Hell yes performance bonuses! It takes a lot of hard work to run an established business with name recognition and a patent trove so far into the ground that they have to sell everything off. I bet those execs had to put in 40 hours a week to acomplish it!
The 75% number comes from the poll on "When patents attack" as heard on NPR.
Yes, software patents are bad. They are completely unethical. Why? Because they are patents on equasions and algorithms, specifically made unavailable for patent protection. The courts did a cute dance around this by declaring a general purpose computer running different software a different "machine." This is like stating that a different DVD in your player creates a different machine.
The cost of work does not enter in to the equation. Patents cover innovation, not hard work. How about the cost of work that everyone else has taken to create the exact same features independently of Kodak? I guarantee that they did not look at the patents, or even know that they exist. So whoever buys these patents gets a free tax payment from the companies that made real, marketable products, something Kodak was unwilling or unable to do. How is that fair?
Please, read the articles on this site that are tagged "patent" before you comment. You seem very poorly informed.
Wow. Apple, Microsoft and Intellectual Ventures. Right out in the open. Keep in mind 75% of developers believe software patents are wrong. This is the two biggest tech firms telling developers to fuck off. Which is what we should do.
We should fuck off to Android, and see if the suits can write their own apps.
Please remember that when the telcos were bitching about tethering, they mainly offered unlimited usage. Now that they have metered usage, they will be all for you tethering your phone. The faster you pass your cap, they more money they make.
I agree. Stating that "There are many individuals who may use their work email address for a variety of personal reasons" is the biggest bunch of bullshit I ever read. Doesn't even pass the laugh test.
There are may businesses who find that individuals who use their work email address for personal reasons are wasting company resources. Those individuals often find their employement terminated.
So, you can invest in you child's future, but you don't want them to get the money until you die? That makes sense. You are able to give a one-time, tax free gift to anyone you want, and yet you bitch about an inheritance tax?
That's a good start... but corporations are immortal.
Give corporations a lifespan, say 120 years, and we're in a much better place.
We would also need to make sure that any one person could only sit on a single board of directors, and that person could not be an executive of any level at any corporation.
Right now we have CEO's of one corporation sitting on the board of 5 other corporations. How is that not an unfair concentration of power?
Very wrong. These proposals (3 and 4) are wrong because they only address economic ideals, not political realities.
The political reality is, the more you concentrate wealth, the closer you get to despotism. Or to put it another way: would corporations spend their money on making their business better (reinvesting) or making other businesses worse (lobbying, patents, etc.) I think we've already seen which one they prefer. It's a zero sum game to them.
We've already seen that when corporations change heads, they can turn on a dime and make everyone's lives miserable. (Sun, anyone?) Now give that corporation an even larger chunk of money.
We need a mechanism to strip away the inordinate amounts of wealth accumulated by generations of the elites. Some, like Gates and Buffet, have pledged to give their fortunes away, but others will certainly pass their wealth down forever. Has it occured to anyone that what made America great was that we didn't have the generations of wealthy aristocrats wielding inordinate amounts of power? How about now?
Nope. Too little too late. Prior to litigation that destroyed peoples lives, sure! Now, I want to see the studios and labels 6 feet under. I WILL NOT BUY. If I can't get it at the library, I do without.
I already own several thousand DVD's and CD's that I bought when I was younger. I'm good.
I think the problem is that your make-believe world where everyone pays for content sharply contrasts with the content industries make-believe world where everyone is a pirate. This is a good compromise.
On the post: North Face Wants Court To Spank Butt Face
Upvote for consistent style.
On the post: Execs From Bankrupt Kodak To Make Millions For Giving The Company's Patents To Trolls
Re:
On the post: Australian Advertising Watch Group Says Companies Are Responsible For Comments On Their Facebook Pages
Crazy people always say that
Are you sure about that? Are you?
Are you?!?!
On the post: UCF Student Makes Class Registration Easier; Receives Academic Probation For His Troubles
On the post: The Pending Kodak Patent Auction May Create Weapons Of Business Destruction
Re: Re:
Yes, software patents are bad. They are completely unethical. Why? Because they are patents on equasions and algorithms, specifically made unavailable for patent protection. The courts did a cute dance around this by declaring a general purpose computer running different software a different "machine." This is like stating that a different DVD in your player creates a different machine.
The cost of work does not enter in to the equation. Patents cover innovation, not hard work. How about the cost of work that everyone else has taken to create the exact same features independently of Kodak? I guarantee that they did not look at the patents, or even know that they exist. So whoever buys these patents gets a free tax payment from the companies that made real, marketable products, something Kodak was unwilling or unable to do. How is that fair?
Please, read the articles on this site that are tagged "patent" before you comment. You seem very poorly informed.
On the post: The Pending Kodak Patent Auction May Create Weapons Of Business Destruction
We should fuck off to Android, and see if the suits can write their own apps.
On the post: Verizon Wireless 'Settles' With FCC For Blocking Tethering Apps It Was Moving Away From Blocking Anyway
Re: Re: Tasting
On the post: Verizon Wireless 'Settles' With FCC For Blocking Tethering Apps It Was Moving Away From Blocking Anyway
Re: Re: Telco Sleaze
On the post: New Patent Reform Bill Defines Software Patents; Targets Trolls
Re: Re: Defining software patents
On the post: Twitter Finally Reinstates Journalist's Twitter Account, But Questions Raised Over Its Actions
Re:
There are may businesses who find that individuals who use their work email address for personal reasons are wasting company resources. Those individuals often find their employement terminated.
On the post: Would US Education Be Better If We Replaced Algebra Requirements With Stats & Logic?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Again, Netflix Class Action Shows That Class Action Lawsuits Are Mostly About Making Lawyers Rich
Re:
He really is all-powerful, huh?
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Start with a false premise.
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Start with a false premise.
Give corporations a lifespan, say 120 years, and we're in a much better place.
We would also need to make sure that any one person could only sit on a single board of directors, and that person could not be an executive of any level at any corporation.
Right now we have CEO's of one corporation sitting on the board of 5 other corporations. How is that not an unfair concentration of power?
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Start with a false premise.
The political reality is, the more you concentrate wealth, the closer you get to despotism. Or to put it another way: would corporations spend their money on making their business better (reinvesting) or making other businesses worse (lobbying, patents, etc.) I think we've already seen which one they prefer. It's a zero sum game to them.
We've already seen that when corporations change heads, they can turn on a dime and make everyone's lives miserable. (Sun, anyone?) Now give that corporation an even larger chunk of money.
We need a mechanism to strip away the inordinate amounts of wealth accumulated by generations of the elites. Some, like Gates and Buffet, have pledged to give their fortunes away, but others will certainly pass their wealth down forever. Has it occured to anyone that what made America great was that we didn't have the generations of wealthy aristocrats wielding inordinate amounts of power? How about now?
On the post: Two-Cent Doughnuts Breed Decades Of Bad Blood: It's Not So Easy Going From Free To Paid
Re: Re:
On the post: Terrorists And Pedophiles Get More Protection In UK Than Guy Who Hosted Links To TV Shows
Re:
On the post: Couple Arrested For Dancing On NYC Subway Platform
Re: Re: Re: But.... but....
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows You Can Compete With Piracy
Re: Re:
I already own several thousand DVD's and CD's that I bought when I was younger. I'm good.
On the post: Content Is Advertising, Advertising Is Content: Media Company Buys Ad Firm That Makes Good Content
Re:
Next >>