that software patents to NOT spur innovation, or cause it at any point. and, thoughts and ideas cannot be counted as property and held natural rights over.
you would be surprised. google doesnt take 30 minutes to index something now. i posted a topic in kaspersky forums due to some av bug, and in no more than 30 minutes it appeared in google search.
well, you were rather low in the trenches. had you had any possibility of access to serious stuff, like an observatory time, or radio telescope, or direct video from the space station, things would be different.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Thomas Jefferson, founder member and director of USPTO.
In real simulation games you are forced to view the game through driver's view, which is LOWER than the field of view you would have in a real car, because 2d screen cannot accommodate a human's fov from a first person perspective.
so, argument is formulated wrong. its not 'videogame driving skills dont apply in real life', but, 'videogame driving skills in games that allow 3rd person view do not apply in real life'.
otherwise, all the simulators the military is using to train tank drivers, pilots, captains etc would mean bullshit.
yea. it is practically giving it away for free in the form of search. all i need to do is to create a google querier/scraper bot to get all that data out of google.
As to your second point, Facebook is quite welcome to grant an exception to their terms of service to anyone they want. So even if they consider Google's crawling to be a violation, they don't have any obligation to sue them. I'd guess he might have had some points in his favor (should he have contested this in court) if he could show that they were aware of his work and his intentions and they granted him permission to do so, but IANAL.
ah no they cant do that. most of the web is automated, and that is one of the main reasons why web is so functional and big as it is now.
accepting that automation when it fits your needs and refusing it when it doesnt, and force rest of the web to jump through hoops is not something that is acceptable.
The sun is simply throwing charged particles into that field, again from the Earth, at a rate that hasnt been seen since 2006
sun is not the only body that would create, or reflect particles coming towards it. any other planetary body in action can reflect a portion of whatever particle it is receiving to earth, if its nearby.
then its law's deficiency not to recognize the significance of it. ignoring its significance will also mean google is in the same status in regard to facebook as with this crawler. why they didnt sue them until this point ?
and you americans GOT to stop living in extremes, and tout every form of regulation, law, rule as 'communism'.
it is stupid.
there has to be controls over private owned companies PERIOD. else they may start embedding chips in employee's wrists, saying 'its for security'. and since you are a free market zealot, you probably unaware that this actually happened in california two years ago. numerous factories suddenly started implanting rfid chips in employees, and who didnt got along were 'let go'. it continued until california state senate banned the practice.
it isnt any different in ANY respect of life. when they were let be, they polluted, contaminated, even poisoned people for profit. until someone, and this has been always the government, told them to stop.
its precisely this naivete that you people have, the brain that, somehow, believes those with financial power, private corporations will not abuse them. and if they do abuses, everything will be sorted out 'by the market'. ironically, the very market which those corporations control, is expected to sort these corporations out.
if you are STILL insisting otherwise, explain me why we shouldnt abolish courts of law, abolish justice, abolish police, the legal system, and privatize all of these, including the military.
for, because, private sector will do all of these better, right ? and, the 'market' will sort out any issues if they arise, right ?
you dont need to say that. its irrelevant. i specifically said it doesnt matter whether a monopoly is government sanctioned, or won through the market. a monopoly is a monopoly in the end.
you people are talking about the mortgage incentives, and believing that because they allowed poor to mortgage houses and end up getting reposessed, crisis started. you are WRONG.
mortgages didnt lead to crisis. it was the HEDGE FUND scam that lead to the crisis. observe the below mathematics to see why the fuck mortgages cant lead entire world to come crashing down :
lets say a bank bought a house at its peak at an overinflated price of $500,000 and mortgaged it to someone.
and lets say, the house dropped to $300,000 in value after the crisis. that makes $200,000 loss a house, IF we exaggerate and say that each house that was mortgaged was bought at peak, and went down to bottom after crisis.
now,
it was said that 1 million americans risked losing their homes.
im going to exaggerate this, and say, not 1 million americans risk losing their homes (not 1 million comprising of fathers, mothers, kids, extended families, ie entire population), but 1 million houses are at the risk of being lost. as if every house was owned by a single person.
im going to FURTHER exaggerate it, and say not 1, but 3 times the houses are at the risk of being lost. which makes 3 million houses.
now lets see. if 3 million is the amount of risked, losing mortgages, what could be the entire loss of the industry ?
3 mil x $200,000 = $600 BILLION.
so, we take all the industry as having lost 600 billion. gone. water vapor. dust. no more. 600 billion dollars in the bin.
lets see now :
united states of america government provided 720 billion dollars in bailouts already.
europe, japan, switzerland combined, provided close to 1 billion dollars in bailouts already.
america further guaranteed providing up to 1 billion.
that makes 2 billion $ provided in bailouts in total.
THAT MAKES 3 TIMES THE LOSSES, WHICH I EXAGGERATED MORE THAN 3 TIMES.
therefore, entire world has provided NINE TIMES the entire money was lost already. and in addition, the houses are still there, and will eventually regain some of their value. its not like they burned down or vanished into an alternate dimension.
then why the fuck are we STILL in crisis ?
because it isnt about mortgages.
its about the hedge fund scam, which wall street did because noone was watching them.
basically, because they have scammed their assets to SIXTY times their value, and then proceeded onto lending TEN times that, lending out in total of SIX HUNDRED TIMES the money they had into borrowers, ENTIRE World was not able to provide SIX HUNDRED times the bailout they have made.
imagine.
2 billion x 600 the money needed in order to back the loans wall street made. noone has that kind of money.
this is why we are in crisis. precisely because of deregulation, precisely because noone went in and said "HEY, you are showing this asset again to me, and inflating it even 60x its value, and then asking me to allow you to lend other people money over this ? fuck off".
this was exactly the reason how madoff and similar other smaller players were able to run less eloquent, ages old scams even. they didnt even do hedge fund scam - they outright just paid the first investor's money with the investor next to him, totally old school scamming.
THEY SCAMMED US. its as plain and simple as that. and it happened because THEY WERENT REGULATED.
did free market work out the issues in wall street ?
stop believing that 'free market' religion. it NEVER existed at any point in human history, just like real communism. BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO IDEALISTIC AND CANT EXIST.
once a company acquires monopoly, it doesnt matter shit whether it acquired it through legitimate means, or underhand means. a monopoly is a monopoly.
its even stupider to expect the monopoly or near monopoly companies and groups not to ab use their power for their own profit, at the expense of the people or the free market. "oh, im near monopoly, i can lock out everyone and force my will upon everyone, but, well, i shouldnt do this, because it is unethical" => can you expect this from any executive officer of any company ?
"people will make choices, and all will be good" BUT WHO GETS STRONGEST FIRST DENIES THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHOICES. they lock them down into their stuff only. just like how 30% of america is locked down to one single ISP, just like how despite seemingly having an innumerable array of cleaning liquids/products in your local wal mart, more than half of them are produced by a single company, procter&gamble. choice is in the labeling only. source is the same.
below is an excerpt from another well made post by another user in/. in another thread :
"Free market capitalism has never been tried"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [wikipedia.org] "Free market economics is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants."
The USA tried something close to a laissez faire marketplace and it failed miserably. Starting in 1898, there was an explosion of regulation and the breaking up of monopolies. Free markets did not self-regulate. They polluted, colluded, abused the workforce, sold unhealthy foods, caused stock/bank crashes and a 101 other things. The EPA, SEC, FTC, FDA, OSHA, etc are all the direct result of that failed philosophy.
The problem with advocating a "free" market is that it is simply bad public policy to let a corporation kill 100 people and then settle the matter afterwards through the court. Ideology rarely succeeds in the real world.
internet is. once you hand over control of the radio, you already give out its control to them, and this is what private corporations has become used to. they want to have same kind of control, the one way street, in the case of internet too.
i also want to add that you are way, way, too naive. you shouldnt be doing any business deals, running any business, or getting into any contracts with anyone until you are older and wiser than you are now.
you want internet to become a cable tv clone ? thats what they are intending to do. they cover 25% of america each. if they are given the right to decide who sees what in their network, entire swaths of america will be denied content they dont want them to see. its TOTAL isp fascism.
wake up. there is NO tool but government to use against corporate fascism.
no sir. not as long as those national security oaths are required to be signed by u.s. government for everyone getting involved in astronomy or space programs, including numerous 'security treaties that extend their tentacles to whomever is collaborating with them, including europe.
Slashdot Mirror
no, it definitely villifies patents. basically if patents are detrimental to human progress and knowledge for any given duration, it means that they are detrimental for any duration.
and are you aware that profiting rights are basically as same as ownership rights ? after all, no feudal lords really owned the land they were sitting on - all of their profits were leased to them and their heirs for life by their king.
first,
doesnt the need to 'readjust' patent durations because of the differences in different industry sectors direct out imply that longer 'ownership' 'rights' are detrimental to those sectors, and therefore villify patents.
second,
no, you are still not getting the point and point of the quote. in the quoted article, he says that claiming ownership of a thought or idea is illogical. that is a solid reason for unreasonability of patents.
not as such.
consider jefferson's time to ours. its 1800s, a time when life, leave aside everything else, moves slow. everything takes long, including inventions and their subsequent implementation.
now consider our date. today, even a patent that has an 10 year duration is too long, because life is fast, technology moves fast.
in that context, a lifetime patent may have been logical in early 19th century, but, even 5 years, leave aside a decade, is too long for 21st century.
i didnt 'misread' the quote. i have provided the quote in order to stress the invalidity of the 'patents spur innovation' bullshit, and through that, invalidity of the concept of patents, through jefferson's words.
for, once you write off the 'patents spur innovation' delusion, only thing that remains is whether anyone can hold the right to concepts and ideas, like property. and jefferson further discredits that idea in his text. read the full text.
yea they cant do that, because they set precedent. if they didnt explicitly allow google to do that in their eula, they cannot discern against that website, on-demand.
he does. since he iterates that software patents to NOT spur innovation, or cause it at any point. and, thoughts and ideas cannot be counted as property and held natural rights over.
you would be surprised. google doesnt take 30 minutes to index something now. i posted a topic in kaspersky forums due to some av bug, and in no more than 30 minutes it appeared in google search.
well, you were rather low in the trenches. had you had any possibility of access to serious stuff, like an observatory time, or radio telescope, or direct video from the space station, things would be different.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Thomas Jefferson, founder member and director of USPTO.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
In real simulation games you are forced to view the game through driver's view, which is LOWER than the field of view you would have in a real car, because 2d screen cannot accommodate a human's fov from a first person perspective.
so, argument is formulated wrong. its not 'videogame driving skills dont apply in real life', but, 'videogame driving skills in games that allow 3rd person view do not apply in real life'.
otherwise, all the simulators the military is using to train tank drivers, pilots, captains etc would mean bullshit.
yea. it is practically giving it away for free in the form of search. all i need to do is to create a google querier/scraper bot to get all that data out of google.
As to your second point, Facebook is quite welcome to grant an exception to their terms of service to anyone they want. So even if they consider Google's crawling to be a violation, they don't have any obligation to sue them. I'd guess he might have had some points in his favor (should he have contested this in court) if he could show that they were aware of his work and his intentions and they granted him permission to do so, but IANAL.
ah no they cant do that. most of the web is automated, and that is one of the main reasons why web is so functional and big as it is now.
accepting that automation when it fits your needs and refusing it when it doesnt, and force rest of the web to jump through hoops is not something that is acceptable.
The sun is simply throwing charged particles into that field, again from the Earth, at a rate that hasnt been seen since 2006
sun is not the only body that would create, or reflect particles coming towards it. any other planetary body in action can reflect a portion of whatever particle it is receiving to earth, if its nearby.
ie through a script :
Anonymous Coward 138513
Anonymous Coward 138514
Anonymous Coward 138514
................
Anonymous Coward whatever
then its law's deficiency not to recognize the significance of it. ignoring its significance will also mean google is in the same status in regard to facebook as with this crawler. why they didnt sue them until this point ?
and you americans GOT to stop living in extremes, and tout every form of regulation, law, rule as 'communism'.
it is stupid.
there has to be controls over private owned companies PERIOD. else they may start embedding chips in employee's wrists, saying 'its for security'. and since you are a free market zealot, you probably unaware that this actually happened in california two years ago. numerous factories suddenly started implanting rfid chips in employees, and who didnt got along were 'let go'. it continued until california state senate banned the practice.
it isnt any different in ANY respect of life. when they were let be, they polluted, contaminated, even poisoned people for profit. until someone, and this has been always the government, told them to stop.
its precisely this naivete that you people have, the brain that, somehow, believes those with financial power, private corporations will not abuse them. and if they do abuses, everything will be sorted out 'by the market'. ironically, the very market which those corporations control, is expected to sort these corporations out.
if you are STILL insisting otherwise, explain me why we shouldnt abolish courts of law, abolish justice, abolish police, the legal system, and privatize all of these, including the military.
for, because, private sector will do all of these better, right ? and, the 'market' will sort out any issues if they arise, right ?
you dont need to say that. its irrelevant. i specifically said it doesnt matter whether a monopoly is government sanctioned, or won through the market. a monopoly is a monopoly in the end.
and you need to get reading comprehension.
no he was unity3^3
you people are talking about the mortgage incentives, and believing that because they allowed poor to mortgage houses and end up getting reposessed, crisis started. you are WRONG.
mortgages didnt lead to crisis. it was the HEDGE FUND scam that lead to the crisis. observe the below mathematics to see why the fuck mortgages cant lead entire world to come crashing down :
lets say a bank bought a house at its peak at an overinflated price of $500,000 and mortgaged it to someone.
and lets say, the house dropped to $300,000 in value after the crisis. that makes $200,000 loss a house, IF we exaggerate and say that each house that was mortgaged was bought at peak, and went down to bottom after crisis.
now,
it was said that 1 million americans risked losing their homes.
im going to exaggerate this, and say, not 1 million americans risk losing their homes (not 1 million comprising of fathers, mothers, kids, extended families, ie entire population), but 1 million houses are at the risk of being lost. as if every house was owned by a single person.
im going to FURTHER exaggerate it, and say not 1, but 3 times the houses are at the risk of being lost. which makes 3 million houses.
now lets see. if 3 million is the amount of risked, losing mortgages, what could be the entire loss of the industry ?
3 mil x $200,000 = $600 BILLION.
so, we take all the industry as having lost 600 billion. gone. water vapor. dust. no more. 600 billion dollars in the bin.
lets see now :
united states of america government provided 720 billion dollars in bailouts already.
europe, japan, switzerland combined, provided close to 1 billion dollars in bailouts already.
america further guaranteed providing up to 1 billion.
that makes 2 billion $ provided in bailouts in total.
THAT MAKES 3 TIMES THE LOSSES, WHICH I EXAGGERATED MORE THAN 3 TIMES.
therefore, entire world has provided NINE TIMES the entire money was lost already. and in addition, the houses are still there, and will eventually regain some of their value. its not like they burned down or vanished into an alternate dimension.
then why the fuck are we STILL in crisis ?
because it isnt about mortgages.
its about the hedge fund scam, which wall street did because noone was watching them.
basically, because they have scammed their assets to SIXTY times their value, and then proceeded onto lending TEN times that, lending out in total of SIX HUNDRED TIMES the money they had into borrowers, ENTIRE World was not able to provide SIX HUNDRED times the bailout they have made.
imagine.
2 billion x 600 the money needed in order to back the loans wall street made. noone has that kind of money.
this is why we are in crisis. precisely because of deregulation, precisely because noone went in and said "HEY, you are showing this asset again to me, and inflating it even 60x its value, and then asking me to allow you to lend other people money over this ? fuck off".
this was exactly the reason how madoff and similar other smaller players were able to run less eloquent, ages old scams even. they didnt even do hedge fund scam - they outright just paid the first investor's money with the investor next to him, totally old school scamming.
THEY SCAMMED US. its as plain and simple as that. and it happened because THEY WERENT REGULATED.
did free market work out the issues in wall street ?
stop believing that 'free market' religion. it NEVER existed at any point in human history, just like real communism. BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO IDEALISTIC AND CANT EXIST.
once a company acquires monopoly, it doesnt matter shit whether it acquired it through legitimate means, or underhand means. a monopoly is a monopoly.
its even stupider to expect the monopoly or near monopoly companies and groups not to ab use their power for their own profit, at the expense of the people or the free market. "oh, im near monopoly, i can lock out everyone and force my will upon everyone, but, well, i shouldnt do this, because it is unethical" => can you expect this from any executive officer of any company ?
"people will make choices, and all will be good" BUT WHO GETS STRONGEST FIRST DENIES THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHOICES. they lock them down into their stuff only. just like how 30% of america is locked down to one single ISP, just like how despite seemingly having an innumerable array of cleaning liquids/products in your local wal mart, more than half of them are produced by a single company, procter&gamble. choice is in the labeling only. source is the same.
below is an excerpt from another well made post by another user in /. in another thread :
"Free market capitalism has never been tried"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [wikipedia.org]
"Free market economics is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants."
The USA tried something close to a laissez faire marketplace and it failed miserably.
Starting in 1898, there was an explosion of regulation and the breaking up of monopolies.
Free markets did not self-regulate. They polluted, colluded, abused the workforce,
sold unhealthy foods, caused stock/bank crashes and a 101 other things.
The EPA, SEC, FTC, FDA, OSHA, etc are all the direct result of that failed philosophy.
The problem with advocating a "free" market is that it is simply bad public policy to let
a corporation kill 100 people and then settle the matter afterwards through the court.
Ideology rarely succeeds in the real world.
internet is. once you hand over control of the radio, you already give out its control to them, and this is what private corporations has become used to. they want to have same kind of control, the one way street, in the case of internet too.
i also want to add that you are way, way, too naive. you shouldnt be doing any business deals, running any business, or getting into any contracts with anyone until you are older and wiser than you are now.
you want internet to become a cable tv clone ? thats what they are intending to do. they cover 25% of america each. if they are given the right to decide who sees what in their network, entire swaths of america will be denied content they dont want them to see. its TOTAL isp fascism.
wake up. there is NO tool but government to use against corporate fascism.
blah bleh blah blah.
for i am going to post in this discussion and cant use mod points.
no sir. not as long as those national security oaths are required to be signed by u.s. government for everyone getting involved in astronomy or space programs, including numerous 'security treaties that extend their tentacles to whomever is collaborating with them, including europe.