And these are experts??? In what universe!?!?
We eliminate income and payroll taxes and put in consumption taxes - really fair, right? So, people who have a high income make their money here, consume in, say, Canada or France, etc., and pay no taxes at all, while people who can't afford that pay all the bills, and that's fair?
Who do these people work for - Romney? Oh, now I see, yes, very fair for people making millions per year!!!!
Einstein was RIGHT! The only thing we KNOW is infinite is human stupidity!
Wait - by and large, I agree with you. Money has FAR too much influence in all aspects of our life, and especially politics.
However, it would help if you didn't distort the issue. To the extent that Obama is pandering for money, shame! To the extent that he is avoiding "bad publicity" so that he CAN be reelected (thereby preventing Romney from permanently killing the effort), that is just being pragmatic - it could be a very good thing in the long run.
Don't "spin" it so it looks like only the negative, and ignores the positive!
Actually it is not just Big Pharma. Congress has directed the USPTO to "make money" (euphemism: revenue vs performance) at any cost, and the USPTO now awards patents (and most IP) strictly on the basis of how much you pay, with no regard to inventions versus anticompetitiveness.
I am 1) an IP attorney, and 2) well aware (apparently far more aware than the people exposing problems) of the very serious problems with the IP system AND the law. I am even beginning to favor abolition of IP law until we can fix the problems.
If anyone knows someone I should contact, I will do so, to explain how seriously IP law is harming our economy.
Write me at genecavanaugh@gmail.com if you have constructive suggestions on how we can undertake fixing these problems.
Well, we can spin it the way we want to see it (currently the "American way", where we simply do the Reagan thing, "Believe with your heart" aka "Be stupid, so I can give your money to the wealthy").
OR, we can recognize the truth (anyone listening? Oh, I forgot, "Believe with your heart").
The truth is, if anyone cares, that the USPTO has bought into a "revenue vs performance" model - them that pays a lot gets a lot. So, small entities that file as small entities (or even if they file as large entities, and can't stand the expense of "continued prosecution") find that their inventions, no matter how novel, are rejected out-of-hand, and examiners that don't - get bad reviews and eventually are canned.
So, patenting has become an impossible dream for small entities. That gives the patent trolls and anticompetitive large entities the power they have always lusted after.
As usual, we have a "pro" side and a "con" side, in which the good points on each side are ignored in the argument over who is "right".
Answer, neither and both. There are good points on each side, this is an analog world, which we are able to emulate digitally, which is not, and never will be, digital.
Nearly all scientific news comes from papers written by someone in the scientific community, and reformatted (usually carelessly and poorly due to time pressures) by professionals. The only problem is the reformatting, mostly terrible.
Case in point - the article said "Vitamin C has no benefits for heart patients" - the reformat in the LA Times (reprinted widely) said "Vitamin C has no benefits".
Fortunately the reprint is so bizarre it was easy to catch (except for "professional" journalists).
Another example of "proving" something by selective arguments
In SOME cases, IP is not needed, and I tell my clients that. However, to generalize that is like saying "Usain Bolt can run the 100 in less than 10 seconds, therefore EVERYONE can do the same unless they are lazy".
Before I became an attorney (and partly this is why) I had TWO ideas stolen from me, patented, and used by others. One was fairly lucrative. The "inventor" never wanted to be around me after that, likely worried that I would expose his duplicity.
Yes, at one time I was just as naive as this author.
Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer.
Okay, a client comes in, and says "I want to sue ... for ...". You explain the Streisand Effect, the law, etc. The client says "I STILL want to sue ... for ...".
An attorney can say "Go get another attorney", or "Well, okay, maybe a jury or judge ... and that is your right, but I really advise against it". The client says "I STILL (you get the drift)".
Then the blogs, in their infinite wisdom (???) say "Lawyers ought to know better".
I wonder if they will ever find intelligent life?
When Edison first started inventing, he was quickly seen as someone who "had it right", and copycats came out of the walls. He was not very wealthy, and depended on funding from his inventions to proceed onward.
But in Mr. Wilson's opinion, Edison should have spent his scarce funds to invent, had the result taken by a better funded copycat, used more of his scarce funds to invent, had his invention taken ... so when his scarce funds ran out (all output, little or no input), what would he do? AND, would we be better off in a world with no electric lights?
I was raised in a family with relatively unhealthy habits and diets. However, being a really scrawny, sickly kid, I bought into the "Popeye-spinach" idea BIG TIME!
Even after I became the 196 (30 inch waist) guy you didn't want to mess with, fruits, vegetables, and especially spinach, were all things I went for in a big way.
So some people would rather be "artists" than to be useful - fine, sometimes they even lighten the day with good music or other forms of entertainment, and because we live in a crazy, upside-down world, they even make more money than people who truly contribute.
Even so, contributing so much of the available space to such trivial pursuits seems self-defeating in the long term. Every such obsessive article on how to make more by doing less turns me off.
So, instead of finding unknowns who have (in the expert opinion of, say, publishers) the ability to be the next big thing, we simply put stuff on Kickstarter, and if the person is well-known and raises a ton of money, we publish, otherwise we don't?
So where does that leave promising new talent? We just ignore them, and hope they will go away?
Back then, artists made money (Bing Crosby was asked, during world war twice, how it felt to have his highest income taxed at 70%, and said, "I still have two race horse stables, several mansions, and , why should I care?"
However, THEN work, good politics, clean environment, those were important - music, movies were just spare time entertainment.
Today, music (often really bad music) is important, and SHOULD BE PAID FOR, and all that other stuff; who cares?
I respectfully disagree (or disrespectfully, your choice).
As an IP (aka patent) attorney and former software engineer, I totally agree (though I favor abolishing software patents altogether).
I will point out, though, that an even bigger immediate problem is the decision by Congress to make the USPTO not only self-supporting, but highly profitable. The present patent administration is doing that by making individual Examiners responsible for "revenue vs performance", code for "pay me enough, and you can patent ANYTHING, otherwise, GET LOST!"
This will cause horrible patents to be issued, so long as the patent owner can pay enough!
So, rather than coming in illegally, people would just go to the immigration service, swear they were coming in to "create jobs" (and maybe have someone "trustworthy" swear to their veracity?) and we would roll out the carpet for them? Doesn't sound all that smart to me.
We have laws that allow legitimate entrepreneurs to come in - yes, those laws require they front some finances - but I question just "Oh, a JOB! Come in, my friend!".
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Economic advice
We eliminate income and payroll taxes and put in consumption taxes - really fair, right? So, people who have a high income make their money here, consume in, say, Canada or France, etc., and pay no taxes at all, while people who can't afford that pay all the bills, and that's fair?
Who do these people work for - Romney? Oh, now I see, yes, very fair for people making millions per year!!!!
Einstein was RIGHT! The only thing we KNOW is infinite is human stupidity!
On the post: Obama Administration Stalls Treaty To Help The Blind In An Effort To Appease Big Publishers (AKA Campaign Donors)
helping the blind (or "saving the children"?)
However, it would help if you didn't distort the issue. To the extent that Obama is pandering for money, shame! To the extent that he is avoiding "bad publicity" so that he CAN be reelected (thereby preventing Romney from permanently killing the effort), that is just being pragmatic - it could be a very good thing in the long run.
Don't "spin" it so it looks like only the negative, and ignores the positive!
On the post: Should Software Created By The Federal Gov't Be Open Source Licensed... Or Public Domain?
Public Domain for government software
On the post: We Should Stop Calling Fair Use A 'Limitation & Exception' To Copyright; It's A Right Of The Public
Copyright exceptions
On the post: The USPTO: Where Up Is Down, Expensive Medicine Saves Lives, And Cheap Alternatives Violate International Law
USPTO and Big Pharma
On the post: Getting More People Aware Of The Problems Of Patents & Copyright: Reducing Social Distance
Social distance in IP law
If anyone knows someone I should contact, I will do so, to explain how seriously IP law is harming our economy.
Write me at genecavanaugh@gmail.com if you have constructive suggestions on how we can undertake fixing these problems.
On the post: New Evidence Shows That Patents Matter Less And Less For Startups
Patents mean less to startups
OR, we can recognize the truth (anyone listening? Oh, I forgot, "Believe with your heart").
The truth is, if anyone cares, that the USPTO has bought into a "revenue vs performance" model - them that pays a lot gets a lot. So, small entities that file as small entities (or even if they file as large entities, and can't stand the expense of "continued prosecution") find that their inventions, no matter how novel, are rejected out-of-hand, and examiners that don't - get bad reviews and eventually are canned.
So, patenting has become an impossible dream for small entities. That gives the patent trolls and anticompetitive large entities the power they have always lusted after.
And, note: I am an IP (aka "patent") attorney.
On the post: Innovation, Copying And Civil Disobedience
The truth is in the middle..
Answer, neither and both. There are good points on each side, this is an analog world, which we are able to emulate digitally, which is not, and never will be, digital.
On the post: If Newspapers Had Never Offered Free News Online... They Would Still Be Failing
Citizen journalists
Case in point - the article said "Vitamin C has no benefits for heart patients" - the reformat in the LA Times (reprinted widely) said "Vitamin C has no benefits".
Fortunately the reprint is so bizarre it was easy to catch (except for "professional" journalists).
On the post: Research Shows: You Don't Need Patents To Disclose Information
Another example of "proving" something by selective arguments
Before I became an attorney (and partly this is why) I had TWO ideas stolen from me, patented, and used by others. One was fairly lucrative. The "inventor" never wanted to be around me after that, likely worried that I would expose his duplicity.
Yes, at one time I was just as naive as this author.
On the post: Miami Heat Owner Sues Blogger & Google Over 'Unflattering' Photo
Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer.
An attorney can say "Go get another attorney", or "Well, okay, maybe a jury or judge ... and that is your right, but I really advise against it". The client says "I STILL (you get the drift)".
Then the blogs, in their infinite wisdom (???) say "Lawyers ought to know better".
I wonder if they will ever find intelligent life?
On the post: Being Pissed Off Doesn't Mean You Have A Legal Claim
Copycats
But in Mr. Wilson's opinion, Edison should have spent his scarce funds to invent, had the result taken by a better funded copycat, used more of his scarce funds to invent, had his invention taken ... so when his scarce funds ran out (all output, little or no input), what would he do? AND, would we be better off in a world with no electric lights?
On the post: New iPhone Connector Port Revealed, Thus Wiping Out Several Generations Of Accessories In One Fell Swoop
New Apple connector
On the post: DailyDirt: Kids Don't Just Eat Anything You Give Them...
Influencing what kids eat
Even after I became the 196 (30 inch waist) guy you didn't want to mess with, fruits, vegetables, and especially spinach, were all things I went for in a big way.
On the post: A Business Model Failure Is Not A Moral Issue
Obsessions with "art"
Even so, contributing so much of the available space to such trivial pursuits seems self-defeating in the long term. Every such obsessive article on how to make more by doing less turns me off.
On the post: Seth Godin Uses Kickstarter To Test The Market For His Next Book (And The Results Are Good)
Using Kickstarter for a demand tool
So where does that leave promising new talent? We just ignore them, and hope they will go away?
On the post: The New Elitism: File Sharing 'Created' Pop Music And Removing Gatekeepers Is 'Killing Culture'
Oh, for the good old days
However, THEN work, good politics, clean environment, those were important - music, movies were just spare time entertainment.
Today, music (often really bad music) is important, and SHOULD BE PAID FOR, and all that other stuff; who cares?
I respectfully disagree (or disrespectfully, your choice).
On the post: EFF Launches 'Defend Innovation' Site In An Attempt To Fix Software Patents
EFF and patent reform
I will point out, though, that an even bigger immediate problem is the decision by Congress to make the USPTO not only self-supporting, but highly profitable. The present patent administration is doing that by making individual Examiners responsible for "revenue vs performance", code for "pay me enough, and you can patent ANYTHING, otherwise, GET LOST!"
This will cause horrible patents to be issued, so long as the patent owner can pay enough!
On the post: Why Is The US So Hostile To Foreign Entrepreneurs Who Want To Build Businesses Here?
Let's examine this ....
We have laws that allow legitimate entrepreneurs to come in - yes, those laws require they front some finances - but I question just "Oh, a JOB! Come in, my friend!".
On the post: Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth Predicts That Countries Who Limit Patents Will Have More Innovation
Limiting patents
Next >>