Random thoughts about this stupidity. No order implied.
The internet was designed as a way to share information and is all about sharing! It is about providing people information, about sharing that information. It is about providing redundancy in access to that information. It in the end it is really about freeing information from the silos. So any problem accessing information is considered a fault to be routed around. Your website will be routed around.
Information is a commodity, it is not a piece of personal property!! It is not a finite product.
Information is not the exclusive property of any News Organization. The News Organizations are paid for how they present that information in a way people find useful. Not for the actual information. News Organizations still think that they have the "Exclusive" and that somehow that makes them the owner of the information. Wrong. Exclusive is a term that means we have it 10 minutes before 100 others do.
The internet was designed to route around problems with access to data. So if your information is not accessible easily the internet will find better route to that information. Full Stop.
People today find their information more often than not through a search engine. Deal with it or you will go away.
Charging for links is the exact opposite of how the internet works. Linking to content is the foundation of the internet. If you put in place some kind of scheme to make incoming links cost the linking website anything then those links will go away. Period.
Most of us can agree that to some degree the patent system is not functioning as it was designed. i.e. Companies being able to patent things that have prior art and use, patents being issued for things like One Click Check Out which are beyond obvious. But I would like to throw in another idea about the use of patents.
Patents have the potential (not debating actual) to help a company recoup the money they spent in the development and creation of the product by preventing other companies from simply reverse engineering the invention and selling it without having to carry the initial cost of developing or inventing the product.
For example (just the first that came to mind) company A spends years and millions to research a new drug to do something good like treat toe nail fungus. Goes through all the expense of researching, paying guinea pigs to allow company A to experiment on them, Doctors to take notes on the side-effects, then all the money to pass through long process of getting the government to allow you to sell the new drug which might help you with your toe nail fungus if your liver can take it.
Company A spent say 100 million to do that.
Company B comes along and they figure out what the new drug uses by spending a couple months and some few dollars reverse engineering the compound and then they can sell the same drug for 50% cheaper because they have no R&D costs to recoup.
With a patent company A can sue company B and recoup the money from those lost sales.
Without the patent the only way for company A to compete is to lower their price to match B's.
Without a patent company A may still develop the new drug (thus creation does not stop) but they would also be less inclined to do so.
Patents do have a purpose. In business everything is risk and reward. The risk involved has to be backed by the possible reward. A patent helps lower the risk of the investment by allowing a company to protect that invention from another company simply copying it without bearing any of the cost in creating the product.
Anybody that reads Techdirt regularly could have seen this coming. You go from seizing a domain for pirate activity, then for linking to pirated material, then for the possibility of allowing someone to store pirated material, then forget all that due process stuff.
Let's just not let them even set up anything that we think that might in the future result in something that could in some way have anything to do with (maybe) a website that we think will have the possibility of involving pirated material.
You do realize that the simple solution for most of those problems would be to stop doing so much right? The federal government was never meant to be the power that it is. The took that power upon themselves.
Re: Open WIFI would work except ISP bandwidth and use restrictions
Just an adjunct to what I said above. If I pay for a 30Mb connection I should be able to use ever single bit of that bandwidth each and every second without any change to my bill.
Open WIFI would work except ISP bandwidth and use restrictions
Most ISPs are able to get away with throttling in the US today for those that are deemed (without any real stats) as using too much bandwidth.
Open WiFi is a great idea but will not work within the current regulatory environment as all that would do is open up the person be helpful to possible legal action.
Companies like this operate with legally granted rights but are not constrained by any laws. Simply put this is the worst of the worst in terms of law. All power and no constraints when that power is abused. No consequences when that power harms others.
You have to appreciate the intelligence that was able to get the politicians to create this stupidity in the southern way. Bless their hearts.
What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Sure there have been some artists that have shown support for this or that thing from the MPAA or RIAA but you never really hear of any artist coming out to say "Hey I think the MPAA or RIAA does a good thing for artists"?
Or defend the 'AA's actions when they do something and claim it is in the interest of the artists they represent?
Perception is not reality. Popular products ALWAYS have more trademark disputes than those that are not. Simple logic dictates that. The more popular the product the more likely there are going to be knock-offs that use the same or similar names and other iconic/logo designs.
So the stats I am asking for are simple research. Based on the sales numbers are Apple trademarks more sued than other companies trademarks. Comparing Apples to Apples meaning if Apple sell 100 products sold and sues 5 times that is a 5% number while X company sues only once but on 10 products sold. Which would be a case of 10%.
I think that research will show that Apple sues not more or less than other companies when adjusting for numbers.
I see all the links below but is that a case of popular bias or a really case of defending a trademark that is above what other companies do? Just because a company is sited on Techdirt about their unreasonable trademark suit does not mean that they do it more than others do.
Provide me with stats not blog entries, because those will always show a bias towards popular companies.
On the post: NSA Releases Heavily Redacted Talking Points: Say It's Hard To Watch Public Debate On Its Efforts
And now we know why Amazon had to pull 1984.
On the post: Google Asks Germans To Protest 'Pay To Link' Proposal As It Comes Close To Becoming Law
Random thoughts about this stupidity. No order implied.
Information is a commodity, it is not a piece of personal property!! It is not a finite product.
Information is not the exclusive property of any News Organization. The News Organizations are paid for how they present that information in a way people find useful. Not for the actual information. News Organizations still think that they have the "Exclusive" and that somehow that makes them the owner of the information. Wrong. Exclusive is a term that means we have it 10 minutes before 100 others do.
The internet was designed to route around problems with access to data. So if your information is not accessible easily the internet will find better route to that information. Full Stop.
People today find their information more often than not through a search engine. Deal with it or you will go away.
Charging for links is the exact opposite of how the internet works. Linking to content is the foundation of the internet. If you put in place some kind of scheme to make incoming links cost the linking website anything then those links will go away. Period.
On the post: Microsoft Sued Because It Overloaded Surface Tablet With Pre-Installed Apps
What is surprising is that Mike would think a lawyer would respond any other way.
Better title would "Lawyer sues, no one surprised"
On the post: Apple Learns That Suing A Key Supplier May Not Be So Smart; Samsung Jacks Up Prices On Apple
Got to love the irony.
You win some and lose some.
On the post: IBM Patent Lawyer Says The Patent System Works Fine Because... Hey Look Over There!
Re: Re: Going to play devil's advocate...a bit
On the post: IBM Patent Lawyer Says The Patent System Works Fine Because... Hey Look Over There!
Going to play devil's advocate...a bit
Patents have the potential (not debating actual) to help a company recoup the money they spent in the development and creation of the product by preventing other companies from simply reverse engineering the invention and selling it without having to carry the initial cost of developing or inventing the product.
For example (just the first that came to mind) company A spends years and millions to research a new drug to do something good like treat toe nail fungus. Goes through all the expense of researching, paying guinea pigs to allow company A to experiment on them, Doctors to take notes on the side-effects, then all the money to pass through long process of getting the government to allow you to sell the new drug which might help you with your toe nail fungus if your liver can take it.
Company A spent say 100 million to do that.
Company B comes along and they figure out what the new drug uses by spending a couple months and some few dollars reverse engineering the compound and then they can sell the same drug for 50% cheaper because they have no R&D costs to recoup.
With a patent company A can sue company B and recoup the money from those lost sales.
Without the patent the only way for company A to compete is to lower their price to match B's.
Without a patent company A may still develop the new drug (thus creation does not stop) but they would also be less inclined to do so.
Patents do have a purpose. In business everything is risk and reward. The risk involved has to be backed by the possible reward. A patent helps lower the risk of the investment by allowing a company to protect that invention from another company simply copying it without bearing any of the cost in creating the product.
On the post: Why The Press Is Getting The Wrong Message Out Of The 'Nate Silver Walloped The Pundits' Story
And hopefully we'll reach a point...
Nah, never happen.But we can still hope.
Good wish though Mike
On the post: Me.ga Domain Pulled Out From Under New Kim Dotcom Venture
The slipper slope has slid
Let's just not let them even set up anything that we think that might in the future result in something that could in some way have anything to do with (maybe) a website that we think will have the possibility of involving pirated material.
That should prevent any future problems.
On the post: Sergey Brin To All Elected Politicians: Withdraw From Your Parties And Go Independent
Re: Re:
On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing... And Should Actually Be Encouraged
Re: Open WIFI would work except ISP bandwidth and use restrictions
On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing... And Should Actually Be Encouraged
Open WIFI would work except ISP bandwidth and use restrictions
Open WiFi is a great idea but will not work within the current regulatory environment as all that would do is open up the person be helpful to possible legal action.
On the post: LeakID And The DMCA Takedown Notice Farce
The problem is simple
You have to appreciate the intelligence that was able to get the politicians to create this stupidity in the southern way. Bless their hearts.
On the post: Another NYPD Terrorist 'Investigation' Turns Up Nothing But Privacy Invasions And Rights Erosion
Re:
Raymond W. Kelly
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/administration/headquarters_co.shtml
On the post: Why DC And Silicon Valley Don't Mix Well
The mindset is just different
Tech : We have to make new products and improve them so people can see that we are doing something with all the money they gave to us
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Or defend the 'AA's actions when they do something and claim it is in the interest of the artists they represent?
On the post: No, Mitt Romney Didn't Personally Hack Your Facebook
Re:
And we could get a great cabinet and Agency appointments out of the other writers on TechDirt.
On the post: No, Mitt Romney Didn't Personally Hack Your Facebook
ID-Ten-T Error
On the post: Apple Accused Of 'Violating The Rights' Of Iconic Swiss Railway Clock
Re: Re: Re: Not defending but really...
So the stats I am asking for are simple research. Based on the sales numbers are Apple trademarks more sued than other companies trademarks. Comparing Apples to Apples meaning if Apple sell 100 products sold and sues 5 times that is a 5% number while X company sues only once but on 10 products sold. Which would be a case of 10%.
I think that research will show that Apple sues not more or less than other companies when adjusting for numbers.
On the post: Apple Accused Of 'Violating The Rights' Of Iconic Swiss Railway Clock
Re: Not defending but really...
Provide me with stats not blog entries, because those will always show a bias towards popular companies.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
The list that should not have been..
Next >>