”It seems to me that what Michael Naimark is saying is that he is dissapointed that it takes litigation to get large companies to respect others Patent Property Rights.”
An interesting interpretation of someone else’s words. I’d be interested in hearing Mr. Naimark’s reaction to your interpretation… the reason will become clear in a moment…
”Mike Masnick constantly acts like he understands the economics of invention business when he is clueless. The fact that opportunities like Interval Research are rare is related to recovering investments. The amounts involved in Interval's litigations and many others demonstrate that large entitlement minded companies are stealing on a grand scale.
…and here would be the reason. Someone expresses an interpretation of someone else’s opinion that differs from your own, and you accuse him of being clueless. Interesting.
Further, you go on to claim that the monies involved in the litigation demonstrate “large entitlement minded [sic] companies are stealing on a grand scale”. Care to provide any evidence to support this? Or is that more of your opinion that we are free to disregard on the merits of its worth?
“It is a shame that it takes litigation in order for inventors and invention producing companies to be compensated. “
Yeah, because gods forbid that the market, in an open-market economy, be the deciding factor on which products prosper and which ones don’t. If your competitor offers a product better and cheaper than yours, why should the law dictate which I buy? That's a monopoly. And with a patent, it's a government-granted monopoly. If it's there to help you recoup for a limited time, fine. But if you're not even trying to recoup in the market (i.e. sitting on the patent and not doing anything with it or you bought the patent as a lawfirm), why should the law stop someone else from getting a product to the market that the consumers want?
The invention business is much like the wild west, and invention stealing large companies have forced inventors to have their own gunslinger in tow in the form of a litigator. Fault for the necessary to litigate lies completely with companies who act as if they have an inalienable right to to "innovate" through unauthorized use of inventors property.
Bullshit. They have a choice. There was an article not too long ago here that showed a company who found out their product was being counterfeited responded by saying “you know what, we’ll make ours better.” Instead, litigants that you defend here are choosing to spend time, effort, and money on fighting instead of improving their idea.
And you know what… I’m not saying it’s the wrong decision… not even most of the time… but it’s still a choice. You don’t get to assign blame as you see it and then absolve these litigants from their own responsibility for their choices. You're making some broad generalizations about 'idea pirates' and then blaming them for the actions of lawyers who are making a buck on the suit, not on the pursuit of innovation.
"Let me get this straight- the industry has an unworkable business model due to people that aren't really ripping off music, they're just being falsely accused of it? Gotcha."
So you admit that the industry's business model is unworkable? Finally! He accepts reality!
All kidding aside, the "let’s get thousands of John Doe's and sue the shit out of them" method has been demonstrated to be a comedy of errors... who's only success has been in the intimidation of those who caved to what many have described as strong-armed thuggery and a protection-racket extortion scheme... and this is the better alternative to using 'free' as a successful business model? Are you just plain mean? Are you adversarial by nature and the stance you take is based on your need to vent aggression and not on some high-moral stance on giving artists their due?
"When 100,000 people are getting sued anonymously by just a few firms, at what point do the courts and politicians realize that something is broken with the law?"
When there's no more money to be made in keeping the status quo by the politicians with the power to effect change.
Not saying you're wrong in saying the guy is making a fallacious argument, but please make sure you're accurate in your accusation. Otherwise, someone may come along any make a Fallacisits' Fallacy against your argument and we'd have nothing but chaos and doom. ;) (see, not a strawman, just a false dilemma)
"That's certainly what it seemed like. Are you interpreting it differently? I mean, if he was aiming it at one person, specifically, why would he use a term that encompasses an entire group of people? Instead of, you know, her name."
Because the fact that she appears to have a 'radical feminist' viewpoint should be taken into it. To me, he was aiming his statement at a person and bringing back into light a, in my opinion, relevant fact.
"I'd certainly say that publishing instructions on how to get legal revenge on men should be taken into account, but feminism... is really the opposite of that."
Yes, proper feminism, not it's militant extreme, is the opposite of what this lady seems to be representing. Would it have been better if Chris had said "only a militant-not-really-representative-of-actual-feminism-feminist in Sweden would know..."?
"It's an ugly fact, but the FBI has an entire list of Americans that would love to blow up other Americans. When it happens, like with McVeigh and Nichols, we don't blame it on all Americans, do we? Nope."
I'm not really sure that this is relevant to the argument. Does seem a bit straw-man-ish. Did Chris reference all Swedes? No, he referenced a smaller group that this lady claimed to be a part of (if by action, if not by actual statement). A closer analogy would be blaming all members of whatever group(s) these bombers were members.
I mean, if we want to keep going, we can just blame all humans for all actions, good or ill. While this is true, it loses the point.
"Absolutely it does, but you've failed to link extreme revenge measures to feminism."
As I stated in the paragraph above the one you quoted, I was linking this action to 'extreme' or 'militant' feminism. I think I've already made the point that I agree there is a difference. Why would I want to link the extreme back to 'real' feminism? The only linking I was making was this person’s actions back to her social views, which do seem damned relevant to the case.
On the last part of it (too much to try & quote here), I do think that overlooking a feminist (extreme or otherwise) viewpoint... or any view point given by a particular group... for fear of angering that group is pandering. If that viewpoint has been seen in the past as very relevant to accusations of rape, then it needs to be looked at.
This lady seems to be of a militant feminist view to the point of being ‘against men’. Yes, I understand that this is not really feminism… I get that. As I said… it’s ugly, it’s wrong, but it’s true that there are women out there who would cry rape to get a man in trouble who has offended them. And if this lady seems to fall into that group, that view needs to be examined. If it turns out to be irrelevant and she has a legitimate case, fine… full speed ahead to justice. But you don’t overlook a possible connection because it’s a controversial one or it may offend someone.
I will quote this one though:
"To blame her actions on her self-appointed feminism is offense and chauvinistic."
No it's not. From the stories I read, she engaged in consensual sex. He is being charged through a loophole that sex without a condom, consensual or not, is rape. It appears that, based on her own actions and blogging, she is of an extreme-feminist view. So how is examining a link between her action of accusing him of loop-hole rape and that anti-man view offensive or chauvinistic? If you have a problem of her taking on a self-appointed affiliation with feminism, fine... take that up with her. But when it seems she takes action based on that view-point, don't go after the people who bring that possibility to light.
If I say “oh look, she’s crying rape because she’s a militant-feminist” and I dismiss the investigation, that’s wrong and offensive. If I say “hold on a second… is she maybe exaggerating or lying because she hates men and he’s a man?”, and then continue investigating, how is that wrong?
Maybe you got the idea that I hate feminists… I don’t. Any person who believes in the empowerment of their own group is alright in my book. I do have problems with the extreme examples of most groups I’ve seen… including feminism.
So, should Chris have stated "only a militant-not-really-representative-of-actual-feminism-feminist in Sweden would know..."? Maybe. Was he attacking feminists all over? Well, that’s for him to answer, but I don’t think he was. Is pointing out that her gender-political view may have some weight in this case wrong? No.
Finally, for my statement of misandry… I was saying that if Chris and I (or men in general) are not allowed to look into a feminist causality to this lady’s actions because it would be offensive and that we men are disparaging a (possible and probably self-proclaimed) feminist, that’s misandry. Or, simply put, if we look for a logical connection and are called chauvinistic just because the connection is gender-based, how is that us playing a gender card?
First, thank you for giving my posts attention. That you argued 3 of my posts is quite flattering. Especially considering such an impressive signature.
Now, allow me to rebuke...
#25: "And your qualifications to make this determination are?"
I'd say my qualifications for that determination would be the commonsense I was gifted with. And if an inexperienced outsider thinks that an item is so obvious that it shouldn't be granted a patent...
I didn't say that the patent should never have been issued because it failed some technical aspect of the filing process or did not properly outline a technology in the right terminology. I fail to see how I have to have some kind of degree to apply common sense.
We're talking about a system of storing data in a block-format and retrieval through a menu-like table of contents... You know, I think I need to go turn in my Wii as it appears to violate that patent.
And, do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the burden of proof on the applicant to show their requested patent is not an obvious idea? If that's the case, feel free to show how this was not obvious. I know it's not your patent, but you did defend its validity.
#26: "Some peoples skills are inventing. Many more people who lack the ability to invent are good at having something made and marketing it. Yet they could not have made the product all all if not for inventors.
So the truth in all this is that the failures are marketing hucksters. They are unethical parasites."
And how does this apply to the RIM Blackberry issue years past? Someone had a patent that covered a very broad idea (so broad that many besides me thought it shouldn't have been issued) and did nothing with it. Another company had the same idea (it was broad, after all) and actually did something with it. They had their own invention, but were sued because their broad idea ran close to someone else's broad idea. How was invention protected there?
“They are all unethical parasites”… that’s a pretty broad stroke to apply to so many people who fail to invent. It honestly concerns me that you would make such a statement right above all the groups you affiliate with. And it’s an opinion as well… one that I will now equate to you as well as the groups you represent. You don’t mind if I use this quote that all failures to invent are unethical parasites when discussing the various groups you represent, do you?
Well, I have an opinion too: The lawyers who go out and buy up patents for the sole purpose of litigating against people who come up with a similar idea; those are the unethical parasites. But, that’s just my opinion.
#28 "Justice delayed is justice denied, but better late than never."
Yes, I agree that an inventors 'day in court', as it were, is better late than never. However, much like the person I was actually discussing this with, you fail to address the core of my problem... how is this 'justice' if the people who now hold the patent and have the resources to pursue this had no hand in the invention? That's not justice, it's profiteering. Now, feel free to address the 'justice' of a market based on the buying and selling of patents for the sole purpose of litigating them.
#30: "Once again you are wrong, because the only recourse patent law gives an inventor when someone steals their invention is to recover damages and to get an injunction."
I debated grouping this in with my last one, since I'm going to give a very similar response, but since this one attacked me based on my status as Insider (something I fail to see as related, more as an ad hominim attack), I thought "eh, what the hell..."
If I'm wrong, you failed to state why. You said that litigation is the only legal recourse for an inventor against one who steals their invention. Ok, I agree with you on that... I never said otherwise. But this doesn't answer my statement that the original intended purpose of the patent system was not to provide a market to buy and sell that ability to sue.
I say "[A] was not the original purpose". You say in response "[B] was the original purpose". So it seems we're in agreement. Thank you for backing me up.
In closing, Mr. Riley, I think you didn’t think this one out too clearly. Just because I’m not a lawyer or a patent expert does not mean that my arguments are invalid. You come in here with an impressive resume, claim that I and others are wrong, and fail to show why. You also may want to check the condescension at the door… many around here see (smell?) that as blood in the water. I’d argue that I restrained myself very well in my original response; others may not be so successful.
2) You state that once the egg and sperm are combined, it makes a new entity, but you fail to define that entity. I can mix hydrogen together with oxygen and get something distinct from both, but the origins are still identifiable... same with DNA. And again, define "life form"... that's the source of most of the controversy.
3) Why bring prochoice vs prolife into it? We’re not talking about abortion here; we're talking about harvesting stem cells from unused fertilized embryos from in-vetro fertilization method of pregnancy. What do you think happens to the unused fertilized eggs?
All that sounds about right... I didn't know the ability to install to the drives were around that long tho. I think it's a good step, but many many more need to be taken. I think optical storage in cheap plastic has been around long enough... we need something better. :/
Rose, I get what you're saying and I agree. But I think you're misinterpreting Chris' statement as an attack on feminism in general. I think he was talking about the fact that the accuser has a known viewpoint which should be taken into account.
It's an ugly fact, but I have known a few militant-feminists who would have like to see parts of my anatomy in a vice because I opened a door for them. They take an extremist viewpoint against men, not just for women. So if this woman is of the type who would pursue extreme measures in seeking 'justice' against an offending man, that has to be looked at. I'm sorry, but it just does. Now, if she has a legitimate case, the feminist viewpoint would be dismissed as irrelevant. But to ignore that possibility because it's offensive to feminists or chauvinistic is not equality, it's pandering that borders on misandry.
Gods I can't believe I'm going to play devil’s advocate for MS... gonna need a drink and a long hot shower after this one...
From what I understand of the 360 hackers, MS is going after the ones who hack it to allow for 'pirated games'. The modders would tell you (and I do believe it's a valid point) that the whole purpose is to back up a game to protect against scratching. I'm with you on the stupidity of the disk issue and agree that a replacement should be cost-of-material plus shipping.
But the 360 now allows you to 'load your game onto the hard-drive' for storage. I think it's a great idea with a couple of flaws... the biggest one being capacity. Right now, you can only do the backup onto a 'properly formatted storage location', which means one that can only be used with the 360. I formatted a memory stick in my 360 and it takes up the whole storage capacity into a single, unreadable folder. Ok... I get that... it's a way to make the information usable only on a 360. But, last time I checked, you cannot get large-capacity storage devices (such as a 1.5t USB Hard-drive) to run properly w/ the 360. If you have more than a couple of games, you're going to need that capacity.
But I'm sure MS will sell you a device that will work with it. For a 'fair' price, I'm sure. Using my own cheap-ass memory stick is a better alternative to buying their ‘memory unit’ to do the same thing… I’m glad they finally realized this.
But the whole thing boils down to this: there are pirates out there who would seek profit on an ‘open system’ and they are protecting against that. I think they need to find a way to do so without hindering and angering the non-pirate customers (like myself) who just want to be assured that if a round, shiny piece of plastic breaks, I’m not going to have to go spend $50 or $60 just for a replacement. The back-the-disk-up is a step in the right direction... let's see if the keep up that hike.
Do you feel emptier now that you've pulled something that big out of your ass? Relieved?
Seriously man, if you want to take what Mike writes about the ludicrousness of a pay-wall and stretch it all the way to "he thinks they should be put down", you have issues.
So we have a lot of patents that are filed to cover generalities and probably never should have been granted in the first place... by people who don't actually do any innovation or creation with those patents... and now a market who's sole purpose is to trade those patents, patents who's only value at that point is in litigation... and you don't see a problem here?
They patent a generality, don't do anything with it, and sue the first person who actually does the innovation. This is 'just the system at work'?
You still fail to address the point that these people are engaging in this to use the system for exploitation rather than innovation. Go read the patent litigation around RIM and the Blackberry and tell me that the 'owner' of the patent was following what the system was supposed to do.
I'm not calling the justice system a loophole... I'm saying that the ability to commercially transfer litigation rights of IP has created a loophole that is being exploited for financial gain.
As do I. That's why I disagreed with your statment of him having a good case if he were an invitee... especially when the establishment of that invitation was through a general ad on the side of the road.
I wish I were the insurance adjuster on that claim... I'd love the laugh :)
And none of them answer my question about defending the exploitation of loopholes.
If you want to pick apart examples (no matter how extreme), fine. You're at my front lawn and armed, I incite you to chase me into my house. Boom. You're dead, I'm defended. Period. It doesn't matter what caused you to enter my house under Florida law; you're there, you're dead, I'm safe. Loophole. (yes, one I think needs to be closed).
I'm not versed in traffic laws and jurisdictional rules, but I'd think that speeding across state lines would just hand the chase off to the state you're entering. If you're fleeing a felony, I think they can cross state lines anyway, but I'm not 100% on that.
Pedantic nitpicking aside, you're defending the exploitation of a loophole that was never intended to be there. You're defending the actions of lawyers who are getting rich off other people, when they have nothing to do with the creative process at all. You're defending the creation of companies for the sole purpose of buying and selling patents so that the new owners can go sue people.
As I said before, the purpose of the patent system was never to provide people to make their money by suing... the suit was a way to protect the use of the technology for a short time to recoup the cost of creation. Now that this is what’s being done, the system needs to be fixed to close that loophole.
"If he is an invitee, the land owner owes him a duty of due care to warn him of any dangers or to make the conditions safe if a warning would not suffice. If he's an invitee, he has a good case."
I'm not sure I would say he had a good case... maybe one that wasn't so obviously fail.
The duty for safety, as I'm sure you know, falls under the "prudent person" arena. The argument would be made over whether the actions taken by the owner were those which would be required of a prudent person to secure the property. I'd say that locking 2/3rds of the doors would be a great step in that direction. Hopefully, if it gets to trial, the judge would say that a prudent person would realize that a house 'open to the public' would not have required a visitor to enter through the basement and climb a ladder.
Based on what I know of the case, I don't know that I would have been so quick to hit him with trespassing unless he really was there to do something other than look at what he thought was an open house... but on the same token, I wouldn't hold the owners or builder liable for negligence.
We have to protect people from reasonable harm, but we don't have to be responsible for their stupidity.
Well, you see, we look at the world as more than just black and white... well, most of us do, anyway.
There's nothing that says a company can't do good things and also still do stupid things. There's nothing that says innovation (which the paywall idea could be considered a part of) has to be good ideas. The nuclear bomb was 'innovative', but I think it's safe to say it was a bad idea.
And if you read the article, you'll see that Mike is addressing the fact that mainstream media is doing something, NYT is just the first one to do so.
But society didn't grant those rights... legislators did. I seriously doubt that the creators if the patent laws wanted to protect the process of selling the ability to sue over infringement.
Is that what evolved out of it? Obviously. And that's what we're saying needs to change.
Let me give you an example of how this has perverted the intent. I live in Florida. Here, if you illegally enter my house, I can resort to lethal force because it's automatically assumed that you are intending to do me harm. Now, let's say I just don't like you. I invite you over or somehow trick you into entering my house. All I have to do is kill you and make it look vaguely like you entered illegally. I am now protected against any legal action against me because it was 'justified self defense' and I am also protected from civil action from your survivors and family.
The law was drafted to protect residents from home invasion, but can be perverted to allow for protected murder. It's a loophole. Now, would you defend that loophole and say "yeah, he murdered, but the law allows for it."?
Extreme example? Sure. But it illustrates that just because the law allows for it, it doesn’t mean we shouldn't shun those who exploit it and try to fix the system.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Wild West - Transnational Corp Style
…and here would be the reason. Someone expresses an interpretation of someone else’s opinion that differs from your own, and you accuse him of being clueless. Interesting.
Further, you go on to claim that the monies involved in the litigation demonstrate “large entitlement minded [sic] companies are stealing on a grand scale”. Care to provide any evidence to support this? Or is that more of your opinion that we are free to disregard on the merits of its worth?
Yeah, because gods forbid that the market, in an open-market economy, be the deciding factor on which products prosper and which ones don’t. If your competitor offers a product better and cheaper than yours, why should the law dictate which I buy? That's a monopoly. And with a patent, it's a government-granted monopoly. If it's there to help you recoup for a limited time, fine. But if you're not even trying to recoup in the market (i.e. sitting on the patent and not doing anything with it or you bought the patent as a lawfirm), why should the law stop someone else from getting a product to the market that the consumers want?
Bullshit. They have a choice. There was an article not too long ago here that showed a company who found out their product was being counterfeited responded by saying “you know what, we’ll make ours better.” Instead, litigants that you defend here are choosing to spend time, effort, and money on fighting instead of improving their idea.
And you know what… I’m not saying it’s the wrong decision… not even most of the time… but it’s still a choice. You don’t get to assign blame as you see it and then absolve these litigants from their own responsibility for their choices. You're making some broad generalizations about 'idea pirates' and then blaming them for the actions of lawyers who are making a buck on the suit, not on the pursuit of innovation.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All kidding aside, the "let’s get thousands of John Doe's and sue the shit out of them" method has been demonstrated to be a comedy of errors... who's only success has been in the intimidation of those who caved to what many have described as strong-armed thuggery and a protection-racket extortion scheme... and this is the better alternative to using 'free' as a successful business model? Are you just plain mean? Are you adversarial by nature and the stance you take is based on your need to vent aggression and not on some high-moral stance on giving artists their due?
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
When there's no more money to be made in keeping the status quo by the politicians with the power to effect change.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re:
What you're describing is not a straw man fallacy, it's a false dichotomy or false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Not saying you're wrong in saying the guy is making a fallacious argument, but please make sure you're accurate in your accusation. Otherwise, someone may come along any make a Fallacisits' Fallacy against your argument and we'd have nothing but chaos and doom. ;) (see, not a strawman, just a false dilemma)
On the post: US Investigators Can't Find Any Direct Connection Between Manning And Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, proper feminism, not it's militant extreme, is the opposite of what this lady seems to be representing. Would it have been better if Chris had said "only a militant-not-really-representative-of-actual-feminism-feminist in Sweden would know..."?
I'm not really sure that this is relevant to the argument. Does seem a bit straw-man-ish. Did Chris reference all Swedes? No, he referenced a smaller group that this lady claimed to be a part of (if by action, if not by actual statement). A closer analogy would be blaming all members of whatever group(s) these bombers were members.
I mean, if we want to keep going, we can just blame all humans for all actions, good or ill. While this is true, it loses the point.
As I stated in the paragraph above the one you quoted, I was linking this action to 'extreme' or 'militant' feminism. I think I've already made the point that I agree there is a difference. Why would I want to link the extreme back to 'real' feminism? The only linking I was making was this person’s actions back to her social views, which do seem damned relevant to the case.
On the last part of it (too much to try & quote here), I do think that overlooking a feminist (extreme or otherwise) viewpoint... or any view point given by a particular group... for fear of angering that group is pandering. If that viewpoint has been seen in the past as very relevant to accusations of rape, then it needs to be looked at.
This lady seems to be of a militant feminist view to the point of being ‘against men’. Yes, I understand that this is not really feminism… I get that. As I said… it’s ugly, it’s wrong, but it’s true that there are women out there who would cry rape to get a man in trouble who has offended them. And if this lady seems to fall into that group, that view needs to be examined. If it turns out to be irrelevant and she has a legitimate case, fine… full speed ahead to justice. But you don’t overlook a possible connection because it’s a controversial one or it may offend someone.
I will quote this one though: No it's not. From the stories I read, she engaged in consensual sex. He is being charged through a loophole that sex without a condom, consensual or not, is rape. It appears that, based on her own actions and blogging, she is of an extreme-feminist view. So how is examining a link between her action of accusing him of loop-hole rape and that anti-man view offensive or chauvinistic? If you have a problem of her taking on a self-appointed affiliation with feminism, fine... take that up with her. But when it seems she takes action based on that view-point, don't go after the people who bring that possibility to light.
If I say “oh look, she’s crying rape because she’s a militant-feminist” and I dismiss the investigation, that’s wrong and offensive. If I say “hold on a second… is she maybe exaggerating or lying because she hates men and he’s a man?”, and then continue investigating, how is that wrong?
Maybe you got the idea that I hate feminists… I don’t. Any person who believes in the empowerment of their own group is alright in my book. I do have problems with the extreme examples of most groups I’ve seen… including feminism.
So, should Chris have stated "only a militant-not-really-representative-of-actual-feminism-feminist in Sweden would know..."? Maybe. Was he attacking feminists all over? Well, that’s for him to answer, but I don’t think he was. Is pointing out that her gender-political view may have some weight in this case wrong? No.
Finally, for my statement of misandry… I was saying that if Chris and I (or men in general) are not allowed to look into a feminist causality to this lady’s actions because it would be offensive and that we men are disparaging a (possible and probably self-proclaimed) feminist, that’s misandry. Or, simply put, if we look for a logical connection and are called chauvinistic just because the connection is gender-based, how is that us playing a gender card?
On the post: More Patents That Have Touched Both Intellectual Ventures And Ocean Tomo Showing Up In Lawsuits
Dear Mr. Riley
Now, allow me to rebuke...
I'd say my qualifications for that determination would be the commonsense I was gifted with. And if an inexperienced outsider thinks that an item is so obvious that it shouldn't be granted a patent...
I didn't say that the patent should never have been issued because it failed some technical aspect of the filing process or did not properly outline a technology in the right terminology. I fail to see how I have to have some kind of degree to apply common sense.
We're talking about a system of storing data in a block-format and retrieval through a menu-like table of contents... You know, I think I need to go turn in my Wii as it appears to violate that patent.
And, do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the burden of proof on the applicant to show their requested patent is not an obvious idea? If that's the case, feel free to show how this was not obvious. I know it's not your patent, but you did defend its validity.
And how does this apply to the RIM Blackberry issue years past? Someone had a patent that covered a very broad idea (so broad that many besides me thought it shouldn't have been issued) and did nothing with it. Another company had the same idea (it was broad, after all) and actually did something with it. They had their own invention, but were sued because their broad idea ran close to someone else's broad idea. How was invention protected there?
“They are all unethical parasites”… that’s a pretty broad stroke to apply to so many people who fail to invent. It honestly concerns me that you would make such a statement right above all the groups you affiliate with. And it’s an opinion as well… one that I will now equate to you as well as the groups you represent. You don’t mind if I use this quote that all failures to invent are unethical parasites when discussing the various groups you represent, do you?
Well, I have an opinion too: The lawyers who go out and buy up patents for the sole purpose of litigating against people who come up with a similar idea; those are the unethical parasites. But, that’s just my opinion.
Yes, I agree that an inventors 'day in court', as it were, is better late than never. However, much like the person I was actually discussing this with, you fail to address the core of my problem... how is this 'justice' if the people who now hold the patent and have the resources to pursue this had no hand in the invention? That's not justice, it's profiteering. Now, feel free to address the 'justice' of a market based on the buying and selling of patents for the sole purpose of litigating them.
I debated grouping this in with my last one, since I'm going to give a very similar response, but since this one attacked me based on my status as Insider (something I fail to see as related, more as an ad hominim attack), I thought "eh, what the hell..."
If I'm wrong, you failed to state why. You said that litigation is the only legal recourse for an inventor against one who steals their invention. Ok, I agree with you on that... I never said otherwise. But this doesn't answer my statement that the original intended purpose of the patent system was not to provide a market to buy and sell that ability to sue.
I say "[A] was not the original purpose". You say in response "[B] was the original purpose". So it seems we're in agreement. Thank you for backing me up.
In closing, Mr. Riley, I think you didn’t think this one out too clearly. Just because I’m not a lawyer or a patent expert does not mean that my arguments are invalid. You come in here with an impressive resume, claim that I and others are wrong, and fail to show why. You also may want to check the condescension at the door… many around here see (smell?) that as blood in the water. I’d argue that I restrained myself very well in my original response; others may not be so successful.
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposing Legislation Requiring Warrants For Law Enforcement To Get Device Location Info
Re: Re: Trap is set...
On the post: Cures For Paralysis, Diabetes And Blindness Hindered By Patents
Re:
1) Adult stim cells are not the same and are not as useful:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp.
http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/AdultVSEmbryonicStemCells.html
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts .org/
Sorry.
2) You state that once the egg and sperm are combined, it makes a new entity, but you fail to define that entity. I can mix hydrogen together with oxygen and get something distinct from both, but the origins are still identifiable... same with DNA. And again, define "life form"... that's the source of most of the controversy.
3) Why bring prochoice vs prolife into it? We’re not talking about abortion here; we're talking about harvesting stem cells from unused fertilized embryos from in-vetro fertilization method of pregnancy. What do you think happens to the unused fertilized eggs?
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposing Legislation Requiring Warrants For Law Enforcement To Get Device Location Info
Trap is set...
~ahem~
BUT IF YOU ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!
COICA AND ACTA ARE REQUIRED TO INSURE THE INCOME OF MUSICIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD!!
MIKE IS AN IDIOT BECAUSE HE [INSERT AD HOMINIM, UNSUPPORTED ATTACK HERE] SO THEREFOR, HE MUST BE WRONG HERE!!
LOL!! BUT PIRACY!! FREETARD!! .TORRENT = CRIME!! TD-SHEEPLE!!
Did I cover them all?
Sorry, it's Friday and I'm itchen to get home. Feeling a mite silly.
On the post: Sony PS3 Hacker Gagged
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Investigators Can't Find Any Direct Connection Between Manning And Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rose, I get what you're saying and I agree. But I think you're misinterpreting Chris' statement as an attack on feminism in general. I think he was talking about the fact that the accuser has a known viewpoint which should be taken into account.
It's an ugly fact, but I have known a few militant-feminists who would have like to see parts of my anatomy in a vice because I opened a door for them. They take an extremist viewpoint against men, not just for women. So if this woman is of the type who would pursue extreme measures in seeking 'justice' against an offending man, that has to be looked at. I'm sorry, but it just does. Now, if she has a legitimate case, the feminist viewpoint would be dismissed as irrelevant. But to ignore that possibility because it's offensive to feminists or chauvinistic is not equality, it's pandering that borders on misandry.
On the post: Sony PS3 Hacker Gagged
Re: Re:
From what I understand of the 360 hackers, MS is going after the ones who hack it to allow for 'pirated games'. The modders would tell you (and I do believe it's a valid point) that the whole purpose is to back up a game to protect against scratching. I'm with you on the stupidity of the disk issue and agree that a replacement should be cost-of-material plus shipping.
But the 360 now allows you to 'load your game onto the hard-drive' for storage. I think it's a great idea with a couple of flaws... the biggest one being capacity. Right now, you can only do the backup onto a 'properly formatted storage location', which means one that can only be used with the 360. I formatted a memory stick in my 360 and it takes up the whole storage capacity into a single, unreadable folder. Ok... I get that... it's a way to make the information usable only on a 360. But, last time I checked, you cannot get large-capacity storage devices (such as a 1.5t USB Hard-drive) to run properly w/ the 360. If you have more than a couple of games, you're going to need that capacity.
But I'm sure MS will sell you a device that will work with it. For a 'fair' price, I'm sure. Using my own cheap-ass memory stick is a better alternative to buying their ‘memory unit’ to do the same thing… I’m glad they finally realized this.
But the whole thing boils down to this: there are pirates out there who would seek profit on an ‘open system’ and they are protecting against that. I think they need to find a way to do so without hindering and angering the non-pirate customers (like myself) who just want to be assured that if a round, shiny piece of plastic breaks, I’m not going to have to go spend $50 or $60 just for a replacement. The back-the-disk-up is a step in the right direction... let's see if the keep up that hike.
On the post: NY Times Creating Its Own Wikileaks?
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously man, if you want to take what Mike writes about the ludicrousness of a pay-wall and stretch it all the way to "he thinks they should be put down", you have issues.
Just... wow.
On the post: More Patents That Have Touched Both Intellectual Ventures And Ocean Tomo Showing Up In Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They patent a generality, don't do anything with it, and sue the first person who actually does the innovation. This is 'just the system at work'?
You still fail to address the point that these people are engaging in this to use the system for exploitation rather than innovation. Go read the patent litigation around RIM and the Blackberry and tell me that the 'owner' of the patent was following what the system was supposed to do.
I'm not calling the justice system a loophole... I'm saying that the ability to commercially transfer litigation rights of IP has created a loophole that is being exploited for financial gain.
On the post: Politician Trespasses Into House Under Construction, Breaks Leg... Sues Owners
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wish I were the insurance adjuster on that claim... I'd love the laugh :)
On the post: More Patents That Have Touched Both Intellectual Ventures And Ocean Tomo Showing Up In Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to pick apart examples (no matter how extreme), fine. You're at my front lawn and armed, I incite you to chase me into my house. Boom. You're dead, I'm defended. Period. It doesn't matter what caused you to enter my house under Florida law; you're there, you're dead, I'm safe. Loophole. (yes, one I think needs to be closed).
I'm not versed in traffic laws and jurisdictional rules, but I'd think that speeding across state lines would just hand the chase off to the state you're entering. If you're fleeing a felony, I think they can cross state lines anyway, but I'm not 100% on that.
Pedantic nitpicking aside, you're defending the exploitation of a loophole that was never intended to be there. You're defending the actions of lawyers who are getting rich off other people, when they have nothing to do with the creative process at all. You're defending the creation of companies for the sole purpose of buying and selling patents so that the new owners can go sue people.
As I said before, the purpose of the patent system was never to provide people to make their money by suing... the suit was a way to protect the use of the technology for a short time to recoup the cost of creation. Now that this is what’s being done, the system needs to be fixed to close that loophole.
On the post: Politician Trespasses Into House Under Construction, Breaks Leg... Sues Owners
Re: Re:
The duty for safety, as I'm sure you know, falls under the "prudent person" arena. The argument would be made over whether the actions taken by the owner were those which would be required of a prudent person to secure the property. I'd say that locking 2/3rds of the doors would be a great step in that direction. Hopefully, if it gets to trial, the judge would say that a prudent person would realize that a house 'open to the public' would not have required a visitor to enter through the basement and climb a ladder.
Based on what I know of the case, I don't know that I would have been so quick to hit him with trespassing unless he really was there to do something other than look at what he thought was an open house... but on the same token, I wouldn't hold the owners or builder liable for negligence.
We have to protect people from reasonable harm, but we don't have to be responsible for their stupidity.
On the post: NY Times Creating Its Own Wikileaks?
Re:
There's nothing that says a company can't do good things and also still do stupid things. There's nothing that says innovation (which the paywall idea could be considered a part of) has to be good ideas. The nuclear bomb was 'innovative', but I think it's safe to say it was a bad idea.
And if you read the article, you'll see that Mike is addressing the fact that mainstream media is doing something, NYT is just the first one to do so.
On the post: NY Times Creating Its Own Wikileaks?
Re: Re:
Only in America can it be patriotic to screw over people just so your party can be 'right'.
Glad someone agrees with me.
On the post: More Patents That Have Touched Both Intellectual Ventures And Ocean Tomo Showing Up In Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that what evolved out of it? Obviously. And that's what we're saying needs to change.
Let me give you an example of how this has perverted the intent. I live in Florida. Here, if you illegally enter my house, I can resort to lethal force because it's automatically assumed that you are intending to do me harm. Now, let's say I just don't like you. I invite you over or somehow trick you into entering my house. All I have to do is kill you and make it look vaguely like you entered illegally. I am now protected against any legal action against me because it was 'justified self defense' and I am also protected from civil action from your survivors and family.
The law was drafted to protect residents from home invasion, but can be perverted to allow for protected murder. It's a loophole. Now, would you defend that loophole and say "yeah, he murdered, but the law allows for it."?
Extreme example? Sure. But it illustrates that just because the law allows for it, it doesn’t mean we shouldn't shun those who exploit it and try to fix the system.
Next >>