The just-cut-the-finger-off in movies, and the photocopies would only work for the cheap systems that only scan the fingerprint. They've had systems for years that measure galvanic activity to ensure that the fingerprint is coming from a live finger. So your laptop might have the cheap reader, but it won't work at high-security facilities.
SoundExchange can demand anything they want, but if you aren't playing RIAA tracks, haven't signed a contract with SoundExchange, and the sources of your music don't require you to pay royalties, they have no legal basis for their claim.
There are 2 alternatives that leave SoundExchange and the RIAA penniless:
The groups producing the music can submit their music to a webcaster with the stipulation that they webcaster may webcast their music for free. There are no royalities to be collected by anyone.
The groups producting the music could pay a webcaster to play their music (based on flat fees or by auction). There are no royalities to be collected by anyone.
>History is littered with small companies out innovating much better funded bigger companies -- often using their "bigness" against them.
It also occurs to me that a number of small companies have been killed by large well-funded companies despite the small companies having innovative products that were superior in quality and lower in price. Microsoft, for example, has often played the role of squasher-of-innovators.
>This is not as hard as you make it out to be. Our capital markets are incredibly efficient and effective in moving money to where it's needed --
Based on my research and experience, I believe that's true only for specific niches. For example, if you're looking for VC funding for a growth stage for a high-tech or life-sciences company, you have a large number of firms to choose from. However, there are many circumstances for which you will find zero or very little interest from VCs. Banks are always available only if you have sufficient collateral.
>and increasingly, investors don't care about patents.
Do investors no longer perform due diligence? Due diligence has always included consideration of what the barriers are to your competitors doing the same thing you intend to do. Patents are not the only form of barrier to entry, but they are a powerful one.
>>The possibility of patent protection encourages the unfunded inventor to innovate,
>That's the theory, with no evidence, that patent proponents repeat ad nauseum.
No evidence? So if I provide evidence, you'll apologize for repeating the comments that patent opponents repeat ad nauseum?
I am about to file a patent application for a product that will be very expensive to produce. Once I have patent protection, I will seek to raise funds, and for that, patent protection is a critical aspect. Who would invest in me if I could be trounced by the major players in the field that are extremely well funded?
Evidence: If I could not get temporary patent protection, I wouldn't bother developing this idea, because I would expect to lose it to established companies. Why wouldn't I simply beat them by innovating faster than them? Because I cannot afford to develop and market even the first iteration on my own. Once more for effect: I am pursuing this idea only because of the time-limited protection offered by the existing patent system.
"...he thinks he can stay ahead of the pack by out-innovating them. That doesn't require patents, it just requires knowing your market and continually innovating."
Depending on the product, it can also require substantial amounts of money. And if you're an unfunded inventor, with established well-funded competitors, how can you raise capital without the protection of a patent? The possibility of patent protection encourages the unfunded inventor to innovate, and gives him/her a chance to get funding. After approximately 20 years, the patent expires, allowing everyone to use those innovations, but by then, the inventor may have become a new competitor in that industry.
Increased competition also decreases sales for specific products. Not surprisingly, the RIA rep said nothing about increased competition, which explains his clients' plight better than his theory.
Carlo most certainly did NOT reveal that he's read at most one academic study on the topic. He provided a link to one relevant article as an example of the evidence. I suggest you search Techdirt for its many other relevant articles. But since your web link is to the "Progress and Freedom Foundation," perhaps you're not really interested in studying evidence contrary to their views.
Hmm. I wonder if an insurance company could write a contract that would exclude specific issues? Anyone know if they've ever done that?
Slightly more seriously, has there ever been an insurance contract that didn't exclude a long list of issues?
Gigatribe's free service is to entice people to upgrade to their paid premium service ($25 lifetime license)... nothing fishy about that. The rest of it looks reasonable too. I'm not an iPod/mp3 user/downloader, but GigaTribe looks like a viable business solution that I now plan to try.
I'd like to appeal my patent denial, 'cause my elephant repellent doesn't work based on body odor, it works on the much more scientific principle of ether-string disruptance of subdural quark fields. And I'm pretty sure that meets the requirement of novelty.
If XBRL makes it easier for the SEC to find errors in reports, it also makes it easier for CFO's. Here's a crazy idea... perhaps the CFO's could check for errors and correct them before they submit the documents to the SEC.
1. A non-citizen is not legally allowed to work in the United States without authorization (E.g., green card, H1B visa, etc.)
2. We're all immigrants. Some are first generation, the rest of us are descendants of immigrants. Even "native" Americans are thought to be descendants of people who came from Asia.
3. Recent immigrants (1st-3rd generation) have always had a major impact on the national economy, primarily due to entrepreneurial activities.
4. When there are both citizens and non-citizens who qualify for a job, H1B visas allow companies to have the citizens and non-citizens compete for the position, based on additional skills, acceptance of lower compensation, etc.
5. If there are no H1B's, and if there are not enough qualified citizen job-seekers in a field, larger (or better funded) firms tend to win bidding wars for the limited supply of local personnel.
Bottom line: H1B's allow greater concentration of the best skilled workers in the world to work for American companies, at the cost of reduced demand (fewer jobs, lower pay) for American workers who are less skilled than non-citizen competitors.
Therefore, H1B's are good for the American economy overall, but bad for citizens whose job skills are inferior to foreign rivals.
On the post: Beat-Fingerprint-Security-By-Cutting-Off-Finger Trick No Longer Viable, Thanks To Sony
Cheap vs High Quality
On the post: Are eBay Auctions Rational?
Rational article
On the post: Critics Think It's Better To Be Uninformed Than To Read Articles Written By Foreigners
Halfway overseas?
On the post: Maybe The Dot Com Bubble Wasn't Such A Bubble After All
x times earnings
On the post: Webcasting Non-RIAA Music In Protest May Only Make The RIAA Wealthier
Re: Re: Two Alternatives
On the post: Webcasting Non-RIAA Music In Protest May Only Make The RIAA Wealthier
Two Alternatives
There are 2 alternatives that leave SoundExchange and the RIAA penniless:
On the post: Yet Another 'Inventor' Of Wireless Email Comes Forward -- But Wants To Fight With Products, Not Patents
Re: Re: Don't forget money...
>History is littered with small companies out innovating much better funded bigger companies -- often using their "bigness" against them.
It also occurs to me that a number of small companies have been killed by large well-funded companies despite the small companies having innovative products that were superior in quality and lower in price. Microsoft, for example, has often played the role of squasher-of-innovators.
On the post: Yet Another 'Inventor' Of Wireless Email Comes Forward -- But Wants To Fight With Products, Not Patents
Re: Re: Don't forget money...
>This is not as hard as you make it out to be. Our capital markets are incredibly efficient and effective in moving money to where it's needed --
Based on my research and experience, I believe that's true only for specific niches. For example, if you're looking for VC funding for a growth stage for a high-tech or life-sciences company, you have a large number of firms to choose from. However, there are many circumstances for which you will find zero or very little interest from VCs. Banks are always available only if you have sufficient collateral.
>and increasingly, investors don't care about patents.
Do investors no longer perform due diligence? Due diligence has always included consideration of what the barriers are to your competitors doing the same thing you intend to do. Patents are not the only form of barrier to entry, but they are a powerful one.
On the post: Yet Another 'Inventor' Of Wireless Email Comes Forward -- But Wants To Fight With Products, Not Patents
Re: Re: Don't forget money...
>>The possibility of patent protection encourages the unfunded inventor to innovate,
>That's the theory, with no evidence, that patent proponents repeat ad nauseum.
No evidence? So if I provide evidence, you'll apologize for repeating the comments that patent opponents repeat ad nauseum?
I am about to file a patent application for a product that will be very expensive to produce. Once I have patent protection, I will seek to raise funds, and for that, patent protection is a critical aspect. Who would invest in me if I could be trounced by the major players in the field that are extremely well funded?
Evidence: If I could not get temporary patent protection, I wouldn't bother developing this idea, because I would expect to lose it to established companies. Why wouldn't I simply beat them by innovating faster than them? Because I cannot afford to develop and market even the first iteration on my own. Once more for effect: I am pursuing this idea only because of the time-limited protection offered by the existing patent system.
On the post: Yet Another 'Inventor' Of Wireless Email Comes Forward -- But Wants To Fight With Products, Not Patents
Don't forget money...
"...he thinks he can stay ahead of the pack by out-innovating them. That doesn't require patents, it just requires knowing your market and continually innovating."
Depending on the product, it can also require substantial amounts of money. And if you're an unfunded inventor, with established well-funded competitors, how can you raise capital without the protection of a patent? The possibility of patent protection encourages the unfunded inventor to innovate, and gives him/her a chance to get funding. After approximately 20 years, the patent expires, allowing everyone to use those innovations, but by then, the inventor may have become a new competitor in that industry.
On the post: Google And Microsoft In Battle For Onetime Advertising Darling
9thxchange
On the post: Downloads... Or An Inability To Adjust To Changing Times... Force Musicians To Get Second Jobs
Competition
On the post: The Shift From CDs To Downloads Is So Much More Than A Format Change
Re: Read up on your topic
On the post: Law Firm's Blog Makes It Uninsurable
Re: Makes sense to me
On the post: RIAA University Campaign Sputters: Group Asked To Pay Up For Wasting School's Time
Re: Gigacrap.
On the post: Preventing Video Game Addiction... With Subliminal Noises?
Re: Re: Highly effective
On the post: Preventing Video Game Addiction... With Subliminal Noises?
Highly effective
On the post: Why Would Companies Want To Make It Easier For The SEC To Find Their Mistakes?
Works both ways...
On the post: No End In Sight To H-1B Problems
Strengths & weaknesses, as always...
2. We're all immigrants. Some are first generation, the rest of us are descendants of immigrants. Even "native" Americans are thought to be descendants of people who came from Asia.
3. Recent immigrants (1st-3rd generation) have always had a major impact on the national economy, primarily due to entrepreneurial activities.
4. When there are both citizens and non-citizens who qualify for a job, H1B visas allow companies to have the citizens and non-citizens compete for the position, based on additional skills, acceptance of lower compensation, etc.
5. If there are no H1B's, and if there are not enough qualified citizen job-seekers in a field, larger (or better funded) firms tend to win bidding wars for the limited supply of local personnel.
Bottom line: H1B's allow greater concentration of the best skilled workers in the world to work for American companies, at the cost of reduced demand (fewer jobs, lower pay) for American workers who are less skilled than non-citizen competitors.
Therefore, H1B's are good for the American economy overall, but bad for citizens whose job skills are inferior to foreign rivals.
On the post: Cable Companies Explain How Price Increases Are Really Price Decreases
Cheap cable
My cable company wants to charge me 10 million dollars a month.
Their cable will provide 1 billion channels.
That's only one cent per channel! What a deal!
Next >>