I don't even think that was a strawman, since he didn't claim that overthrowing the government was the OP's argument, nor offer any argument to knock it down. I'm not sure what that was, honestly. Maybe a bizarre slippery slope?
Actually, the main cause of monopoly creation in a market is lack of government oversight
I think, as Bastiat would say, you are not taking into account what is unseen. :)
It's easy to point at big mergers and immediately conclude that markets always consolidate into large monopolies and that the government is the only thing that can stand in their way, but that doesn't take into account the wide variety of other ways that the government impedes or removes competition beforehand so that only the large companies are left. See: Regulatory capture.
Usually, when people support regulation to "stick it to the big corporations", they only end up ensuring that only the big companies remain.
"We're tired of these big corporations selling dangerous toys! We demand that every new toy go through a million dollars worth of safety testing before it can be sold! Also, why is Mattel the only toy company? Stupid market; all it creates are monopolies!"
Hence the very next sentence: "The case you're describing only happens when the company has a monopoly".
Government often strikes deals with these companies to allow only them in a particular area. This isn't a condemnation of companies as much as it is the government for removing the consequences for bad customer service.
Yes. Third party companies would pop up to sign-off on (and possibly underwrite) drugs. If they screw up, they not only lose money in lawsuits, but also lose consumer confidence. If consumers don't trust that the validating company is testing the drugs properly, their label on the front of the bottle won't be of any value to the drug companies, who will go with someone else.
So what you're saying is that they are ignoring the pirates, since they can't do anything about them anyway, and focusing on customers that want to pay them.
First, spending $40 million to put up a paywall is hardly "ignoring pirates". Second, "focusing on customers that want to pay them" should include figuring out how to get those customers to want to pay them (i.e. giving them a reason to buy), and not just throwing up a toll booth and declaring victory.
Companies *have* to screw you over in every possible manner.
Err, not if they want your repeat business they don't. The case you're describing only happens when the company has a monopoly and doesn't have to give a crap about customer satisfaction.
However, the main cause of monopoly creation in a market is . . . the government.
I end up posting about IP a lot in various places, and I try very hard to use "copying" or "illegal copying" rather than "piracy", due to the ridiculousness of the comparison.
Freedom of speech applies to the government, not to individuals. I don't have the right to stand on your lawn and shout at your family as they walk by; neither do you have a right to post on TechDirt.
That said, I wouldn't support getting rid of Anons. Some of them actually contribute and it's easy enough to mark down the trolls.
If you ask someone to do something and they do it wrong the liability falls on you if they believe that the actions were in the scope of what you directed them to do.
I think the key section of that sentence is the last: "what you directed them to do".
Also, "if [the affiliate] believes" is I think incorrect, as anyone can say they believed anything. I would think it would be what a court decides a reasonable person would believe in the same circumstance.
If you ask someone to do something and they do it wrong the liability falls on you if they believe that the actions were in the scope of what you directed them to do.
That didn't have to do with patents, I don't think. I think it was more along the lines of a trademark problem. Google didn't like that he was distributing files with Google's name all over it.
Similar to how Mozilla is all about open source, but they still objected to (the browser now known as) Iceweasel using potentially-confusing trademarked items.
The concept can't be copyrighted, only the expression. If you mean "patent the concept", then yes, Google probably got it to defend themselves against someone else filing for it then suing them. This doesn't make our patent system looks any better, however.
rip it off for profit
Rip what off? The logo itself is already copyrighted (and trademarked!), unless you meant "ripping off" the concept of displaying a logo with your company name in it, in which case you're crazy.
On the post: Broadcasters To Sue Time Warner Cable For Making It Easier For People To See Their Shows & Ads
Re: Re: Re:
1. Abolish the FCC.
2. ???
3. Anarchy!
On the post: Judge Says The iPhone Didn't Violate Nokia's Patents
You Know What They Say
On the post: Should Have Known Better Than To Trust The NY Times: China 'Protest' Hangups Story Is Bunk
Re:
On the post: Should Have Known Better Than To Trust The NY Times: China 'Protest' Hangups Story Is Bunk
Re: Re: A two-fer!
Reminds me of a Shoe comic I kept around.
Cosmo: Bartender, I'd like something cold and loaded with vodka!
Bartender: Pal, have I got an ex-wife for you!
On the post: Should Have Known Better Than To Trust The NY Times: China 'Protest' Hangups Story Is Bunk
But . . . but . . . journalism!
On the post: Drop In P2P File Sharing Due To Limewire Shutdown A Pyrrhic Victory For The Recording Industry
Re: The music war is over...
Don't worry, we have our lawyers working overtime to destroy this technology as efficiently as possible.
- The RIAA
On the post: If AT&T Puts A Meter On Your Broadband, But That Meter Is Grossly Inaccurate, Is That Meter Really There?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need for government oversight
I think, as Bastiat would say, you are not taking into account what is unseen. :)
It's easy to point at big mergers and immediately conclude that markets always consolidate into large monopolies and that the government is the only thing that can stand in their way, but that doesn't take into account the wide variety of other ways that the government impedes or removes competition beforehand so that only the large companies are left. See: Regulatory capture.
Usually, when people support regulation to "stick it to the big corporations", they only end up ensuring that only the big companies remain.
"We're tired of these big corporations selling dangerous toys! We demand that every new toy go through a million dollars worth of safety testing before it can be sold! Also, why is Mattel the only toy company? Stupid market; all it creates are monopolies!"
On the post: If AT&T Puts A Meter On Your Broadband, But That Meter Is Grossly Inaccurate, Is That Meter Really There?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need for government oversight
Government often strikes deals with these companies to allow only them in a particular area. This isn't a condemnation of companies as much as it is the government for removing the consequences for bad customer service.
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
Yes. Third party companies would pop up to sign-off on (and possibly underwrite) drugs. If they screw up, they not only lose money in lawsuits, but also lose consumer confidence. If consumers don't trust that the validating company is testing the drugs properly, their label on the front of the bottle won't be of any value to the drug companies, who will go with someone else.
On the post: NY Times In Denial: Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall
Re:
First, spending $40 million to put up a paywall is hardly "ignoring pirates". Second, "focusing on customers that want to pay them" should include figuring out how to get those customers to want to pay them (i.e. giving them a reason to buy), and not just throwing up a toll booth and declaring victory.
On the post: If AT&T Puts A Meter On Your Broadband, But That Meter Is Grossly Inaccurate, Is That Meter Really There?
Re: Re: Re: Need for government oversight
Err, not if they want your repeat business they don't. The case you're describing only happens when the company has a monopoly and doesn't have to give a crap about customer satisfaction.
However, the main cause of monopoly creation in a market is . . . the government.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Physical property rights, yes.
I can invite you on my lawn to yell if I like. You can't go there alone.
If a person uses their computer to send me a file, and I accept it, I am "on their lawn" by invite.
On the post: South Korea Wants To Mandate Everyone Must Install 'Security' Software To Prevent 'Zombies'
Re: Re: alternate OSes
Only if you like living with a false sense of security. When users will click "Accept" on every popup that displays itself, no OS will save you.
On the post: Russia Won't Recognize The Pirate Party Because It Doesn't Like The Name
Indeed
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, I wouldn't support getting rid of Anons. Some of them actually contribute and it's easy enough to mark down the trolls.
On the post: Should A Company Be Liable For What Its Affiliates Do?
Re: It's called agency law
I think the key section of that sentence is the last: "what you directed them to do".
Also, "if [the affiliate] believes" is I think incorrect, as anyone can say they believed anything. I would think it would be what a court decides a reasonable person would believe in the same circumstance.
On the post: Should A Company Be Liable For What Its Affiliates Do?
Re: It's called agency law
On the post: Should A Company Be Liable For What Its Affiliates Do?
Re: Re: Re:
Due process is hard. Better to just shoot first and not have to ask questions at all.
On the post: Patent System Gone Mad: Google Doodles Is Now Patented
Re: CyanogenMod vs Google
Similar to how Mozilla is all about open source, but they still objected to (the browser now known as) Iceweasel using potentially-confusing trademarked items.
On the post: Patent System Gone Mad: Google Doodles Is Now Patented
Re:
The concept can't be copyrighted, only the expression. If you mean "patent the concept", then yes, Google probably got it to defend themselves against someone else filing for it then suing them. This doesn't make our patent system looks any better, however.
rip it off for profit
Rip what off? The logo itself is already copyrighted (and trademarked!), unless you meant "ripping off" the concept of displaying a logo with your company name in it, in which case you're crazy.
Next >>