"There are a few ways to "advance" what is in a patent. You can build it yourself, you can license it to someone else to use, you can sell the patent outright to someone else, or you can wait and sue anyone who tries to use it.
Ocean Tomo is a clearing house for the third situation, making a market for patents. That is where most patent holders (normally creators) stop, because that is their range of interests."
I will argue that point... your third way does not 'advance what's in a patent’; it takes advantage of a system in a way not originally intended in its creation.
The original patent system was never intended for an inventor to have a way to become rich or make money by suing infringers. But non-interested (and by that, I mean they never invent anything or encourage development) lawyers and, now, corporate owners have started using that facet of the system to get rich.
I get what you're saying... the system allows it so that's they do this... but how can you defend the act itself?
You missed the part about "non-obvious" and "broad". Have you read these patents? They never should have been issued in the first place. So this "market" is really just a way to make blanket claims on things that either already do exist or should be so obvious that it's un-patentable, and sue the pants off of the people actually doing something.
Can and should a patent holder defend themselves when they're infringed? Yes. Sure. Should cable companies all be sued over On-Demand technology & methodology years after it's in use because the patent [sic] finally got in the hands of people who want to make money off the suit? No.
Go read those patents... how can anyone but a rubber-stamp-jockey defend the idea of patenting the central distribution of digitally stored data kept in a data-block format through a menu system?
"It doesn't negate the issue that the documents are in Assange's control."
Why do people keep trying to make Wikileaks and Assange synonymous? Wikileaks can and will continue to exist without Assange. So, if you want to say "they're in the hands of WL", fine. But stop trying to pursue Assange for it.
"freetard and sheeple are freebies on this site, matching up to IP Maximalist and industry shill. They are non-issues."
No, it's still name-calling. And I didn't say that "IP Maximalist" and "industry shill" aren't... but I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. If you want to defend with "but they're doing it too!!!" feel free. I'll give that the same credence as I give my 10 year old when she tries that excuse.
"Jackwagon is a non-word, made up by advertisers. The humor in using it apparently is lost on you."
Doesn't matter where it came from. "Fuck" came from (arguably) "fricken" which means to strike; or from "pluck yew" if you want to believe the English/French war origins... but if I call you a fuck, it's still name calling. You’re using it as a derogation… which is name calling.
"Mom's basement isn't name calling. It's is a statement of fact (unless proven otherwise)."
You're right... it's not name calling. But it is making personal attacks, which is no better. And don't try the "its fact until proven wrong". I could say that you're a child molester and claim it fact until proven wrong, but I'm above that.
"Entitled prick is the other persons words sent back."
So you are playing the "they're doing it too!!" card. Epic.
”Perhaps you want to take your head out of your freetard ass and try again?”
“When someone acts like a jackwagon, they get called out. Sorry.”
“Actually, I call the Masnick followers sheeple.”
“Until then, you are a jackwagon barely worth the time to think about. You are also a 'tard, just pick your own flavor I guess.”
“You are fast to jump to a conclusion, a wrong one, and you look like a jackwagon for doing it. Tissue?”
“Don't get out of Mom's basement much?”
"You may feel like an entitled prick allowed to call people names..."
I'm glad we agree on the problem people like Palin represent. I do apologize for jumping to the conclusion that I did. However, I still stand by my statements that your reaction is just as accusatory and childish... makes you look like just as much of a jackwagon.
hmmm... interesting... You put in your post "taking out pirates with her double barrel" with no disclaimer of sarcasm. When you're called out on it, you make childish insults like " 'tard" and "freetard" when the original discussion had nothing to do with free vs pay.
"copyright, one of the principals the US was founded upon"
I'm curious... how do you qualify that statement? I know copyright is in the constitution, etc etc... but I don't remember it being in the Declaration of Independence. This will probably just be a difference of opinion here, but I always felt that our country was founded on the ideas that: no one person has absolute authority, the power of the government is given by the governed, and no one may be denied 10 (at the time) basic rights.
Unless you have a good philosophic reason for claiming copyright is a founding ideal, I'm going to have to mark this one in my book as "claiming patriotism as a defense of IP laws" and roll my eyes at it.
Not really... they hate change. Change = risk, and (most specifically) a threat to their power. And by "they", I do mean the government itself, not necessarily individuals therein.
If you look back, the Powers That Be (cue thunder) have always tried to hinder change. No difference here. Then, it was challenging the shape of the earth, the center of the universe, how old the earth is… now, we have the challenges over who has the authority over recorded ideas and emotions.
Once you boil it down, the music and movie (and book) industries are all about controlling the distribution of those thoughts and emotions. The technology available now challenges their control over that distribution. But at least this time, no one’s been burned at the stake. Well, not yet, anyway.
"Nice (false) generalization. Don't you have better things to do? Like lead musical acts into the ground and whine about piracy? Oh, wait... that's what you are doing... my bad. "
Disregard that part... had that left over in my spell-checking word doc and didn't clear it out. My bad.
Nice (false) generalization. Don't you have better things to do? Like lead musical acts into the ground and whine about piracy? Oh, wait... that's what you are doing... my bad.
Oh, my sincerest *snerk* apologies for the misunderstanding of your obviously sarcastic statement about what you think the alternatives are. I don't know how I EVER misread that.
See, sarcasm is not that hard to relay in a text-based environment.
And I do love how you lump me into a 'freetard' category since my statement didn't really have anything to do with the debate on free vs pay. I was calling you out on violent rhetoric and how you think shooting people who disagree with you is a better way to go.
Now, in all seriousness, I apologize if I misread your intention... Perhaps if you don't intend to give the impression of a gun-toting vigilante for the content industry, you should refrain from such violent statements as "shoot pirates with a gun" without using sarcasm indicators.
"The alternative is 2 years from now having President Palin taking out pirates with her double barrel like she does deer."
And there's some more of that wonderful violent rhetoric. Bet you were keeping score for her when the Arizona shooting happened, weren't you?
If you want to discuss things calmly and rationally, welcome aboard. If you want to continue insinuating that the world would be a better place if people you disagree with would be shot with double-barrel shotguns, please go swallow one yourself.
GreenSnowflake AC has a point... Considering that there was a strong counter response to people making the case you're making... I think it's safe to say that "most people" who read here understood what Mike meant and didn't feel mislead. So, if you're done ad hominim attacking someone, feel free to address their point. Or get back under your bridge.
Highbrow and well-spoken, but still trolling. If you read through, you'll see that we "koolaid drinkers" are "shouting down" such people as Mr. Anonymous (not to be confused with the many Anonymous Cowards, some of whom actually present very well-stated arguments) who do nothing but post zingy one-liners such as "LOL". And no, I'm not making that up... that was his full response on at least one occasion... "LOL".
"Since the start of the year TD has been wrong on a number of occasions and drawn conclusions on things where no such conclusion is possible. It would help TD (not harm it) if they actually accepted that they made errors and worked to refine their arguments. Otherwise, their blog remains the home of what some people refer to as "freetards" or "koolaid drinkers", basically people slapping each other on the back for being the smartest cave men in the modern world."
At this point, I have to think that you're cherry-picking the parts you actually read. I have seen some of the regulars say "Oops... didn't think of that. You're right." They would then go on to restructure their arguments to take into account the new information. I've done that myself. I've had my foot wrapped in crow and had to take a big bite of it, and did so. Not so with Anonymous... I have never seen him deviate from the singular non-arguments he keeps bringing up. Feel free to show me where he's actually modified any of his statements after they were proven wrong (such as Arcara v Cloud Books).
Finally, you say that TD has been wrong or drawn conclusions where no such conclusion is possible? Fine. Show me.
On the post: More Patents That Have Touched Both Intellectual Ventures And Ocean Tomo Showing Up In Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
I will argue that point... your third way does not 'advance what's in a patent’; it takes advantage of a system in a way not originally intended in its creation.
The original patent system was never intended for an inventor to have a way to become rich or make money by suing infringers. But non-interested (and by that, I mean they never invent anything or encourage development) lawyers and, now, corporate owners have started using that facet of the system to get rich.
I get what you're saying... the system allows it so that's they do this... but how can you defend the act itself?
On the post: More Patents That Have Touched Both Intellectual Ventures And Ocean Tomo Showing Up In Lawsuits
Re:
Can and should a patent holder defend themselves when they're infringed? Yes. Sure. Should cable companies all be sued over On-Demand technology & methodology years after it's in use because the patent [sic] finally got in the hands of people who want to make money off the suit? No.
Go read those patents... how can anyone but a rubber-stamp-jockey defend the idea of patenting the central distribution of digitally stored data kept in a data-block format through a menu system?
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The ACs sound very manic today...
On the post: US Investigators Can't Find Any Direct Connection Between Manning And Assange
Re:
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't matter where it came from. "Fuck" came from (arguably) "fricken" which means to strike; or from "pluck yew" if you want to believe the English/French war origins... but if I call you a fuck, it's still name calling. You’re using it as a derogation… which is name calling.
You're right... it's not name calling. But it is making personal attacks, which is no better. And don't try the "its fact until proven wrong". I could say that you're a child molester and claim it fact until proven wrong, but I'm above that.
So you are playing the "they're doing it too!!" card. Epic.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re:
I'm not surprised in the least that you have no grasp of logic.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Intelligence Agencies Ask Court To Say They're Immune From Having To Provide Evidence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Example
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you think I'm worried about your respect? Heh. Try again pal. You're a troll of the worst kind... you come in here anonymously and make inflammatory statements about killing people, then drop "freetard" on anyone who doesn't agree with you on anything. You’re right on your post here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/17422712805/obama-nominates-former-top-riaa-lawyer-to-be -solicitor-general.shtml#c529
When someone acts like a jackwagon, they do get called out on it.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you have a good philosophic reason for claiming copyright is a founding ideal, I'm going to have to mark this one in my book as "claiming patriotism as a defense of IP laws" and roll my eyes at it.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re:
If you look back, the Powers That Be (cue thunder) have always tried to hinder change. No difference here. Then, it was challenging the shape of the earth, the center of the universe, how old the earth is… now, we have the challenges over who has the authority over recorded ideas and emotions.
Once you boil it down, the music and movie (and book) industries are all about controlling the distribution of those thoughts and emotions. The technology available now challenges their control over that distribution. But at least this time, no one’s been burned at the stake. Well, not yet, anyway.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
Don't mean to be picky... logical fallacies are a study of mine.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disregard that part... had that left over in my spell-checking word doc and didn't clear it out. My bad.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, my sincerest *snerk* apologies for the misunderstanding of your obviously sarcastic statement about what you think the alternatives are. I don't know how I EVER misread that.
See, sarcasm is not that hard to relay in a text-based environment.
And I do love how you lump me into a 'freetard' category since my statement didn't really have anything to do with the debate on free vs pay. I was calling you out on violent rhetoric and how you think shooting people who disagree with you is a better way to go.
Now, in all seriousness, I apologize if I misread your intention... Perhaps if you don't intend to give the impression of a gun-toting vigilante for the content industry, you should refrain from such violent statements as "shoot pirates with a gun" without using sarcasm indicators.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re:
If you want to discuss things calmly and rationally, welcome aboard. If you want to continue insinuating that the world would be a better place if people you disagree with would be shot with double-barrel shotguns, please go swallow one yourself.
On the post: UK Intelligence Agencies Ask Court To Say They're Immune From Having To Provide Evidence
Re: Re: Another Example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
Don't mean to be picky... logical fallacies are a study of mine. :)
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Appearance of corruption is NOT harmful.
Pain is harmful... but ultimately beneficial when it gets me to take my damned fool hand off the burner.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Too damn meta
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Why troll here?
At this point, I have to think that you're cherry-picking the parts you actually read. I have seen some of the regulars say "Oops... didn't think of that. You're right." They would then go on to restructure their arguments to take into account the new information. I've done that myself. I've had my foot wrapped in crow and had to take a big bite of it, and did so. Not so with Anonymous... I have never seen him deviate from the singular non-arguments he keeps bringing up. Feel free to show me where he's actually modified any of his statements after they were proven wrong (such as Arcara v Cloud Books).
Finally, you say that TD has been wrong or drawn conclusions where no such conclusion is possible? Fine. Show me.
Next >>