The entire reason the game has been delayed this long was because every time another game came out with visuals or features that they didn't have, they HAD to outdo it in DNF.
So the evidence we do have of file sharing not having stopped, nor stopped growing, along side the RIAA making so little money back from so much legal fees in no way suggests the cost wasn't well spent.
The stories had all been published elsewhere over the years, in various different places. Despite articles having already been published, you bought the book because of added value like convenience and organisation.
Got it. You continued to buy something which content already published or available elsewhere because of reasons to buy.
Assuming that the quicker introduction of generics would harm the creation of new medicines.
There's a good reason it's called a summary - it's a sumarry (shock horror!) of the research as a whole. Are you suggesting the summary is inaccurate and does not represent the rest of the contents?
Though in apparently wanting to bring up the "meat" of the paper, you have not brought up any quotes or sections of the paper that explicitly defy that summary of innovation being slowed.
Here are a few more quotes:
When the patent-related matters resulted in litigation, the claims of the originator companies were upheld in only 2% of the cases, suggesting that the arguments submitted against the generic medicine could not be substantiated. Originator companies had also a low success record in cases concerning data exclusivity. Intervention and litigation by originator companies interfering in administrative proceedings for generic medicines can lead to delays to generic market entry. In relation to a sample that was investigated in depth, it appears that marketing authorisations were granted on average four months later in cases in which an intervention took place. Originator companies believe they have generated significant additional revenues as a result of such practices.
The inquiry's preliminary finding is that originator companies spent on average 23% of their turnover on marketing and promotion activities for their products. As part of their commercial strategies, originator companies do not simply promote their own medicines to doctors and other healthcare professionals. There are also indications of practices seeking to put into question the quality of generic medicines. Finally, there are indications that originator companies attempt to exercise influence over the distribution channel (wholesalers) and supply sources for the active pharmaceutical ingredients needed to produce the medicines in question. Direct-to-pharmacy (DTP) distribution is a new trend in the distribution of medicines. In DTP distribution, the pharmaceutical company sells the medicines directly to the pharmacists. According to some stakeholders, this model could eventually lead to less competition at the wholesale level and possibly render it more difficult for smaller originator companies and generic companies to enter the market.
[...]
The combined use of life cycle instruments may increase the likelihood of delays to generic entry; delays due to the use of several instruments may sometimes be cumulative. More generally, it may significantly increase legal uncertainty to the detriment of generic entry and can cost public health budgets and ultimately consumers significant amounts of money.
[...]
The inquiry finds that originator companies engaged in litigation against other originator companies. The companies reported, in relation to the sample under investigation, for the period 2000 – 2007, a total of 66 cases of patent-related litigation, which concerned 18 different medicines. Litigation was initiated by the patent holder and the originator company allegedly violating the patent in equal proportions. In 64% of the cases, litigation was concluded by means of settlement agreements. The number of cases where a final judgment was reported was relatively low (13 of the 66 cases). The patent holders lost the majority (77%) of cases where final judgments were given.
[...]
The inquiry finds that originator companies engaged in litigation against other originator companies. The companies reported, in relation to the sample under investigation, for the period 2000 – 2007, a total of 66 cases of patent-related litigation, which concerned 18 different medicines. Litigation was initiated by the patent holder and the originator company allegedly violating the patent in equal proportions. In 64% of the cases, litigation was concluded by means of settlement agreements. The number of cases where a final judgment was reported was relatively low (13 of the 66 cases). The patent holders lost the majority (77%) of cases where final judgments were given.
[...]
In a few cases originator companies expressed concern about the patent strategies of a competitor, in particular where they felt that their R&D projects were obstructed by the patent applications of competing originator companies. This is best illustrated by the following submission from an originator company: "[Another originator company] filed several “paper” patent applications related to [our company's molecule]. The only objective was to impede [our company] from developing [our company's molecule], as far as (i) no research laboratory data and/or work exists related to this paper patent applications, and (ii) [the other company] has no right on [our compound] compound, protected by patents owned by [our company] A letter [...] was received by [our company] from [the other company], [...] stating that [the other company] is not ready to achieve any settlement at all regarding the blocking patents."
3.1.2.4. Effect of Divisionals
(974) Six (of 43) companies stated furthermore, that divisional applications by competing originator companies had interfered with some of their R&D projects. Thus one company stated: "Issues, such as the filing of a divisional patent application by another company, may arise and impact on the business case for a R&D project [of our company]." In several cases this has led companies to challenge these divisional applications, once granted in opposition procedures. One originator company, however, pointed out that: "The filing of divisionals before EPO can extend uncertainty for several years." In opposition procedures, in particular, unduly broad claims were challenged. Originator companies felt in general that they should not be accepted.
[...]
Summary
The preliminary findings of the inquiry show that originator companies engaged in so-called "defensive patent strategies". Patents falling into this category were primarily used in order to block the development of a new competing medicine. The sector inquiry also shows that in such cases the originator companies do not intend to pursue these patents in order to bring a new/improved medicine to the market.
[...]
In total, the inquiry reveals at least 1,100 instances across EU Member States where the patents held by an originator company relating to a medicine in the sample investigated might overlap with the R&D programme and/or patents held by another originator company for their medicine. This overlap creates significant potential for originator companies to find their research activities blocked, with detrimental effects on the innovation process.
[...]
The sector inquiry has confirmed that originator companies file secondary and divisional patent applications as a strategy to prevent or delay generic entry and to create uncertainty for generic competitors as to whether they may develop a generic copy without infringing a potential patent.
From the report you point too, claiming it contradicts the article:
This Preliminary Report confirms the decline of new chemical entities reaching the market and the delays of generic market entry and highlights some of the possible causes.
The report also finds that originator companies have designed and implemented strategies (a "tool-box" of instruments) aimed at ensuring continued revenue streams for their medicines. Although there may be other reasons for delays to generic entry, the successful implementation of these strategies may have the effect of delaying or blocking such entry. The strategies observed include filing for up to 1,300 patents EU-wide in relation to a single medicine (so-called "patent clusters"), engaging in disputes with generic companies leading to nearly 700 cases of reported patent litigation, concluding settlement agreements with generic companies which may delay generic entry and intervening in national procedures for the approval of generic medicines. The additional costs caused by delays to generic entry can be very significant for the public health budgets and ultimately the consumer.
The sector inquiry confirms that generic entry in many instances occurs later than could be expected. For a sample of medicines under investigation which had lost exclusivity in 2000 to 2007 the average time to enter after loss of exclusivity was about seven months on a weighted average basis, whereas also for the most valuable medicines it took about four months. On average, price levels for medicines in the sample that faced loss of exclusivity in the period 2000 – 2007 decreased by almost 20% one year after the first generic entry. However, the decreases in price levels were as high as 80-90% in rare cases for some medicines in some Member States. Based on the sample of medicines under investigation that faced loss of exclusivity in the period 2000 – 2007, representing an aggregate post-expiry expenditure of about € 50 billion over the period (in 17 Member States), the preliminary report estimates that this expenditure would have been about € 14 billion higher without generic entry. However, the savings from generic entry could have been about € 3 billion more, further reducing expenditure for these medicines by more than 5%, if generic entry had taken place without delay. The findings of the inquiry suggest that the practices under investigation contribute to this.
Competition between Originator Companies
The preliminary findings of the inquiry also suggest that originator companies develop and practise defensive patenting strategies primarily in order to block the development of new competing products. This can lead to obstacles to innovation, in form of higher costs for competing pharmaceutical companies (e.g. for royalties), or in delays.
Really? All property law is a construct of the law.
If I am in possession of something, you do not. That is where real property fundamentally derives from, and issues in allocating it efficiently especially in regards to natural resources. Ideas and expressions of them are not scarce. The fact that I may be in "possession" of an idea is not exclusive of you being in "possession" of it.
To conflate copyright law as being the same as other property law continues to be disingenuous. Though I doubt you have the facts nor societies best interest at heart.
The 2 goals are one in the same. Reward and help creativity (promote progress) by giving artists and inventors a monopoly that in turn gets them to share that work with the public whilst being able to make money in doing so, giving rise to further creativity through having a monetary incentive to do so (and the money to continue producing).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......
The point wasn't whether it's illegal under copyright law, but the idea of authorisation being needed to give away or sell a product on to someone else. Especially considering rights of first sale, that are designed to allow you to sell a copyrighted work on to someone else.
Though there are the likes of liberal Creative Commons licenses that explicitly give you the legal ability to distribute works, and in software, the likes of the GPL that allow similar things.
Its hard to argue when you disagree about basic premises. Copyright is a property right and markets are based on teh exchange of property.
History and the law disagrees with you, along side basic facts of the universe. The term intellectual property - an obvious ploy to confuse copyright law with property law - is a more recent invention, and one that is disingenuous.
"Scarcity" is the basis for markets
So is abundance. See: Every market, as they all benefit in some way from non copyrighted, non patented goods.
whether the cost of developing a product (e.g., Microsoft Windows) or a copyrighted work [...] What IP does is create a market for the work
Microsoft Windows is a copyrighted work. Kinda like how IP "created" a market for Linux in not doing anything to enforce artificial scarcity, apparently the basis of markets.
THIS IS ME SHOUTING YOU DOWN STOP IT STOP TALKING THAT'S ENOUGH LALALALALALALLA.
This is me asking what actual point you have. Maybe if you brought up something actually interesting and can't be immediately debunked, we won't reply with "robotic" posts.
You need to find something more productive to do with your spare time than trolling on nearly every Techdirt post. Ever heard of video games? Or what about that book you were buying even though all the articles were available by other means...
At least for them, they disabled the site of their own accord.
It's also funny that they make the claim of these sites having no respect for creativity or innovation - I know for a fact Ninjavideo in particular had a strong artist community that even produced a very well done comic about the site amongst other things.
I forgot, you have no sense of context, reasoning nor any ability to deal with the facts of a situation. You merely repeat something you want to be true, or a meme that allows you to not have to deal with the truth.
On the post: Legal Settlement 'Paves The Way' To Release Of Duke Nukem Forever?
Re:
On the post: RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
Re:
On the post: Apple Deletes Thread About Consumer Reports Not Recommending An iPhone [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Who cares?
On the post: Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive
Re: Re: Re:
The stories had all been published elsewhere over the years, in various different places. Despite articles having already been published, you bought the book because of added value like convenience and organisation.
Got it. You continued to buy something which content already published or available elsewhere because of reasons to buy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/p-j-o-rourke
http://www.cato.org/people/orourke.html
On the post: Why Kenya's Attempt To Put Intellectual Property Rights In Its Constitution Is A Mistake
Re: Re: Re:
There's a good reason it's called a summary - it's a sumarry (shock horror!) of the research as a whole. Are you suggesting the summary is inaccurate and does not represent the rest of the contents?
Though in apparently wanting to bring up the "meat" of the paper, you have not brought up any quotes or sections of the paper that explicitly defy that summary of innovation being slowed.
Here are a few more quotes:
On the post: Why Kenya's Attempt To Put Intellectual Property Rights In Its Constitution Is A Mistake
Re:
I don't think you've actually read it.
On the post: Why Kenya's Attempt To Put Intellectual Property Rights In Its Constitution Is A Mistake
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Kenya's Attempt To Put Intellectual Property Rights In Its Constitution Is A Mistake
Re:
If I am in possession of something, you do not. That is where real property fundamentally derives from, and issues in allocating it efficiently especially in regards to natural resources. Ideas and expressions of them are not scarce. The fact that I may be in "possession" of an idea is not exclusive of you being in "possession" of it.
To conflate copyright law as being the same as other property law continues to be disingenuous. Though I doubt you have the facts nor societies best interest at heart.
On the post: Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive
Re: Now sounds like a good time
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......
Though there are the likes of liberal Creative Commons licenses that explicitly give you the legal ability to distribute works, and in software, the likes of the GPL that allow similar things.
On the post: Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive
Re:
How's that book going, the one you were buying even though it's contents was mostly available elsewhere?
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100616/1038269856#c378
On the post: Why Kenya's Attempt To Put Intellectual Property Rights In Its Constitution Is A Mistake
Re: Re: Re:
History and the law disagrees with you, along side basic facts of the universe. The term intellectual property - an obvious ploy to confuse copyright law with property law - is a more recent invention, and one that is disingenuous.
So is abundance. See: Every market, as they all benefit in some way from non copyrighted, non patented goods.
Microsoft Windows is a copyrighted work. Kinda like how IP "created" a market for Linux in not doing anything to enforce artificial scarcity, apparently the basis of markets.
On the post: Do We Really Want An ASCAP For News?
Re: Hah. Just look around
On the post: Do We Really Want An ASCAP For News?
Re:
Of course, there is no issue, merely a transparent attempt at trolling and creating another meme you can endlessly repeat.
On the post: Best Buy Says Creator Of iPhone/Evo Video Can Keep His Job; Guy Says He'd Rather Not
Re: BUT!!!!!!!
On the post: Canada Needs To Outlaw Breaking Digital Locks Or Popcorn Vendors Will Starve
Re: Re: Re:
This is me asking what actual point you have. Maybe if you brought up something actually interesting and can't be immediately debunked, we won't reply with "robotic" posts.
On the post: Newspapers Doing Well With Membership Clubs Instead Of Paywalls
Re: Re: Re:
You need to find something more productive to do with your spare time than trolling on nearly every Techdirt post. Ever heard of video games? Or what about that book you were buying even though all the articles were available by other means...
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100616/1038269856#c378
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
Re:
http://www.saveninjavideo.net/2010/07/official-article-from-immigration-and.html
Note that they claim these sites made millions, of which there is no evidence for.
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
http://www.saveninjavideo.net/2010/07/letter-released-yesterday.html
At least for them, they disabled the site of their own accord.
It's also funny that they make the claim of these sites having no respect for creativity or innovation - I know for a fact Ninjavideo in particular had a strong artist community that even produced a very well done comic about the site amongst other things.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-piracy-20100701,0,2871905.story
On the post: USTR Statement On ACTA Makes No Mention Of Releasing Latest Draft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>