There's something a little sleazy about having a guy present an idea to your gigantic company, and you almost close the deal with him, but then you crap out, ignore him and take his prototypes and have a Chinese sweatshop make "different" versions for cheaper.
That isn't competition that's just stealing someone else's idea. I don't know if copyright should be involved here, but I personally think it's nice to see the little guy actually winning a legal fight for once.
I know it's not in keeping with the season, but this is definitely a case where the lawyers are in the right, legally, if not morally.
I just can't imagine Mayor Jerry thinking this was a good idea without getting an approval first. Although with our projected $20 million budget shortfall, maybe we could just leave the lights off this year and save a little money.
I generally agree with the importance of the secondhand market, but asserting that these actions "will make plenty of folks think twice before committing to it, knowing that it can't be resold" is not accurate.
Most people could give a rat's ass about the resell possibilities of accessories. Most people won't even think about it and when they do find out, if they do find out, they'll just shrug their shoulders, throw it away, and move on.
We're being trained to expect this, so unless it is a particularly egregious instance of rapaciousness, or someone raises a whole lot of stink, this won't even make a blip.
Remember, you boil the frog by raising the temperature slowly.
I think you got this one wrong Mike. One of the articles I read on this said that if not for the conspiring, the prices on LCDs, all kinds of LCDs, would have started dropping sooner. And that fits.
Obviously advances in technology and such meant that the strategy couldn't work forever, but I can't imagine LG would agree to pay $400 million unless there was a really strong case against them or that this strategy benefited them significantly.
Re: I'm still not sure about Safe Harbors, but I see its benefits.
You are wrong on every single aspect of your comment.
Web sites should not be held responsible for the actions of their users because they can't control them and they have no idea what actions users should be held responsible for.
For example, this is a blog that I'm sure is read internationally. If I were to invite you to attend a white power meeting, in America that would just be in poor taste. In Germany, I wager the government would be a lot more interested in that statement and might even consider looking me up. How does TechDirt define responsibility in that instance?
A sex ad is "intentional harm?" Prove it. Moreover, why should Craigslist need to make that determination? What's next, fraudulent listings? bitter diatribes against ex-boyfriends? I'd say those are more intentionally harmful and Craigslist has just about as much chance of being able to determine those as a "sex ad." Especially given that Craigslist also includes parodies and other instances of humor. How do you tell the difference in a programmatic manner?
Commenting seems to lead to a lively debate on many of the forums I frequent and although there are always trolls, as long as you're adding to the debate, I'm willing to put up with a little name calling. Sticks and stones and all that.
And finally, your parent-child analogy is ill-conceived, inadequate and inappropriate. TechDirt is not my daddy and it isn't responsible for my actions.
It has no way to even identify what actions it needs to control because it has no idea where I live, where anyone who reads this might live or what direction the political wind is blowing in both locations. That is why you need the Safe Harbor, because it protects sites from people like you who would require omniscience from organizations that are sometimes 2 or 3 guys getting together to discuss what they love on the weekends.
Actually I'd argue that TriZz's definitions are probably what many people think of when they think of hacking. Sure, if you think about it logically, you can see where it shouldn't apply everytime, but I bet a lot of companies would love to have a court say they were the accurate definitions of hacking. The chilling effect would be unbelievable.
But that's precisely why this is so alarming. The common perception might carry the day despite commonsense saying that would be a horrible idea on a level with drowning kittens and granting patents for ideas and concepts.
Now that we know that Craigslist can be monitored for prostitution posts, we know that it can be monitored. Whioch means watching for things like obscenity, hate speech, drug deals, and scams. Now, when someone rips me off on Craigslist, I can sue the pants off, um, Craig, I guess, because he should have known that post was just a scheme to take my money.
Actually, I think that is a very good idea. I like the thought of a Web Armageddon of that type.
The judge in this case doesn't appear to be particularly stupid or corrupt (determined by a quick review of other cases)so something else is at work. Maybe Steve Bashear just needs to realize this sword cuts both ways. Pissing off the alcohol lobbies would be just the thing to ensure he doesn't get elected again.
In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. Let me see if I can defend my idea.
I agree with you, it was the big guys abusing our patent system that seriously trounced Vonage. Vonage was doing a good job of blowing things on its own too. I also would not say that idea copying has anything to do with Vonage's dire straits. Except...If you sue the name brand leader into oblivion, well, that clears the way for you doesn't it? If the first-to-market ain't around any more, name recognition, brand loyalty, convenience and the other traditional marketing factors become so much more important.
I also agree that OS/2 was not a success, but if Microsoft had a sunk a big chunk of cash and equity, and whatever else into a product that failed to capture the market for 26 years, would they be here today? I don't believe so. That's the advantage of big. Which is part of my point.
Sure some of the companies IBM has copied are doing great, for now. How about 20-30 years from now? IBM got started more than a 100 years ago. They can take the long view. They can wait to see what is a fad and what is going to last and go with that. Not exclusively of course, large companies do innovate, but they persist sometimes on sheer momentum it seems.
My point in all this other mess of points is that perhaps being small is not an advantage. Additionally, perhaps being innovative is not an advantage, or at least not a lasting advantage. I guess I'm suggesting that to truly succeed, to be something other than Pets.com with staying power, maybe you need to be big.
But, since we can't all be big, and since we can't all have been around forever, then maybe our system needs something to give everyone a fighting chance, no matter their size or date of origin.
What is certain is that the current patent system is not that something.
Naturally I want to support anything that gives the little guy an advantage, but what about the long view?
This is only sort of a half thought, but take a cool idea like VOIP. Nobody wanted it until some little guy started to run with it and showed it was a moneymaker. So of course that guy is going under, and in the mean time the big players, cable companies and AT&T, add his "idea" to their others and pretty soon will be making money hand over fist with it.
Or maybe IBM. They take every idea they can and make their own version of it. You can say they're hurting, but they're still here. How many small PC makers or IT service companies that they've lifted good ideas from aren't?
Hmm, how about banks? We had a brief period of innovation and I think it's still going on, but truly, who's coming out on top? Chase, Bank of America, etc. -- Megalithic corporations that have been around and will be around after we're nothing but dirt.
I'm not sure shortening the patent review time is the answer, but when it comes down to it, maybe faster and more nimble don't mean as much as big as hell and able to take a hit. If that is the case, and we truly value competition, then maybe we should be looking for ways to even the playing field a little more.
There are literally thousands (probably millions) of reviews of products that the reviewers have never seen, yet alone owned. More specifically in the video game world, there are a lot of fan boys that go on and post reviews based on demos and previews at Cons and such. No one complains about that entirely unwarranted positive publicity.
Additionally, Amazon reviewers have no problem knocking products similar to what they own. They've got swanky DVD player A and they're reviewing @ss-tastic DVD player B. Happens all the time and no one gets deleted.
Those reviews have value and although I think perhaps there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, if I were considering buying Spore, I sure as hell wouldn't now.
This deluge of people willing to take time (even if it's just a few minutes) out of their day to go run down a game they've never played says something is seriously amiss. As the cliche goes, where's there's smoke, there's fire.
As I've said previously, I do think the ad deal between Google and Yahoo deserve some very close scrutiny. The sheer numbers they will control could have a chilling effect on innovation in that area. Or it could not. It's worth a look.
However, looking at them for being a monopoly overall is ridiculous. They've got hot competition in every area they make a move into. I truly think what freaks people out is the free aspect of their offerings. As pointed out above, it's hard to beat that price point and no one seems willing to try. That's not really their fault though.
I don't think IT workers should unionize as much as what I like to call "knowledge workers." IT can fit in the bucket, but what I'm mainly talking about are salaried folks who work long hours with very loose job definitions and then get let go at the first economic downturn. These people have boodles of skills -- everything from technical know-how to years of business experience -- but none of that matters if you have to meet the quarters numbers.
Then of course, once the company realizes those were actually important positions, they end up coming back with different cheaper people.
A union functioning correctly could help with that. I'm not looking for a free ride, but these days you need someone with clout on your side to protect you from the madness that Corporate America has become.
I'm not ready to say Google's got a monopoly on anything yet, but logically speaking if they did control 90 or 80 or even 70 percent of the ad market, there's nothing that says they can't change their system, set a minimum bid or employ all manner of creativeness to increase revenue. That's their goal after all, and with a big hunk of the market, the ability to vote with your feet is very limited.
I'm fairly pro-Google just as far as things go, but I'm not blind to the reality that they're in it to make money. Sometimes the best, most natural way to do that is a monopoly. That's why we have a government -- to limit the eventual excess of capitalism.
Also, your third link provides this:
'Microsoft also has objected to the deal, saying it would unfairly foreclose competition on the Web. In Senate hearings in July, Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, testified that "if search is the gateway to the Internet, and most people believe that it is, this deal will put Google in position to own that gateway and the information that flows through it."'
I think Microsoft knows a monopoly when it sees one.
More and more, schools are being allowed by the courts to take action against students for Web sites and other actions done in places and forums totally separate from school grounds. This http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20060501.html is a link to a review of both sides of the issue, with examples.
What I think would be awesome is if one of these spoofed teachers hacked the fake profile and started posting what they really thought about their students. Perfect "crime."
but in this, you are very wrong. Somebody needs to be getting up in arms about this, because greater consolidation of media is bad for us. I happen to live in one of the places where Clear Channel owns 8 of the local radio stations. As a consequence, my music choices are the same crap, the same crap1, the same crap2, etc.
I can deal with this because I have other options, but if consolidation continues and bleeds into TV and newspapers news will go the same way.
If you want to see just how few companies own such big pieces of media, try http://www.cjr.org/resources/. It's probably a little out of date, but I'm sure the situation has only worsened.
Re: Couldn't agree with you more if I put it on a t-shirt
To put it simply, more views on the news is always a better condition than less.
What's happened to radio is a crying shame, and it's exactly this sort of program that has caused it to happen. Just imagine if your local news were delivered by someone in Miami or your local coverage went away because it's not cost-effective. That's what happened with radio.
Also, consider the hidden "synergies" that come into play here.
If you advertise on Channel A, you get a slot on Channel A. If you advertise on Channel B, why they'll throw in a free radio spot on one of their stations. Boom, less revenue for Channel A. Eventually, Channel A goes under and now there's only one source for news in your town and they are beholden more to the bottom line than your city or town.
I don't often support government interference, but in this instance, I do.
On the post: What's Wrong With Competition?
yes, but
That isn't competition that's just stealing someone else's idea. I don't know if copyright should be involved here, but I personally think it's nice to see the little guy actually winning a legal fight for once.
On the post: How Dr. Seuss's Lawyers Ruined Christmas
What were they thinking?
I just can't imagine Mayor Jerry thinking this was a good idea without getting an approval first. Although with our projected $20 million budget shortfall, maybe we could just leave the lights off this year and save a little money.
On the post: Nintendo Making Peripherals Impossible To Buy Used
Only one problem
Most people could give a rat's ass about the resell possibilities of accessories. Most people won't even think about it and when they do find out, if they do find out, they'll just shrug their shoulders, throw it away, and move on.
We're being trained to expect this, so unless it is a particularly egregious instance of rapaciousness, or someone raises a whole lot of stink, this won't even make a blip.
Remember, you boil the frog by raising the temperature slowly.
On the post: If That's Price Fixing, You're Doing It Wrong
I'm with them
Obviously advances in technology and such meant that the strategy couldn't work forever, but I can't imagine LG would agree to pay $400 million unless there was a really strong case against them or that this strategy benefited them significantly.
On the post: Do The New SEC Rules On Linking Violate Section 230 Safe Harbors?
Re: I'm still not sure about Safe Harbors, but I see its benefits.
Web sites should not be held responsible for the actions of their users because they can't control them and they have no idea what actions users should be held responsible for.
For example, this is a blog that I'm sure is read internationally. If I were to invite you to attend a white power meeting, in America that would just be in poor taste. In Germany, I wager the government would be a lot more interested in that statement and might even consider looking me up. How does TechDirt define responsibility in that instance?
A sex ad is "intentional harm?" Prove it. Moreover, why should Craigslist need to make that determination? What's next, fraudulent listings? bitter diatribes against ex-boyfriends? I'd say those are more intentionally harmful and Craigslist has just about as much chance of being able to determine those as a "sex ad." Especially given that Craigslist also includes parodies and other instances of humor. How do you tell the difference in a programmatic manner?
Commenting seems to lead to a lively debate on many of the forums I frequent and although there are always trolls, as long as you're adding to the debate, I'm willing to put up with a little name calling. Sticks and stones and all that.
And finally, your parent-child analogy is ill-conceived, inadequate and inappropriate. TechDirt is not my daddy and it isn't responsible for my actions.
It has no way to even identify what actions it needs to control because it has no idea where I live, where anyone who reads this might live or what direction the political wind is blowing in both locations. That is why you need the Safe Harbor, because it protects sites from people like you who would require omniscience from organizations that are sometimes 2 or 3 guys getting together to discuss what they love on the weekends.
On the post: Judge Likely To Exclude Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...is it a stretch
But that's precisely why this is so alarming. The common perception might carry the day despite commonsense saying that would be a horrible idea on a level with drowning kittens and granting patents for ideas and concepts.
On the post: Craigslist Pressured Into Policing Ads For Prostitution
Oh, but you've forgotten the best part...
On the post: Judge Allows Kentucky To Seize Domain Names
Re:
The judge in this case doesn't appear to be particularly stupid or corrupt (determined by a quick review of other cases)so something else is at work. Maybe Steve Bashear just needs to realize this sword cuts both ways. Pissing off the alcohol lobbies would be just the thing to ensure he doesn't get elected again.
On the post: What If We Put Lie Detectors On Politicians During Debates?
If you want to get real high-tech
On the post: Misunderstanding The Problems Of The Patent System
RE; Re: Longview
I agree with you, it was the big guys abusing our patent system that seriously trounced Vonage. Vonage was doing a good job of blowing things on its own too. I also would not say that idea copying has anything to do with Vonage's dire straits. Except...If you sue the name brand leader into oblivion, well, that clears the way for you doesn't it? If the first-to-market ain't around any more, name recognition, brand loyalty, convenience and the other traditional marketing factors become so much more important.
I also agree that OS/2 was not a success, but if Microsoft had a sunk a big chunk of cash and equity, and whatever else into a product that failed to capture the market for 26 years, would they be here today? I don't believe so. That's the advantage of big. Which is part of my point.
Sure some of the companies IBM has copied are doing great, for now. How about 20-30 years from now? IBM got started more than a 100 years ago. They can take the long view. They can wait to see what is a fad and what is going to last and go with that. Not exclusively of course, large companies do innovate, but they persist sometimes on sheer momentum it seems.
My point in all this other mess of points is that perhaps being small is not an advantage. Additionally, perhaps being innovative is not an advantage, or at least not a lasting advantage. I guess I'm suggesting that to truly succeed, to be something other than Pets.com with staying power, maybe you need to be big.
But, since we can't all be big, and since we can't all have been around forever, then maybe our system needs something to give everyone a fighting chance, no matter their size or date of origin.
What is certain is that the current patent system is not that something.
On the post: Misunderstanding The Problems Of The Patent System
Longview
This is only sort of a half thought, but take a cool idea like VOIP. Nobody wanted it until some little guy started to run with it and showed it was a moneymaker. So of course that guy is going under, and in the mean time the big players, cable companies and AT&T, add his "idea" to their others and pretty soon will be making money hand over fist with it.
Or maybe IBM. They take every idea they can and make their own version of it. You can say they're hurting, but they're still here. How many small PC makers or IT service companies that they've lifted good ideas from aren't?
Hmm, how about banks? We had a brief period of innovation and I think it's still going on, but truly, who's coming out on top? Chase, Bank of America, etc. -- Megalithic corporations that have been around and will be around after we're nothing but dirt.
I'm not sure shortening the patent review time is the answer, but when it comes down to it, maybe faster and more nimble don't mean as much as big as hell and able to take a hit. If that is the case, and we truly value competition, then maybe we should be looking for ways to even the playing field a little more.
On the post: Did Amazon Delete Spore Reviews? [Updated]
Actually, you're wrong
Additionally, Amazon reviewers have no problem knocking products similar to what they own. They've got swanky DVD player A and they're reviewing @ss-tastic DVD player B. Happens all the time and no one gets deleted.
Those reviews have value and although I think perhaps there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, if I were considering buying Spore, I sure as hell wouldn't now.
This deluge of people willing to take time (even if it's just a few minutes) out of their day to go run down a game they've never played says something is seriously amiss. As the cliche goes, where's there's smoke, there's fire.
On the post: Is The Justice Dep't Really Thinking About Going After All Of Google's Business On Antitrust?
The ad thing yes
However, looking at them for being a monopoly overall is ridiculous. They've got hot competition in every area they make a move into. I truly think what freaks people out is the free aspect of their offerings. As pointed out above, it's hard to beat that price point and no one seems willing to try. That's not really their fault though.
On the post: Like Clockwork: Question Raised About Techies Unionizing
Unions don't have to be all bad
Then of course, once the company realizes those were actually important positions, they end up coming back with different cheaper people.
A union functioning correctly could help with that. I'm not looking for a free ride, but these days you need someone with clout on your side to protect you from the madness that Corporate America has become.
On the post: Will A Google/Yahoo Ad Deal Really Impact Ad Prices?
Monopoly-Shmonopoly
I'm fairly pro-Google just as far as things go, but I'm not blind to the reality that they're in it to make money. Sometimes the best, most natural way to do that is a monopoly. That's why we have a government -- to limit the eventual excess of capitalism.
Also, your third link provides this:
'Microsoft also has objected to the deal, saying it would unfairly foreclose competition on the Web. In Senate hearings in July, Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, testified that "if search is the gateway to the Internet, and most people believe that it is, this deal will put Google in position to own that gateway and the information that flows through it."'
I think Microsoft knows a monopoly when it sees one.
On the post: Esquire Hopes To Keep Magazines Alive With Electronic Ink
WTF
On the post: Principal Loses Lawsuit Against Students Over Fake MySpace Profile
Nuh uh
Sucks to be a kid today.
On the post: Is A Fake Facebook Profile Illegal?
Faking fakers
On the post: ACLU Joins In On Media Ownership Hysteria
Normally I'd agree with you Tim
I can deal with this because I have other options, but if consolidation continues and bleeds into TV and newspapers news will go the same way.
If you want to see just how few companies own such big pieces of media, try http://www.cjr.org/resources/. It's probably a little out of date, but I'm sure the situation has only worsened.
On the post: Senate Tries To Roll Back FCC Ownership Rules; Apparently Still Hasn't Heard Of The Internet
Re: Couldn't agree with you more if I put it on a t-shirt
What's happened to radio is a crying shame, and it's exactly this sort of program that has caused it to happen. Just imagine if your local news were delivered by someone in Miami or your local coverage went away because it's not cost-effective. That's what happened with radio.
Also, consider the hidden "synergies" that come into play here.
If you advertise on Channel A, you get a slot on Channel A. If you advertise on Channel B, why they'll throw in a free radio spot on one of their stations. Boom, less revenue for Channel A. Eventually, Channel A goes under and now there's only one source for news in your town and they are beholden more to the bottom line than your city or town.
I don't often support government interference, but in this instance, I do.
Next >>