...is that these old guys seem to think there are still only one or two choices for news (occasionally owned by the same company!).
We will still find the same news from another source. The only difference is that you will loose the page views you would have received if you were linked from Google.
Disclaimer -I've had one or two WSJ subs in my life, usually when they were required reading for college classes.
You focused on the Free Rider principle and theft of services. Several people have discussed why that is an incorrect, and narrow view, but I have another point for you to consider.
Look at it this way. I am a happy DirecTV subscriber. I also pay for STARZ as part of a movie channel package. However, not being a ComCastic subscriber how would I be able to authenticate?
How is this going to work? I see hella long lines at the gate because instead of scanning a bar code on a pre-printed ticket they have to scan the credit card, find the record for the proper concert, etc. Hmm, I don't know. Generally I just assume TM is out to screw me so I don't like it.
Wow, you really avoided all of the questions and concerns raised by people here and retreated to cutting and pasting marketing boilerplate. At this point I'm not positive that you aren't a chatbot.
First, I'm unsure why you bring up domestic IP thieves. There is already a process to deal with this issue, and it doesn't involved anyone outside of the US.
Second, while I understand the concept I think you are trying to convey, it isn't really a "tax." It is more likely to be lost potential revenue, but even that is debatable - especially given the very large numbers of patent hoarders in the US. So I would appreciate your thoughts on someone who buys up a patent with no intention of using it (in the way it was intended to be used). Under your analogy they would also be guilty of imposing a tax on America.
Third, forgive my ignorance, but aren't patents only valid in the country in which they were issued? I do realize they can be licensed by someone in another country, but the first two letters of the USPTO are sort of a giveaway here, right?
It seems like the USTR (and you) are advocating that we use international agreements to extend of reach of national patent offices in to other countries? This seems fraught with danger and smacks of the Big Stick mentality of Roosevelt. There are also strong arguments to be made that the developed countries use patents (and similar instruments) to limit growth and access to goods and services in the developing world. Assume a patent on water desalination. I agree the fictional US owner of the patent deserves to be compensated for the development of the technology. However, what if the price is 1 million dollars per unit while fine people in Bangladesh are dieing every day. And yeah, I know this example is meant to play on the heartstrings but it is still true. How about when patents are used to stifle small businesses and drive them out of the market? Ref: Monsanto suing the farmers who don't choose to buy they seeds because (surprise) wind and bugs happen to move pollen to the next field.
How would you resolve disputes concerning independent concurrent development or incremental development? A good example of this is the 'inventor' of radio, pick one: Guglielmo Marconi, Nikola Tesla, Alexander Popov, Sir Oliver Lodge, Reginald Fessenden, Heinrich Hertz, Amos Dolbear, Mahlon Loomis, Nathan Stubblefield and James Clerk Maxwell. What happens when the winner isn't from America? There is also the matter of retroactive and ongoing damages. Where do you draw the line? Assume that Marconi was the inventor of radio. Should everyone from RKO to Clearchannel to 'mad dog wolfman on hot 99.5 FM' be liable for infringing on Marconi's patent?
I don't know. These are serious questions that need to be discussed. However, I don't think that banging the drums of nationalism or secret agreements is really the best solution.
The difference is that people organizing to discuss a common interest is legal. Business competitors meeting to discuss common strategies is clearly illegal. From TFA, from their own publicity report, they were "the group listened to executives from companies representing various new models for obtaining value from newspaper content online"
"Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties." All acts effected by collusion are considered void."
They found that having a conversation with a passenger had the same level of distraction as using a phone, or, I suppose, listening to sports. Probably not possible to ban everything, should just assume that accidents will happen sometimes.
Snarky Friday answer ==> Maybe they should switch to a "real" sport, like American football! The handy yardage markers make it much easier to keep track of while driving!
On the post: According To WSJ, Google Not Just A 'Thief' But A 'Digital Vampire'
I think part of the problem
We will still find the same news from another source. The only difference is that you will loose the page views you would have received if you were linked from Google.
Disclaimer -I've had one or two WSJ subs in my life, usually when they were required reading for college classes.
On the post: Associated Press's Continued Delusion: Social Networking Guidelines Require Employees To Delete Other People's Content
Hard to see how
Well, other than this farce of course, which reflects horrifically badly on AP itself.
On the post: Comcast And Time Warner Team Up To Control What TV You Watch Online
Re: JBB
Look at it this way. I am a happy DirecTV subscriber. I also pay for STARZ as part of a movie channel package. However, not being a ComCastic subscriber how would I be able to authenticate?
On the post: Recording Industry Sues More Irish ISPs For Not Implementing 3 Strikes
Re: A/C
A) "Accuracy, it's something sorely lacking around here." says the Anon Coward.
B) Attribution, sorely lacking in the previous comment.
C) Cary Sherman, is that you?
I got a million of them! Try the veal, tip your waitress.
On the post: EFF Busts Another Bogus Patent... Five Years Later
Re: DJ
Also, answer "C" is probably Galileo.
On the post: Ticketmaster Takes Another Stab At Shutting Down Scalpers With Paperless Tickets
Longer lines
On the post: Music Publisher Suddenly Claims 80s Australian Pop Hit Infringed On 1930s Kids Tune
Kookaburra and Mickey Mouse hatched a plot
On the post: Yet Another E-Voting Glitch; This One Adds 5,000 Phantom Votes
Re: TW
On the post: US Trade Rep Promises Transparency... But Actions Speak Louder Than Websites
Re: Ron
On the post: US Trade Rep Promises Transparency... But Actions Speak Louder Than Websites
Re: Ron
Second, while I understand the concept I think you are trying to convey, it isn't really a "tax." It is more likely to be lost potential revenue, but even that is debatable - especially given the very large numbers of patent hoarders in the US. So I would appreciate your thoughts on someone who buys up a patent with no intention of using it (in the way it was intended to be used). Under your analogy they would also be guilty of imposing a tax on America.
Third, forgive my ignorance, but aren't patents only valid in the country in which they were issued? I do realize they can be licensed by someone in another country, but the first two letters of the USPTO are sort of a giveaway here, right?
It seems like the USTR (and you) are advocating that we use international agreements to extend of reach of national patent offices in to other countries? This seems fraught with danger and smacks of the Big Stick mentality of Roosevelt. There are also strong arguments to be made that the developed countries use patents (and similar instruments) to limit growth and access to goods and services in the developing world. Assume a patent on water desalination. I agree the fictional US owner of the patent deserves to be compensated for the development of the technology. However, what if the price is 1 million dollars per unit while fine people in Bangladesh are dieing every day. And yeah, I know this example is meant to play on the heartstrings but it is still true. How about when patents are used to stifle small businesses and drive them out of the market? Ref: Monsanto suing the farmers who don't choose to buy they seeds because (surprise) wind and bugs happen to move pollen to the next field.
How would you resolve disputes concerning independent concurrent development or incremental development? A good example of this is the 'inventor' of radio, pick one: Guglielmo Marconi, Nikola Tesla, Alexander Popov, Sir Oliver Lodge, Reginald Fessenden, Heinrich Hertz, Amos Dolbear, Mahlon Loomis, Nathan Stubblefield and James Clerk Maxwell. What happens when the winner isn't from America? There is also the matter of retroactive and ongoing damages. Where do you draw the line? Assume that Marconi was the inventor of radio. Should everyone from RKO to Clearchannel to 'mad dog wolfman on hot 99.5 FM' be liable for infringing on Marconi's patent?
I don't know. These are serious questions that need to be discussed. However, I don't think that banging the drums of nationalism or secret agreements is really the best solution.
On the post: Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
Re: #11
"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The difference is that people organizing to discuss a common interest is legal. Business competitors meeting to discuss common strategies is clearly illegal. From TFA, from their own publicity report, they were "the group listened to executives from companies representing various new models for obtaining value from newspaper content online"
"Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties." All acts effected by collusion are considered void."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
I'm sure they didn't explicitly discuss pricing strategies and stayed on the right side of the law. However, even the meeting itself is troubling.
On the post: Study Says Listening To Sports While Driving Is Dangerous, So Let's Ban That, Too
I read somewhere
Snarky Friday answer ==> Maybe they should switch to a "real" sport, like American football! The handy yardage markers make it much easier to keep track of while driving!
Next >>