Actually, Mike, most of the people I deal with are technologists, like myself, who create, build, and run systems based on patented technologies. Even if I only talked to myself, that would put me in better company in terms of patent experience than people who live in a world of hearsay.
Inventions come from people who are paid to invent or some similar economic interest in inventing. These processes gave us the transistor, the integrated circuit, the microprocessor, the dynamic RAM, and all the networks that we use every day. Inventions come from people, not from immaterial forces.
Invent something, then you can carry on about innovation with some credibility.
My knowledge of the patent system is from first-hand experience with the patent filings I've made that were accepted or rejected, not from watching TV shows.
I don't really *have* to jump from patents to criminal law to make my point, but I recognize that most readers of this blog don't know how the patent system works and therefore need some simple analogies.
Some critics of the patent system say the standards are too low and the system needs reform. Others, like Masnick, say that entire concept of patents is wrong and the system should be abolished. This latter criticism isn't intellectually serious, of course.
If innocent people are being convicted of crimes and sent to jail, the remedy is not to abolish the laws against rape and murder, it's to improve the criminal justice system.
It's my experience that most of the web chatter about the wickedness of patents is generated by people who don't do creative work for a living and have no real understanding of how the patent system actually works.
If examiners are granting patents that are too "vague," that's a knock on the examiner, not on the concept of patents.
The bottom line is that people who invent things need to get paid, one way or another. The next iPhone isn't going to be invented by a homeless bum, it will come from a group of people getting paid to dream it up and put it together.
Masnick and the other patent-haters seem to think inventions just fall out of the sky, but it's not really like that.
Come on, who do you think you're kidding? If you have a patent you can make it freely available to others to use, and you can keep the patent factories from getting ahold of it.
The point is that most networking patents are filed in order to license the invention to as many users as possible. Network technologies become more valuable as more people use them.
It's perfectly reasonable to imagine a history of the web in which a patented technology would have allowed the web to develop more rapidly and with greater compatibility and uniformity than the way it did.
The Internet runs on Ethernet, Sonet, DSL, DOCSIS, GON, Wi-Fi, and cellular technologies, all of which are patented and licensed. You can't do a single thing on the Internet without touching a patented technology.
This is probably the worst article ever written about intellectual property.
Lessig, Wu, Doctorow, Barlow, the whole Berkman Center, EFF, the ersatz public interest lobby groups such as Free Press, etc. There's got to be at least 80% overlap.
The people who are whining about government-mandated anti-piracy measures on the Internet are the same ones who've been demanding government regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality.
This should come as no surprise; if the Wild West Show needs regulation, it needs regulation. Be careful what you ask for.
As Harold Feld of Public Knowledge says, NN is a "base issue" that appeals to party faithful and affects turnout. The Tea Party made a big point of NN as an example of the desire of the Dems to regulate everything, and the Net Roots has made it their number one issue since 2006; for them, lax regulation is a hallmark of Republican rule.
Are the Net Roots important? Considering that Obama's first significant endorsements came from Markos Moulitsas and others of this ilk, I think they are. Both Boxer and Fiorina ran TV ads that stated their positions on NN in the Cal. Senate race.
I think it's interesting to see what you've done to my blog post that touched on the 0-95 pledge in passing. The post was the basis of a story in The Hill, but you took it on only as a source for the AFP story. I didn't say "incumbents", I said "candidates," which is accurate, so I'm certainly not responsible for the AFP claim. My larger point was that were aren't going to see any pro-NN legislation in the next Congress. Do you disagree with that?
In the course of criticizing the media as sensationalistic, you've produced a post that's both sensationalistic and selective.
Before the election, I said that with all the pledges and letters, the election was effectively going to be a net neutrality referendum; that was before a vote was cast. Back then, a few weeks ago, Harold Feld of Public Knowledge said that the FCC should move to Title II in order to "fire up the base for the election." Before the election, we all knew that NN was going to be a key issue for voters; not as key as the economy, the debt, employment, and health care, but certainly in the top 10, and a good litmus test of candidate philosophy on tech policy and regulation.
Few accounts of the letters and pledges are complete, and TD is cherry-picking among them. Not only was there the PCCC pledge - of candidates for office, including at least some incumbents as I understand it - there was a pro-reclass letter from Dems, an anti-reclass letter from Dems, an anti-neut letter from Reeps, and an anti-neut pledge from the Reeps.
If you add them all up, there will be more declared anti-neuts and anti-reclassers in office come January than there were before. The overwhelming majority of the Dems who signed the anti-reclass letter won, contrary to popular belief, as did most of the Reeps who signed the anti-reclass and the anti-neut pledge. All you have to do is count the names and see what happened to the support for this issue as a result of the election. If you do an honest survey, the answer is clear: net neutrality supporters lost the referendum.
Net neutrality is the biggest policy boondoggle of the past 30 years. All it's done is distract the policy makers' attention from the much more important questions about Internet adoption, privacy, intellectual property, and Internet architecture and security. The people who've been floating this boat have helped neither the country nor the Internet. It's best for everyone if we put this issue to rest and get on with things that really make a difference.
These not-so-secret negotiations are taking place at ITIC, an industry group that has members on all sides of the open Internet/net neutrality/Web vs. Internet issue, so it's not really sensible to view them as monopolists looking to carve up a market, but I realize some people will do that anyway.
They're not really about the FCC, they're about the pending Congressional action that will clarify the FCC's role regarding Internet regulation.
Contrary to the web's conspiracy theories, the issues around the open Internet controversy have less to do with web sites than with enabling new applications on the Internet that need real-time behavior from ISPs.
As the Internet said to the net neutrality movement, "It's not you, it's me."
The trouble with the "enlightened leadership" notion is that the bar is set very low in DC regarding technical literacy. Lawmakers like Zoe Lofgren regard themselves as technically astute if they can send an SMS from a Blackberry. There's a bit of a gap between the ability to do that and having an understanding of the value of prioritizing VoIP packets over BitTorrent.
I'd say you've got the story right, with the exception of the "jurisdiction over cable" thing. Cable does have to follow FCC regulations for telephone service, and I'm pretty sure there's a specific section of the Comm Act on cable Internet.
There are overlapping jurisdictions where disclosure is concerned, and either the FCC or the FTC can act on that issue. But the FTC obviously can't act without a petition.
You can't just wave a magic wand over a network that was designed to run a very limited set of applications at a pre-defined speed and make it both open and stable. If Mossberg doesn't realize this, he's either a fool or a demagogue. Verizon is opening up its new 4G network because its design lends itself to IP. Going the same route on the 1G and 2G networks is just asking for trouble.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
Inventions come from people who are paid to invent or some similar economic interest in inventing. These processes gave us the transistor, the integrated circuit, the microprocessor, the dynamic RAM, and all the networks that we use every day. Inventions come from people, not from immaterial forces.
Invent something, then you can carry on about innovation with some credibility.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
Next time you use Ethernet over UTP or Wi-Fi, think of their inventors. That group would include me.
Now what have you done, Mike? Oh, you write a blog. Well, that's a start.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
Some critics of the patent system say the standards are too low and the system needs reform. Others, like Masnick, say that entire concept of patents is wrong and the system should be abolished. This latter criticism isn't intellectually serious, of course.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
Do the math.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
If examiners are granting patents that are too "vague," that's a knock on the examiner, not on the concept of patents.
The bottom line is that people who invent things need to get paid, one way or another. The next iPhone isn't going to be invented by a homeless bum, it will come from a group of people getting paid to dream it up and put it together.
Masnick and the other patent-haters seem to think inventions just fall out of the sky, but it's not really like that.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Hilarious
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Hilarious
It's perfectly reasonable to imagine a history of the web in which a patented technology would have allowed the web to develop more rapidly and with greater compatibility and uniformity than the way it did.
Patents haven't hurt iPhone or Android.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Hilarious
This is probably the worst article ever written about intellectual property.
On the post: Sarkozy's Attempt To Woo The Digerati Foreshadows The Coming Conflict Between Technology & Regulations
Re: Re: Government regulation of the Internet
On the post: Sarkozy's Attempt To Woo The Digerati Foreshadows The Coming Conflict Between Technology & Regulations
Government regulation of the Internet
This should come as no surprise; if the Wild West Show needs regulation, it needs regulation. Be careful what you ask for.
On the post: Bogus Election Net Neutrality Connection Gets More Press, And Is Even More Wrong
Re: Re: The Net Neutrality Referendum
Are the Net Roots important? Considering that Obama's first significant endorsements came from Markos Moulitsas and others of this ilk, I think they are. Both Boxer and Fiorina ran TV ads that stated their positions on NN in the Cal. Senate race.
I think it's interesting to see what you've done to my blog post that touched on the 0-95 pledge in passing. The post was the basis of a story in The Hill, but you took it on only as a source for the AFP story. I didn't say "incumbents", I said "candidates," which is accurate, so I'm certainly not responsible for the AFP claim. My larger point was that were aren't going to see any pro-NN legislation in the next Congress. Do you disagree with that?
In the course of criticizing the media as sensationalistic, you've produced a post that's both sensationalistic and selective.
On the post: Bogus Election Net Neutrality Connection Gets More Press, And Is Even More Wrong
The Net Neutrality Referendum
Few accounts of the letters and pledges are complete, and TD is cherry-picking among them. Not only was there the PCCC pledge - of candidates for office, including at least some incumbents as I understand it - there was a pro-reclass letter from Dems, an anti-reclass letter from Dems, an anti-neut letter from Reeps, and an anti-neut pledge from the Reeps.
If you add them all up, there will be more declared anti-neuts and anti-reclassers in office come January than there were before. The overwhelming majority of the Dems who signed the anti-reclass letter won, contrary to popular belief, as did most of the Reeps who signed the anti-reclass and the anti-neut pledge. All you have to do is count the names and see what happened to the support for this issue as a result of the election. If you do an honest survey, the answer is clear: net neutrality supporters lost the referendum.
Net neutrality is the biggest policy boondoggle of the past 30 years. All it's done is distract the policy makers' attention from the much more important questions about Internet adoption, privacy, intellectual property, and Internet architecture and security. The people who've been floating this boat have helped neither the country nor the Internet. It's best for everyone if we put this issue to rest and get on with things that really make a difference.
On the post: Industry Groups Back To 'Negotiating' Net Neutrality
Super-Secret Probationary Negotiations
They're not really about the FCC, they're about the pending Congressional action that will clarify the FCC's role regarding Internet regulation.
Contrary to the web's conspiracy theories, the issues around the open Internet controversy have less to do with web sites than with enabling new applications on the Internet that need real-time behavior from ISPs.
As the Internet said to the net neutrality movement, "It's not you, it's me."
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
The law is obvious
On the post: Tech Policy Debate: Do We Want Enlightened Leadership... Or A Hands Off Policy?
The bar is very low
On the post: Kevin Martin Tries To Thread The Needle In Sanctioning Comcast
Fair Summary
There are overlapping jurisdictions where disclosure is concerned, and either the FCC or the FTC can act on that issue. But the FTC obviously can't act without a petition.
On the post: Antitrust Law's Requirements Aren't Always Clear
How to you keep your head from exploding?
On the post: But Do We Still Need Gov't Intervention To Open Mobile Networks?
Walt Mossberg is a communist
Next >>