Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:07am
Re: Re: Re:
but I cannot see them as a replacement.
I'm glad the future doesn't depend on your vision.
HP didn't see PCs as a replacement to mainframes when Steve Wozniak showed them his idea. IBM didn't see an OS license as a replacement to the money from hardware sales. The content industries still don't see the internet as a viable replacement to their distribution models.
a limited right to exclude that reaches only that which is defined be the allowed claims.
But because most patents are purposefully very vague, the supposed "limited" right is now miles wide.
Quite frankly, over the course of several decades working with this body of law I have yet to see any patent that prevents anyone from working within the area to which the patent pertains in order to come up with their own solutions.
They lock a narrow, fine, and tight area up for 20 years to come.
Narrow, fine, tight area? Oh, like the patent thicket surrounding smartphones? Medical research thickets? Nanotech? Green tech? Bullshit. And you have to know this. You're being willfully ignorant.
Besides, we all know that having knowledge of a patent only triples the damages that lawyers ask for.
Example, knowing that a certain type of cancer cell reacts with a certain chemical compound to produce a test might give other researchers a push towards a treatment or other as a result of how that interaction happens.
But if a researcher wants to do so, they have to pay up, or get sued.
Further, let's say you want to work in the very narrow area that already has a patent holder. Well, while you cannot bring a product to market in that window, you can research, develop, and such.
Really? So no medical researchers have ever been sued unless they brought a product to market?
See, that is another miracle of the patent world: companies can both use their patents themselves AND license the technology to others.
Licensing is a protection racket, its extortion, its blackmail. "Give us money or we'll send our thugs^H^H^H^H^H lawyers, after you. We have this piece of paper granted us by the government that says we own an idea and you can't use it." Selfish. Unethical.
Again, I ask. Where is your evidence? Prove it. Put up, or shut up.
I didn't claim they do, nor did I accuse AC of wanting it. I specifically said I was sure he didn't. They don't make you start at square one. What they do is lock you into 20 years ago - or make you a target for every patent lawyer working on contingency.
Follow the links. Read the evidence yourself. Again, I'm asking for your evidence, your sources, your studies. Put up, or shut up.
It's the system we have now, it's the system that appears to work,
Doesn't appear to work to me.
because human kind is advancing at a speed never seen before.
The speed of technological advance started increasing before patents came around. There were no patents during the Renaissance. Today we have exponential growth, sure, but the evidence looks to me that is in spite of patents, not because of them. The fastest growth areas are where patents are ignored - at least until the lawyers catch up and then sue the early innovators.
Oh, perhaps I can start you off here: Many people around here make all sorts of noise about places like Japan, China, and India as great examples of what happens without copyright or patents. Yet, once Japan caught up to the US in these areas, they almost immediately got serious about enforcing those laws.
So your argument is that they don't need patents until there's legacy industries that decide they can stomp out competition with them? Not helping your cause here...
taking someone else's work and replicating it without research cost
Let me spell it out to you.
THIS IS A WONDERFUL THING.
I can think of no greater compliment to an inventor or discoverer than to spread the knowledge they worked so hard at so that everyone can benefit from it. The fact that knowledge and ideas can be spread infinitely without cost is wondrous (if I was religious, I'd say it is a miracle, and as an atheist the feeling I get in experiencing knowledge and understanding is "spiritual"). That you think that knowledge should be hoarded and controlled is to me, selfish, and unethical.
All progress, every last bit of it, is built on what came before. Without mastering fire, we couldn't make bronze tools. Do you want to force everyone to start from square one, naked in the woods, fending for themselves? I'm sure you don't, so I imagine you support education. But something weird happens when we get very close to "now" in teaching children or others how to do things. Patents suddenly mean that anything discovered or invented less than 20 years ago is "off limits" to anyone without a toll being paid. That is a horrible thing, and evidence shows it is not necessary.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 10:33am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
You have to be reasonable on both sides of the discussion.
Here's me being reasonable:
Prove it. Provide me evidence that patents and the litigation that results from them actually encourage the types of innovation we're referring to here, such as new medical tests and procedures that save lives.
Not anecdotes. Not bullshit. Not pharma funded "studies" with serious methodological problems. Evidence. If you can't do that then your only reasonable, rational course of action is to rethink your worldview. If you do provide that type of evidence, I'll revise my worldview (I'd have to, I'm a rationalist) that patents and the lawyers getting rich at society's expense off them are not a net drain on humanity and a squealing brake on progress.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 4:30am
Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
the choice is more along the fine line between encouraging development and reasonable business expectations.
Having a complete monopoly on an idea and anything even remotely close to that idea for 20 years doesn't fit any definition of reasonable that I am aware of. Being able to sue your competition out of existence using that government granted monopoly is not reasonable. Suing doctors and researchers trying to save lives is not reasonable.
This is so far beyond reasonable that it makes me sick.
"...political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed."
What happens when laws become too far out of step with what "the governed" think is acceptable? Some form of political upheaval. This can range from the ruling party being voted out of office, to constitutional amendments, to rioting, mass protests and civil movements, to full revolution and civil war.
Such is history. Very few governments have been brought down from external factors (war against another country) - most were brought down from within by internal forces of dissent or dissatisfaction. There's even an argument to be made that many of the ones brought down from an external war were the result of not respecting the wishes of their citizens, or some significant subset of them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:06am
Re: Re: Re:
Fourth party - hosting provider that The Pirate Party uses.
Third party - The political party The Pirate Party who has agreed to host The Pirate Bay.
Second party - The Pirate Bay who hosts torrents (links) to both legitimate and infringing content.
Responsible party - the users sharing the infringing content.
Heck, your alma mater seems to have paid for at least part of your education on the back of patents and licensing:
Maybe it actually made his tuition more expensive, since as stated in the story, most of these programs are losing money. Did you bother reading the story at all?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:00am
Re:
Usually when we talk about 3rd, 4th, and beyond party liability, we're talking about advertisers, payment processors, and tool providers (Google or developers). All of which the legacy entertainment industry wants to also hold responsible for technological progress, changing markets, and the entertainment industry's failure to adapt.
If you could perhaps quote or link exactly what you're referring to, we might be able to try to clear up your confusion. But we all know you don't provide sources.
Regardless of what level of liability it is, ISPs still should not be responsible for what their users do, nor be required to implement solutions to the entertainment industry's economic and business model problem.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:21pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
There's a ruling that covers this, I just can't find it. The argument was made that because the cease and desist letters did not contain any wording about the DMCA, that they couldn't be covered under the penalties for misusing the DMCA process. The judge's ruling was to theaffect of, 'if it looks like a DMCA notice, and quacks like the DMCA notice, you can be penalized under the DMCA misuse process.'
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 4:13pm
Give them enough rope...
Giving Hollywood studios or record labels a tool they can use to take down anything they want, with terms that mention perjury, falls under the 'give them enough rope for them to hang themselves with' category.
I suspect this is just the start of a whole new type of DMCA lawsuit "trolling" emerging.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:56am
Re: Re: Re:
Smoke and mirrors.
Says the guy who refuses to identify himself and what interests he represents. Who refuses to provide evidence for his unfounded assertions. Who disagrees with nearly everything on Techdirt, just to disagree.
On the post: Getting Past Just 'Putting Radio On The Internet' - Killer Apps Come Next
Re: Re: Re: I'll be controversial
:cranks up some Ghosts 'n Stuff:
On the post: Getting Past Just 'Putting Radio On The Internet' - Killer Apps Come Next
Re: Re: Re:
I'm glad the future doesn't depend on your vision.
HP didn't see PCs as a replacement to mainframes when Steve Wozniak showed them his idea. IBM didn't see an OS license as a replacement to the money from hardware sales. The content industries still don't see the internet as a viable replacement to their distribution models.
On the post: Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
But because most patents are purposefully very vague, the supposed "limited" right is now miles wide.
Quite frankly, over the course of several decades working with this body of law I have yet to see any patent that prevents anyone from working within the area to which the patent pertains in order to come up with their own solutions.
From my comment above:
http://www.medindia.net/news/US-Stem-Cell-Research-is-Being-Hindered-by-Rush-for-Patents-799 59-1.htm
So now you have.
On the post: Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
Narrow, fine, tight area? Oh, like the patent thicket surrounding smartphones? Medical research thickets? Nanotech? Green tech? Bullshit. And you have to know this. You're being willfully ignorant.
they are not locked up but instead informed.
Myth. If you'd bother even glancing at the links I'd posted, that would've been made clear. I'm sure it's a waste, but I'll link again.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070321/021508.shtml
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c fm?abstract_id=969447
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061205/110247.shtml
Besides, we all know that having knowledge of a patent only triples the damages that lawyers ask for.
Example, knowing that a certain type of cancer cell reacts with a certain chemical compound to produce a test might give other researchers a push towards a treatment or other as a result of how that interaction happens.
But if a researcher wants to do so, they have to pay up, or get sued.
Further, let's say you want to work in the very narrow area that already has a patent holder. Well, while you cannot bring a product to market in that window, you can research, develop, and such.
Really? So no medical researchers have ever been sued unless they brought a product to market?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472020a.html
How about medical researchers who can't even perform their research because someone else has a patent?
http://www.medindia.net/news/US-Stem-Cell-Research-is-Being-Hindered-by-Rush-for-Patents- 79959-1.htm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/17434012864/cures-paralysis-diabetes-blindnes s-hindered-patents.shtml
See, that is another miracle of the patent world: companies can both use their patents themselves AND license the technology to others.
Licensing is a protection racket, its extortion, its blackmail. "Give us money or we'll send our thugs^H^H^H^H^H lawyers, after you. We have this piece of paper granted us by the government that says we own an idea and you can't use it." Selfish. Unethical.
Again, I ask. Where is your evidence? Prove it. Put up, or shut up.
On the post: Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
On the post: Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
Here's my evidence.
Here's a book, plenty of sources, studies and analysis:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
Here's a research paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1868979
And another:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610
And more:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1502864
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/paper s.cfm?abstract_id=969447
We had a whole series at Techdirt a few years ago, with linked sources and studies, here's two parts of it that are relevant:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/031128532.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20080318/004156568.shtml
General stories just in the last 6 weeks:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/10245715476/what-if-tim-berners-lee-had-patented-w eb.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/16234115415/company-claims-patents-generating-ma p-database-getting-real-estate-industry-to-pay-up.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/ Business/2011-08-21/G/1/26.1.946072474_epaper.html
http://www.economist.com/node/21526370?fsrc=scn/ tw/te/ar/patentmedicine
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903639404576518493092643006.h tml
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/rambus-patents-idUSN1E7860P320110909
http://www.tech dirt.com/articles/20110906/19274615832/if-your-business-strategy-relies-suing-others-youre-not-busin ess-youre-leech-system.shtml
Follow the links. Read the evidence yourself. Again, I'm asking for your evidence, your sources, your studies. Put up, or shut up.
It's the system we have now, it's the system that appears to work,
Doesn't appear to work to me.
because human kind is advancing at a speed never seen before.
The speed of technological advance started increasing before patents came around. There were no patents during the Renaissance. Today we have exponential growth, sure, but the evidence looks to me that is in spite of patents, not because of them. The fastest growth areas are where patents are ignored - at least until the lawyers catch up and then sue the early innovators.
Oh, perhaps I can start you off here: Many people around here make all sorts of noise about places like Japan, China, and India as great examples of what happens without copyright or patents. Yet, once Japan caught up to the US in these areas, they almost immediately got serious about enforcing those laws.
So your argument is that they don't need patents until there's legacy industries that decide they can stomp out competition with them? Not helping your cause here...
taking someone else's work and replicating it without research cost
Let me spell it out to you.
THIS IS A WONDERFUL THING.
I can think of no greater compliment to an inventor or discoverer than to spread the knowledge they worked so hard at so that everyone can benefit from it. The fact that knowledge and ideas can be spread infinitely without cost is wondrous (if I was religious, I'd say it is a miracle, and as an atheist the feeling I get in experiencing knowledge and understanding is "spiritual"). That you think that knowledge should be hoarded and controlled is to me, selfish, and unethical.
All progress, every last bit of it, is built on what came before. Without mastering fire, we couldn't make bronze tools. Do you want to force everyone to start from square one, naked in the woods, fending for themselves? I'm sure you don't, so I imagine you support education. But something weird happens when we get very close to "now" in teaching children or others how to do things. Patents suddenly mean that anything discovered or invented less than 20 years ago is "off limits" to anyone without a toll being paid. That is a horrible thing, and evidence shows it is not necessary.
So where is your evidence?
On the post: Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
Here's me being reasonable:
Prove it. Provide me evidence that patents and the litigation that results from them actually encourage the types of innovation we're referring to here, such as new medical tests and procedures that save lives.
Not anecdotes. Not bullshit. Not pharma funded "studies" with serious methodological problems. Evidence. If you can't do that then your only reasonable, rational course of action is to rethink your worldview. If you do provide that type of evidence, I'll revise my worldview (I'd have to, I'm a rationalist) that patents and the lawyers getting rich at society's expense off them are not a net drain on humanity and a squealing brake on progress.
On the post: Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix
Having a complete monopoly on an idea and anything even remotely close to that idea for 20 years doesn't fit any definition of reasonable that I am aware of. Being able to sue your competition out of existence using that government granted monopoly is not reasonable. Suing doctors and researchers trying to save lives is not reasonable.
This is so far beyond reasonable that it makes me sick.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: we are contracted with the wrong person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
"...political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed."
What happens when laws become too far out of step with what "the governed" think is acceptable? Some form of political upheaval. This can range from the ruling party being voted out of office, to constitutional amendments, to rioting, mass protests and civil movements, to full revolution and civil war.
Such is history. Very few governments have been brought down from external factors (war against another country) - most were brought down from within by internal forces of dissent or dissatisfaction. There's even an argument to be made that many of the ones brought down from an external war were the result of not respecting the wishes of their citizens, or some significant subset of them.
On the post: German Court Says ISP Not Responsible For Users Who Infringe
Re: Re: Re:
Third party - The political party The Pirate Party who has agreed to host The Pirate Bay.
Second party - The Pirate Bay who hosts torrents (links) to both legitimate and infringing content.
Responsible party - the users sharing the infringing content.
Sounds correct to me.
On the post: Righthaven, King Of Suing Without Notification, Whines To Judge About Motions Filed Against It Without Enough Notification
Re:
On the post: Big Tech Companies Funding University Research Labs... Only If They Promise To Open Source The Results
Re:
Mike's been saying Bayh-Dole is screwed up for years.
From 2005:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050915/0247215.shtml
Heck, your alma mater seems to have paid for at least part of your education on the back of patents and licensing:
Maybe it actually made his tuition more expensive, since as stated in the story, most of these programs are losing money. Did you bother reading the story at all?
On the post: German Court Says ISP Not Responsible For Users Who Infringe
Re:
If you could perhaps quote or link exactly what you're referring to, we might be able to try to clear up your confusion. But we all know you don't provide sources.
Regardless of what level of liability it is, ISPs still should not be responsible for what their users do, nor be required to implement solutions to the entertainment industry's economic and business model problem.
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Give them enough rope...
I suspect this is just the start of a whole new type of DMCA lawsuit "trolling" emerging.
On the post: Lawyers For Thomas Cooley Law School Skirt Legal & Ethical Questions In Uncovering Anonymous Blogger They're Suing
Irony
Cooley Law School
Knowledge, Skills, Ethics. Unmatched in Size, Scope and Beauty.
On the post: USPTO Rejects Two Rambus Patents... After It's Used Them To Win Patent Cases Against Companies
Re: Re: Re:
Says the guy who refuses to identify himself and what interests he represents. Who refuses to provide evidence for his unfounded assertions. Who disagrees with nearly everything on Techdirt, just to disagree.
Take one of those mirrors and look in it, buddy.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Forget math. I bet they got their accounting skills from Arthur Andersen.
How is this shit not illegal?
On the post: Redskins Owner Dan Synder Realizes He Was Going To Lose His Defamation Lawsuit Badly, Drops It
Re: IANAL...
On the post: MPAA: Bad At Math & Bad At Economics
Re: Re: Re: Put it in perspective.
Next >>