The Irish joke that you quoted: "Well...I wouldn't start from here at all." nicely sums up the problem with countering so-called intellectual property. It seems that too few people question the legitimacy of patents/copyright; they seem to automatically accept the motherhood concept that the creator of content has need to "protect" content.
Of course, at this point I need to clarify that I am not against a content creator having a LIMITED right. The concern, is that the perceived "right" is being expanded to the detriment to promoting progress in the arts and science.
The following is an incorrect assumption of how the free-market works: "If people are not willing to pay a content owner for their content, then it's not worth anything."
The correct wording should be "If people are not willing to pay a content owner for their content, then the content creator should NOT produce it."
Content creators seem to make the mistake that if they produce something that there really is a market for it. Before producing something, and expecting a profit, they need undertake "due diligence" and see if people will actually pay. If not, then don't produce the content!!!!!!!
We live in a world where many of the expenses of producing/publishing a book have been eliminated. We have software for writing, producing graphics, printing etc. Even the cost of updating a book has been reduced since only the "obsolete" sections need to be revised.
Now I have been out of academia for a long time. The increasing cost of text books seems outrageous. Why have the costs continue to escalate (beyond the obvious captured audience concept)??????
Endless permutations!!!
You wrote: "I can't wait until Ubisoft diversifies into the automobile market and requires an always on internet connection to be able to drive your car."
Late on your car payment - car turned off.
Run a red light - car turned off.
Late on your maintenance - car turned off
Auto incident above a certain "G" force - car turned off.
In car DVD player, unauthorized content - car turned off
Ford parts installed in a Chevy - car turned off.
Technological advancement has its pluses and minuses. Unfortunately, stories such as these make the headlines. The Luddites then start foaming at the mouth with indignation. We need to adapt, not condemn.
The New York Times, for example, wrote a rather pointless article on how automating (remotely) the reading your electric meter raised privacy concerns. So what. The utility companies have been collecting this data for eons, the only difference is that it is automated and does have a higher "resolution" (real-time versus monthly).
There is a very important caution here. You wrote "That does not mean that processes using the genes could not be patented". I will acquiesce to the fact that a specific process, clearly spelled out in a "blueprint", could be patented. (No cloud boxes allowed) However, you should not be allowed to have a broad patent that covers all processes/methods for testing a gene.
I will even say that competitors should have a right to "reverse engineer" a test. Reverse engineering has been (was) a legitimate innovative approach for developing an alternative implementation to something that was patented.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Emerging Issue With The Patenting Genes
"If I discover something and never tell you about it, other than the fact that I discovered something, have I deprived society?" If you don't want to tell anyone about it, that is fine.
What is wrong is claiming a patent/copyright entitlement that deprives the public of of the ability to use knowledge that has been publicly disclosed. Hence, it should be freely available to the public.
"patenting genes was meant to give corporations time to research the hell out of them". Wrong. Patents are granted for a "final" product to provide the creator with a limited monopoly on selling the product. Of course that does not mean that you can't continue researching.
A problem with both copyright and patent law is that it has been bastardized. One of the bastardized concepts being that copyright and patents are meant to protect the creator from alternative forms of competition.
Many of these researchers "steal" the genetic material for their research from their patients. Of course the researchers won't phrase it that way. But the point of all this is that some people believe that they have a right to take something and then claim it as their own.
Genes should NOT be patented.
If any of this work is publicly funded patents should NOT be granted.
On March 15th the New York Times ran this rather pointless article: Tracking Electric Use Could Allow Utilities to Track You, Too. While this article doesn't appear to be a regurgitated press release, it does serve as an example of a non-story published for the purposes of throwing gasoline on the "privacy" war fire.
If the reporter new what he was talking about and was after a real story, I would have expected a "big" article on how the fight against piracy is taking away our privacy (internet filtering) and making us all criminals. Instead of tackling this real issue, the Times simply takes a poor utility meter and makes it a poster child for how our privacy could be abused. And this is news! How absurd.
The argument is often made that creating content requires significant investment. The argument is made that without this investment, the content would simply not exist, therefore a degree of "protection" is necessary to foster content creation.
Missing from this is the fact that we live in a free-market(capitalistic) economy. What this means is that when an artistic endeavor pencils out as uneconomic (no matter how great it could be) then it simply should NOT be produced!
Like the newspaper industry, if technology is making an old business model increasingly uneconomic, that is the free-market at work. If you can't adjust to compete, too bad, you are out-of-business.
In the case of Pringles or handbags, new copies have to be manufactured. There are a variety of costs in manufacturing in terms of labor, materials, transportation, marketing, and spoilage.
The reproduction of content by digital means does not involve any of these costs to the content manufacturer (artist, distribution firm). So how about this, as the content is reproduced the per-unit cost of that content declines! Furthermore, product sales increase as the price declines. Content stimulus!!!!
Given that content producer's don't have to pay manufacturing costs to produce new copies why should they be entitled to gouge the consumer with a "full price"?
We had a Belkin UPS that went bad. The good news is that Belkin honored its warranty and replaced the unit. The BAD news, Belkin had modified the (new) UPS model so that you would have to use THEIR software instead of the regular windows power management software.
It took several hours of frustrating tweaking before I figured it out. Of course the UPS documentation never mentioned the little detail that the ability of the UPS to work directly with Windows was "disabled".
Actually this is an illustration to all those that claim that evil government regulations are to blame for frustrating technological advances. It is the companies themselves who are really responsible for retarding technological progress.
What does this imply for unregulated net-neutrality? Clearly these companies cannot be trusted to freely abide by net-neutrality concepts.
Appeals to "follow the law" are naive at best. We all like to think of the law as providing a level playing field, but what about laws that are passed by the Congressional supermarket at the behest of a special interest group? They are meant to serve the special interest group, not the public.
So even if the law contains some sort of slap-on-the-wrist penalty for filing a false claim or a malicious claim, just try to prove it. I believe that you would find proving it to be extremely difficult if not nearly impossible.
Those behind so-called "intellectual property" seem to have formulated a new form McCarthyism. Under McCarthyism, civil rights (including due process) were conveniently overlooked in the name of fighting Communism. Today, we seemly have substituted our quest to squash "Communism" with a mandate to squash "piracy". Have some unknown entity point the finger of "piracy at you, go directly to jail. Due process? You must be joking.
Re: Government is never the answer - But who is paying?
Before blaming all ills on Government, ask the question of who is paying for the favorable legislation. Companies that go to the Congressional supermarket need to share in the blame too.
Ultimately, it is still the corruption of our Congress people that is leading to bad government since they are the decision makers.
The Innovation Alliance - Another Pro-Patent Special Interest
In Following the links you first go to the Tech Daily Dose. What is particularly disturbing is that the Tech Daily Dose apparently did not even bother to interview the Electronic Frontier Foundation, they only cited the pro-patent special interest group Innovation Alliance. This group calls for "strong" patents and improving "patent quality". To achieve this, the Innovation Alliance sees a need for an even bigger patent office!
By implication, the good news will be that this was simply a PR stunt for face time and that the legislation will quietly die.
PS: In another decades long pending solution, every once in a while the Congress people proclaim that the AMAT tax will fixed. Still waiting, my grass is getting a bit long.
It seems that there is a subset of people who cannot accept that things can be "free", such as Linux or Wikipedia. That everything must somehow be monetized.
There is companion piece in the New York Times: The Patent Litigation Dilemma: Free Riders. Steve Lohr who also wrote "Turning Patents Into ‘Invention Capital’" goes on to say that: "The dilemma for such firms is the “free rider” problem. Companies like Microsoft and Intel have paid Intellectual Ventures many millions of dollars for the insurance that the patents the firm holds will not be used against them in patent-infringement suits. But rival technology companies benefit as well, without paying license fees to Intellectual Ventures, unless there is a mechanism to sometimes sue the companies that hold out."
Mr. Lohr has created a false bogeyman "Free Rider" so that he can avoid discussing how the patent system is being abused by the likes of Intellectual Ventures.
On the post: In Favor of Software Patents...Why?
It's no Joke
Of course, at this point I need to clarify that I am not against a content creator having a LIMITED right. The concern, is that the perceived "right" is being expanded to the detriment to promoting progress in the arts and science.
On the post: Frost & Sullivan Analyst Apparently Has Never Heard Of Network TV: Says Video Can't Be Free To Consumers
Free-Market Corollary
The correct wording should be "If people are not willing to pay a content owner for their content, then the content creator should NOT produce it."
Content creators seem to make the mistake that if they produce something that there really is a market for it. Before producing something, and expecting a profit, they need undertake "due diligence" and see if people will actually pay. If not, then don't produce the content!!!!!!!
On the post: WikiPremed Shows How To Make Money From Free Test Prep
Re: As a college student
Now I have been out of academia for a long time. The increasing cost of text books seems outrageous. Why have the costs continue to escalate (beyond the obvious captured audience concept)??????
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Auto Dealer Employee Hacks Computer System To Disable Over 100 Cars
Re: Ubi-Dealership coming next year
You wrote: "I can't wait until Ubisoft diversifies into the automobile market and requires an always on internet connection to be able to drive your car."
Late on your car payment - car turned off.
Run a red light - car turned off.
Late on your maintenance - car turned off
Auto incident above a certain "G" force - car turned off.
In car DVD player, unauthorized content - car turned off
Ford parts installed in a Chevy - car turned off.
Lawyers - $happy$
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Auto Dealer Employee Hacks Computer System To Disable Over 100 Cars
Only the Beggining
The New York Times, for example, wrote a rather pointless article on how automating (remotely) the reading your electric meter raised privacy concerns. So what. The utility companies have been collecting this data for eons, the only difference is that it is automated and does have a higher "resolution" (real-time versus monthly).
On the post: New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad
Re: Genes are discovered
I will even say that competitors should have a right to "reverse engineer" a test. Reverse engineering has been (was) a legitimate innovative approach for developing an alternative implementation to something that was patented.
On the post: New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Emerging Issue With The Patenting Genes
What is wrong is claiming a patent/copyright entitlement that deprives the public of of the ability to use knowledge that has been publicly disclosed. Hence, it should be freely available to the public.
On the post: New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A problem with both copyright and patent law is that it has been bastardized. One of the bastardized concepts being that copyright and patents are meant to protect the creator from alternative forms of competition.
On the post: New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad
An Emerging Issue With The Patenting Genes
Genes should NOT be patented.
If any of this work is publicly funded patents should NOT be granted.
See If Gary Locke Wants To Incentivize Commercializing Research He Should Look To Get Bayh-Dole Repealed
On the post: How Much Of That All Important Journalism Is Really PR?
A Sorry State of Affairs
If the reporter new what he was talking about and was after a real story, I would have expected a "big" article on how the fight against piracy is taking away our privacy (internet filtering) and making us all criminals. Instead of tackling this real issue, the Times simply takes a poor utility meter and makes it a poster child for how our privacy could be abused. And this is news! How absurd.
On the post: Record Labels Put Out Report Insisting That Record Labels Do, In Fact, Invest In Musicians
Investing is a Market Risk
Missing from this is the fact that we live in a free-market(capitalistic) economy. What this means is that when an artistic endeavor pencils out as uneconomic (no matter how great it could be) then it simply should NOT be produced!
Like the newspaper industry, if technology is making an old business model increasingly uneconomic, that is the free-market at work. If you can't adjust to compete, too bad, you are out-of-business.
On the post: James Murdoch Is Very, Very Confused About Copyright Infringement (And So Is His Dad, Rupert)
A Twist - You Have to Manufacture a New Copy
The reproduction of content by digital means does not involve any of these costs to the content manufacturer (artist, distribution firm). So how about this, as the content is reproduced the per-unit cost of that content declines! Furthermore, product sales increase as the price declines. Content stimulus!!!!
Given that content producer's don't have to pay manufacturing costs to produce new copies why should they be entitled to gouge the consumer with a "full price"?
On the post: Energizer Introduces USB Battery Charger With Bonus Rootkit Feature [Update]
Belkin - Bad
It took several hours of frustrating tweaking before I figured it out. Of course the UPS documentation never mentioned the little detail that the ability of the UPS to work directly with Windows was "disabled".
On the post: Skype Deliberately Crippling Functionality of iPhone and WinMo and Verizon Apps?
Its the Governements Fault!
What does this imply for unregulated net-neutrality? Clearly these companies cannot be trusted to freely abide by net-neutrality concepts.
On the post: Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation
Re: Re: Re: Follow the law
So even if the law contains some sort of slap-on-the-wrist penalty for filing a false claim or a malicious claim, just try to prove it. I believe that you would find proving it to be extremely difficult if not nearly impossible.
On the post: Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation
The New McCarthyism
On the post: If Gary Locke Wants To Incentivize Commercializing Research He Should Look To Get Bayh-Dole Repealed
Re: Government is never the answer - But who is paying?
Ultimately, it is still the corruption of our Congress people that is leading to bad government since they are the decision makers.
On the post: It's Back: Patent Reform Deal Expected Shortly
The Innovation Alliance - Another Pro-Patent Special Interest
By implication, the good news will be that this was simply a PR stunt for face time and that the legislation will quietly die.
PS: In another decades long pending solution, every once in a while the Congress people proclaim that the AMAT tax will fixed. Still waiting, my grass is getting a bit long.
On the post: IIPA's Section 301 Filing Shows It's Really Not At All Interested In Reducing Copyright Infringement
Everything Must Have a Price
On the post: Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures Using Over 1,000 Shell Companies To Hide Patent Shakedown
Got to Stop Those Evil Free Riders
Mr. Lohr has created a false bogeyman "Free Rider" so that he can avoid discussing how the patent system is being abused by the likes of Intellectual Ventures.
Unlike the main article, you can leave comments on: The Patent Litigation Dilemma: Free Riders.
Next >>