Interesting that it is Kunming. That is in Yunnan, a province that until recently was the only one where Han Chinese were a minority.
One Chinese official told me "They don't even speak proper Chinese there" as he explained why Kunming and Yunnan don't really matter.
To paraphrase Will Rogers, "God must love ignorant people - he made so MANY of them!".
LAWYERS don't run a company. LAWYERS don't make strategic decisions. Like engineers, tech writers, etc., LAWYERS are told to do "X" and figure out how to use the legal system to do it.
I visualize a lawyer telling the corporate officers who wanted a take down that it is not a good idea; and being told to "just go do it".
But, bloggers, who seem to be more intelligent than most, fall into the same trap as the ignorami; attack the messenger!
As an IP attorney, I am increasingly dependent on the web, and on the USPTO's EFS-WEB portal.
I find that EFS-WEB does not recognize Java on linux, and seems to require Windows.
So, in mucking around, I found that it appears to be something Microsoft or Oracle added, and whatever the flag is, it can be reset by merely having Windows available, even if using linux.
Interestingly, on one computer, I set it up to access Windows, then used linux (successfully).
I then decided to try Windows - and now WINDOWS is blocked!
As a IP attorney I find this sort of nonsense embarrassing.
I am inclined to think we should completely abolish copyright, and do some serious limiting on patents.
RIGHT ON! I am a former customer of Gizmo, which was integrated into Google. I also had a Google Voice number, which I had connected to my cell phone.
Gizmo disappeared, and with it, my Gizmo number, but then Google allowed us to migrate our Google Voice number to a SIP phone (which I was using for Gizmo).
Worked fine for a few days, but now calling my GV number puts into my GV account; NOT what I want, and not what it did originally; and I have no one to talk to!
Great article, good analysis.
I will argue that this is a very good thing. When I was younger, even through my 30's, I had so many things on my mind that I seldom had time to think of new things (same thing as the so-called "absent-minded professor", who has to clear his/her mind of trivia to deal with important issues; I wasn't good at doing that).
With Google et al, many of these things are now less intrusive, and I see it in a more productive mind, speaking for myself.
Good article, well written and thoughtful.
I agree on all points, except I will point out two things:
1. Congress, I believe, passed "first to file" laws; a step in the right direction. Big business has done a good job of claiming it harms small inventors, which isn't true, but it passed.
2. It is the way patents (and IP generally) is implemented that is so harmful. As an IP attorney, I see the advantages of properly done IP all the time - and the enormous harm in the way it is usually done!
Personally, even though I am an attorney, I feel it is more important to hold people in the legal profession (including lawmakers, or politicians) to the highest ethical standards.
I realize that, generally, there are more important functions where abuse may occur, but that does not excuse attorneys from meeting high ethical and professional standards.
Good analysis, and I do think the Constitution is under attack from our own government, but here I beg to differ.
The Constitution has never been interpreted to interfere with normal government functions. Are the TSA procedures "normal"? I would argue they are abhorrent, but as phrased by the court, they do pass Constitutional muster.
Great article.
I was recently involved in a startup. We began with a crappy product, but slowly developed the basis for something really valuable.
Then "the man" (founder) decided he was only interested in selling the company, and had us abandon efforts to make a silk purse out of that sow's ear, and just make it look "jazzy" so the company could be sold.
I dropped out, of course - it might work, but I don't like working with smoke and mirrors.
Excellent article - well thought out and reasonable.
This reminds me of an interview I saw once of a student at Bob Jones University - he said they were "very openminded", even having debates pitting the "Bible against evolution" - as if evolution was anti-Bible!
He then went on to say "the evolutionists always lose, of course".
Very open minded, intelligent debate - better than the Burns blog, though.
Ah, the bliss of ignorance.
At one time, it was the mailman - bringing bills you didn't want to pay. You didn't mind the people demanding payment, but that "G*d D**n mailman!!!" -
Then it was doctors, telling you that you were really sick (and tactfully not pointing out that you brought it on yourself with self-indulgence!) - G*d D**n doctors!
Now it is lawyers, INSTRUCTED by their clients to boilerplate their agreements - G*d D**n lawyers!
No wonder the guilty have so little to fear; after all, it is really the G*d D**n cops, isn't it?
The article does ignore the really serious negative consequences of this, though - since there is the appearance of great wealth from "here and now, practical" applications, it degrades the value of pure research.
So, the wisdom of the past: "a dollar for now, a dollar for the future" becomes "get the money, NOW!"
The way I believe it all works is this:
The entertainment industry offers big bucks to politicians ("campaign" funds, unlimited by a recent Supreme Court decision).
Some politicians say "Fine, but how to I explain this to my idiots (excuse me, "constituents").
The EI then says, easy, "child porn"!
SP then says, "where's the money, I am sold".
Again, pegging on an extreme.
There are plenty of (mostly older) people who have been indoctrinated to do what the media tells them to do (well, they are heavily influenced by it), and they VOTE!
Result? The world is largely run by Rupert Murdoch, etc., and are fixated on "welfare for the wealthy" and other ideas that are causing our decline as a nation.
So, eventually - I think you are likely right; but "unit step" unbridled media?
I sincerely hope you aren't serious.
EXACTLY RIGHT!
But again, "pegging" on a conclusion!
This is not a "go-no go" situation; all IP is good, or all IP is bad.
This is about so-called "defensive" or "large entity" type patents. Originally intended to make it too expensive for people to attempt to steal money from successful companies, it has morphed into the exact opposite, ALLOWING people to do so!
IP as the founders intended is a vibrant force for good, just a (small) minority, now.
What sort of "experts" are you consulting? The US is the only first to invent country; check Wikipedia (I am shocked that you haven't already!).
"The United States is unique in using a first-to-invent system. Canada and the Philippines had similar, although slightly different, systems until 1989 and 1998, respectively."
Further, the US is in the process of changing to first to file, thank Heavens!
So, seniors are becoming a major sector of the population.
Seniors, generally, don't use the internet that much, and rely on TV and newspapers.
Seniors are more likely to vote, and so have a disproportionate impact on the vote.
But, merging all the news media into a Murdoch-type media outlet does not have a significant effect?
Why? Because you don't want to believe it, so you close your mind?
So, let me see if I understand:
For "artists" (IMO better defined as "Idle Americans"), they can develop the "idea", and developing the idea - which we assume is less important - is left to people who rip off the deserving idle Americans.
For IP, we reverse that. The idea is totally unimportant, and anyone who develops it should be entitled to all the credit (and profit?).
Why am I not understanding this?
On the post: China Shutting Down Some (But Not All!) Fake Apple Stores...
China and Apple stores
One Chinese official told me "They don't even speak proper Chinese there" as he explained why Kunming and Yunnan don't really matter.
On the post: Demand Media Threatens Critic Blog
Demand and its takedown
LAWYERS don't run a company. LAWYERS don't make strategic decisions. Like engineers, tech writers, etc., LAWYERS are told to do "X" and figure out how to use the legal system to do it.
I visualize a lawyer telling the corporate officers who wanted a take down that it is not a good idea; and being told to "just go do it".
But, bloggers, who seem to be more intelligent than most, fall into the same trap as the ignorami; attack the messenger!
On the post: Oracle Deletes Jonathan Schwartz's Old Blog; Which Excitedly Celebrated Google's Use Of Java In Android
Java
I find that EFS-WEB does not recognize Java on linux, and seems to require Windows.
So, in mucking around, I found that it appears to be something Microsoft or Oracle added, and whatever the flag is, it can be reset by merely having Windows available, even if using linux.
Interestingly, on one computer, I set it up to access Windows, then used linux (successfully).
I then decided to try Windows - and now WINDOWS is blocked!
On the post: Is There A Difference Between Inspiration And Copying?
Infringing photos
I am inclined to think we should completely abolish copyright, and do some serious limiting on patents.
On the post: Can Google Get Past The Big Faceless White Monolith Stage?
Google customer care
Gizmo disappeared, and with it, my Gizmo number, but then Google allowed us to migrate our Google Voice number to a SIP phone (which I was using for Gizmo).
Worked fine for a few days, but now calling my GV number puts into my GV account; NOT what I want, and not what it did originally; and I have no one to talk to!
On the post: No, Google Is Not Rewiring How We Remember
Google rewiring brains
I will argue that this is a very good thing. When I was younger, even through my 30's, I had so many things on my mind that I seldom had time to think of new things (same thing as the so-called "absent-minded professor", who has to clear his/her mind of trivia to deal with important issues; I wasn't good at doing that).
With Google et al, many of these things are now less intrusive, and I see it in a more productive mind, speaking for myself.
On the post: App Developers Dropping Out Of US Out Of Fears Over Patent Lawsuits
Patents and Innovation
I agree on all points, except I will point out two things:
1. Congress, I believe, passed "first to file" laws; a step in the right direction. Big business has done a good job of claiming it harms small inventors, which isn't true, but it passed.
2. It is the way patents (and IP generally) is implemented that is so harmful. As an IP attorney, I see the advantages of properly done IP all the time - and the enormous harm in the way it is usually done!
On the post: Rich Fiscus' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Good post, but ...
I realize that, generally, there are more important functions where abuse may occur, but that does not excuse attorneys from meeting high ethical and professional standards.
On the post: Court: Naked Scanners Are Constitutional; But TSA Should Have Asked For Public Comment
4th amendment argument
The Constitution has never been interpreted to interfere with normal government functions. Are the TSA procedures "normal"? I would argue they are abhorrent, but as phrased by the court, they do pass Constitutional muster.
On the post: Yes, Silicon Valley Is Filled With Trivial Startups... And That's A Good Thing
Too much too soon
I was recently involved in a startup. We began with a crappy product, but slowly developed the basis for something really valuable.
Then "the man" (founder) decided he was only interested in selling the company, and had us abandon efforts to make a silk purse out of that sow's ear, and just make it look "jazzy" so the company could be sold.
I dropped out, of course - it might work, but I don't like working with smoke and mirrors.
On the post: Rep. Anna Eshoo (From Silicon Valley!) Thinks PROTECT IP Is About Immigration?
Eschoo and PROTECT-IP
I will have to rethink voting/campaigning for Eschoo.
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Fretards and Burns blog
This reminds me of an interview I saw once of a student at Bob Jones University - he said they were "very openminded", even having debates pitting the "Bible against evolution" - as if evolution was anti-Bible!
He then went on to say "the evolutionists always lose, of course".
Very open minded, intelligent debate - better than the Burns blog, though.
On the post: Making Sure Your Ass Is Covered
Covering your ass
At one time, it was the mailman - bringing bills you didn't want to pay. You didn't mind the people demanding payment, but that "G*d D**n mailman!!!" -
Then it was doctors, telling you that you were really sick (and tactfully not pointing out that you brought it on yourself with self-indulgence!) - G*d D**n doctors!
Now it is lawyers, INSTRUCTED by their clients to boilerplate their agreements - G*d D**n lawyers!
No wonder the guilty have so little to fear; after all, it is really the G*d D**n cops, isn't it?
On the post: University Of Copenhagen Giving Away Patents For Free... If You Have A Credible Plan
Patents and education
The article does ignore the really serious negative consequences of this, though - since there is the appearance of great wealth from "here and now, practical" applications, it degrades the value of pure research.
So, the wisdom of the past: "a dollar for now, a dollar for the future" becomes "get the money, NOW!"
On the post: How Copyright Lobbyists Are Making The Child Porn Problem Worse
Child porn and copyright
The entertainment industry offers big bucks to politicians ("campaign" funds, unlimited by a recent Supreme Court decision).
Some politicians say "Fine, but how to I explain this to my idiots (excuse me, "constituents").
The EI then says, easy, "child porn"!
SP then says, "where's the money, I am sold".
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Newport Television Abusing DMCA To Try To Silence Criticism
Free Press
There are plenty of (mostly older) people who have been indoctrinated to do what the media tells them to do (well, they are heavily influenced by it), and they VOTE!
Result? The world is largely run by Rupert Murdoch, etc., and are fixated on "welfare for the wealthy" and other ideas that are causing our decline as a nation.
So, eventually - I think you are likely right; but "unit step" unbridled media?
I sincerely hope you aren't serious.
On the post: Patents As Theft: How Oracle & Microsoft Seek To Profit From Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
M$ and Oracle stealing money from Android
But again, "pegging" on a conclusion!
This is not a "go-no go" situation; all IP is good, or all IP is bad.
This is about so-called "defensive" or "large entity" type patents. Originally intended to make it too expensive for people to attempt to steal money from successful companies, it has morphed into the exact opposite, ALLOWING people to do so!
IP as the founders intended is a vibrant force for good, just a (small) minority, now.
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Explains His Legal Theory
first to file and first to invent in trademarks
"The United States is unique in using a first-to-invent system. Canada and the Philippines had similar, although slightly different, systems until 1989 and 1998, respectively."
Further, the US is in the process of changing to first to file, thank Heavens!
On the post: Appeals Court Tosses FCC's Media Ownership Rules
Kevin Martin's proposed rules
Seniors, generally, don't use the internet that much, and rely on TV and newspapers.
Seniors are more likely to vote, and so have a disproportionate impact on the vote.
But, merging all the news media into a Murdoch-type media outlet does not have a significant effect?
Why? Because you don't want to believe it, so you close your mind?
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
HOw the labels cut artists out
For "artists" (IMO better defined as "Idle Americans"), they can develop the "idea", and developing the idea - which we assume is less important - is left to people who rip off the deserving idle Americans.
For IP, we reverse that. The idea is totally unimportant, and anyone who develops it should be entitled to all the credit (and profit?).
Why am I not understanding this?
Next >>