Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 28 Jun 2010 @ 3:31pm
Bleak
The most encouraging parahraph that I read in all of that was this incredibly insightful (and happens to agree with a few more general themes here) bit:
"[C]ompanies have ample incentives to develop business methods even without patent protection, because the competitive marketplace rewards companies that use more efficient business methods." Burk & Lemley... Innovators often capture advantages from new business methods notwithstanding the risk of others copying their innovation. Some business methods occur in secret and therefore can be protected with trade secrecy. And for those methods that occur in public, firms that innovate often capture long-term benefits from doing so, thanks to various first mover advantages, including lockins, branding, and networking effects.
Seriously, replace "business methods" with anything else and that sentence becomes an accurate summary of more than a few Masnick posts. I realize he restricts it in the immediate following sentence, but the glimmer of reasonable logic is there.
It's a sad day indeed that this is the man we're losing on the bench.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 2 Jun 2010 @ 9:50am
Re: Patents, Guns and P2P
I'm going to disagree with a few of the other replies to this, I don't think the difference has anything to do with the useful purposes of guns or patents.
I'm fairly certain the difference is that a patent is an artificial monopoly granted by the government for the express purpose of furthering innovation (and it's clearly not serving that purpose). Without a nation's governing body explicitly granting this made up thing, it doesn't exist. So the argument put forth is, why make it exist?
Whereas a gun is a tool that would exist quite well outside of any belief that it exists or not, so the discussion there is more "should this difficult to control thing be regulated and how is it possible to accomplish that?" not "should we maybe stop creating and recognizing this made up thing that's causing all these problems for ourselves?"
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 11 May 2010 @ 11:57am
Re: Just Sayin...
It's incomprehensible. Either they have no clue what they're competing with and how awesomely convenient and easy it is, or their heads are buried so deep in the sand that they think the competition is stoppable or doesn't really exist.
Let's just pretend that alternatives don't exist, make our products crappier and people will have to buy them. And obviously sue into oblivion anyone that dares to make our own products slightly competitive.
"while they launch cheap flat-rate unlimited plans at the same time, as AT&T has done for the iPad 3G. If AT&T's network is already taxed and cheap data plans are to blame, why launch another one on a device that's built to consume data?"
A couple of theories I've heard on this:
(1) AT&T is convinced that iPad users will primarily use WiFi, perhaps due to the device being used frequently in the home and at the coffee shop and at the office where WiFi is readily available.
(2) It's another device. AT&T wants to get their customers deeper into this "pay a monthly fee per device" concept. Increasing that ARPU (Average Revenue Per User), even if those new customers aren't using AT&T for their other data services yet. I'm willing to bet very few customers are using this data plan to replace any other they currently have (such as home internet or mobile internet).
"But when its full letter to subscribers contains seven typos, it looks like Variety is more interested in having the appearance of quality and authority than actually having quality content."
Because any typos/omissions/grammatical mistakes are an obvious sign of a lack of quality, right Mike?
Sir, you have a firm grasp of the reality of software patents.
To be fair, I think the PTO does reject a good portion of what comes through, but they also do approve an equally large portion that's full of the same crap. The net result is still exactly as you've described, the shotgun approach works very well.
"Big" companies also lose out pretty bad (e.g. Microsoft, Blackberry), so it's not all a one sided affair of a big guy versus little guy. I'd say it's more Patent trolls vs. Everyone else, most of the time.
I'm pretty sure the argument (in the post, and in the comments) was "disclosure doesn't help at all in these cases" not "patents don't require sufficient disclosure". Seems like you're point is being made against something else?
While we're talking though, I'd like to throw another argument in there: Disclosing a software "invention" (even if disclosing it did do something) that's tied up in a monopoly for another 20 years is not really all that helpful. Ask your friendly neighborhood programmer how excited he would be to use a software invention from 1990, then let me know when he's done wetting himself with joy.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 12 Mar 2010 @ 3:49pm
Re: welp
Yes, clearly the company is in deep trouble because they're cancelling a research competition[!] Oh and they use Silverlight? Well that's another nail in the coffin[!]
But seriously, I think the investments they have made in getting their players on tons of set top devices and expanding their digital library are the smartest moves they've made for surviving the ongoing transition to digital distribution. They've even got a revenue model around it that it seems more than a few people are willing to stomach for the convenience granted.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 11 Mar 2010 @ 10:59am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reform?
"For whatever it may be worth, in 31 years of practicing law I have yet to see a single patent that has ever "locked" a client out of a market. It is indeed very, very rare for a person/company to come up with a truly generic invention that by definition must be practiced in order for a newcomer to enter a newly developing market for products and/or services. Almost invariably an issued patent covers an improvement, and the claim limitations used to distinguish the improvement over the prior art leaves abundant room for others to enter the market with their own products/services."
Even if the specificity of the patent (this one in particular, or others like it) is such that it wouldn't technically prevent a newcomer from entering the market, it most certainly is a barrier, and a strong enough one that it most definitely will prevent competition if for no other reason than the potential costs of defending one's self in court.
I'm glad this patent got approved. And I'm glad fellows such as yourselves are defending (defending the concept of patents like it) it. This is the best fuel for change that I can think of.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 8 Mar 2010 @ 1:16pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
Personally I find the arguments for trademarks incredibly valid, and it's this alone that keeps me from jumping over to the abolitionist camp. Not because I believe keeping trademarks around and abolishing copyright are mutually exclusive concepts, but because of the vague similarities ("intellectual property" of sorts, just with different purpose and specificity). The fact that there is validity to one leads me to believe there may be some value in the other.
I believe Mike's stance is due to a fear (rational fear) of being grouped together with the straw-men he so eagerly points out.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 5:23pm
Re: A missed opportunity?
I'd agree there was a better statement to be made there, aside from just "Don't say anything ever or the interwebz will get you!". I'm not sure that pleaserobme (or anyone else) said it, but the concept is there. I think raising privacy awareness (the lack thereof) is a worthwhile endeavor, it's too bad that's not what's being taken away from this.
Yes, you're putting a lot of information about yourself online. No, this isn't something to freak out about any more or less than you should freak out about the information you're already sending out in many other ways (like Mike's examples). Yes, you should still be aware of the information you're broadcasting and this site was perhaps one tiny step in the right direction towards that.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 19 Feb 2010 @ 2:42pm
Re:
That is an excellent point that's rarely brought up. When speaking of pirated video games and movies specifically there's a huge advantage in being able to switch and load titles without having to leave the couch. It's the difference between a physical library and a digital one.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 15 Feb 2010 @ 12:59pm
"... it reflected a shrewd assessment that tape sharing would widen their audience, a ban would be unenforceable, and anyone inclined to tape a show would probably spend money elsewhere, such as on merchandise or tickets. "
If only a few more would take such a practical and objective view of their business decisions, perhaps there wouldn't be so much fodder for this blog. There are options aside from copyright maximalism and give it away and pray. Not even a middle ground; just sane, logical and profitable options.
I wish this subtle point received a little more focus a little more often.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 4:02pm
Re: Re:
I just can't wrap my head around this "responsibility for speech" concept a few folks seem to advocate. You say it with such seriousness that it makes me think you must have some reasoning behind it, I just don't get it.
How can we have any sort of reasonable discourse and make any sort of progress if either party is afraid of reprisal for the things they say?
I assume you hide behind a pseudonym because you do fear consequences from your speech, however unjust those consequences may be. Perhaps even as simple as some people might (unjustifiably) take some inappropriate action against you. But you argue that everyone else should take full responsibility for everything they say because there's never any consequences?
It's not just the government to fear, it's idiots too.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 12:00pm
Re: Maybe not so disappointing...
Well said Marcus.
I found Schmidt's piece wonderfully optimistic and of a different tone than my previous impressions of him. I'm still not sure I'd give him full credit of doing all that intentionally, but I wholeheartedly agree it would be nice to have constructive debate on the other aspects of innovation reform that went somewhere instead of stalling on the IP mess.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 9:25am
Re: Conference Board Of Canada
Spam is getting fairly sophisticated these days isn't it? It's an account, with an almost real name. A comment with an almost relevant title, and some content that almost sounds like it's related to the post. Hell this probably would have passed a cursory glance from a human filter.
On the post: Second Thoughts On Bilski: Could Another Case Get A Direct Ruling On Business Method Patentability?
Bleak
"[C]ompanies have ample incentives to develop business methods even without patent protection, because the competitive marketplace rewards companies that use more efficient business methods." Burk & Lemley... Innovators often capture advantages from new business methods notwithstanding the risk of others copying their innovation. Some business methods occur in secret and therefore can be protected with trade secrecy. And for those methods that occur in public, firms that innovate often capture long-term benefits from doing so, thanks to various first mover advantages, including lockins, branding, and networking effects.
Seriously, replace "business methods" with anything else and that sentence becomes an accurate summary of more than a few Masnick posts. I realize he restricts it in the immediate following sentence, but the glimmer of reasonable logic is there.
It's a sad day indeed that this is the man we're losing on the bench.
On the post: CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators
Re: Patents, Guns and P2P
I'm fairly certain the difference is that a patent is an artificial monopoly granted by the government for the express purpose of furthering innovation (and it's clearly not serving that purpose). Without a nation's governing body explicitly granting this made up thing, it doesn't exist. So the argument put forth is, why make it exist?
Whereas a gun is a tool that would exist quite well outside of any belief that it exists or not, so the discussion there is more "should this difficult to control thing be regulated and how is it possible to accomplish that?" not "should we maybe stop creating and recognizing this made up thing that's causing all these problems for ourselves?"
On the post: Kaleidescape Introduces Expensive And Almost Pointless Blu-ray Jukebox... And Hollywood Still Thinks It's Illegal
Re: Just Sayin...
Let's just pretend that alternatives don't exist, make our products crappier and people will have to buy them. And obviously sue into oblivion anyone that dares to make our own products slightly competitive.
On the post: If Flat-Rate Mobile Data Plans Are So Bad, Why Do Operators Keep Launching New Ones?
On the iPad 3G
A couple of theories I've heard on this:
(1) AT&T is convinced that iPad users will primarily use WiFi, perhaps due to the device being used frequently in the home and at the coffee shop and at the office where WiFi is readily available.
(2) It's another device. AT&T wants to get their customers deeper into this "pay a monthly fee per device" concept. Increasing that ARPU (Average Revenue Per User), even if those new customers aren't using AT&T for their other data services yet. I'm willing to bet very few customers are using this data plan to replace any other they currently have (such as home internet or mobile internet).
On the post: Daily Variety: We're Putting In A Paywall So We Don't Have To Write About Gossip
Glass houses?
Because any typos/omissions/grammatical mistakes are an obvious sign of a lack of quality, right Mike?
On the post: IP Lawyer Says: 'Stop Wasting Money On Patents'
To be fair, I think the PTO does reject a good portion of what comes through, but they also do approve an equally large portion that's full of the same crap. The net result is still exactly as you've described, the shotgun approach works very well.
"Big" companies also lose out pretty bad (e.g. Microsoft, Blackberry), so it's not all a one sided affair of a big guy versus little guy. I'd say it's more Patent trolls vs. Everyone else, most of the time.
But overall, best summary I think I've heard.
On the post: EFF Fighting For Whistleblower's Privacy Rights, Following Sham Lawsuit
Re: Squeaky Clean Wikipedia page
On the post: Software Patents Violate The Patent Bargain, Since There Is No Disclosure To Trade-Off
Re:
While we're talking though, I'd like to throw another argument in there: Disclosing a software "invention" (even if disclosing it did do something) that's tied up in a monopoly for another 20 years is not really all that helpful. Ask your friendly neighborhood programmer how excited he would be to use a software invention from 1990, then let me know when he's done wetting himself with joy.
On the post: Netflix Cancels Plans For New Netflix Prize As Part Of Privacy Lawsuit Settlement
Re: welp
But seriously, I think the investments they have made in getting their players on tons of set top devices and expanding their digital library are the smartest moves they've made for surviving the ongoing transition to digital distribution. They've even got a revenue model around it that it seems more than a few people are willing to stomach for the convenience granted.
On the post: US Patent Office Decides That One Click Really Is Patentable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reform?
Even if the specificity of the patent (this one in particular, or others like it) is such that it wouldn't technically prevent a newcomer from entering the market, it most certainly is a barrier, and a strong enough one that it most definitely will prevent competition if for no other reason than the potential costs of defending one's self in court.
I'm glad this patent got approved. And I'm glad fellows such as yourselves are defending (defending the concept of patents like it) it. This is the best fuel for change that I can think of.
On the post: A Real Copyright Problem In The UK: The Difficulty Of Archiving Important Websites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
I believe Mike's stance is due to a fear (rational fear) of being grouped together with the straw-men he so eagerly points out.
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Released: More Of The Same
Re:
On the post: Moral Panic: PleaseRobMe Is Today's Equivalent Of Freaking Out About Answering Machines In 1983
Re: A missed opportunity?
Yes, you're putting a lot of information about yourself online. No, this isn't something to freak out about any more or less than you should freak out about the information you're already sending out in many other ways (like Mike's examples). Yes, you should still be aware of the information you're broadcasting and this site was perhaps one tiny step in the right direction towards that.
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re:
On the post: Grateful Dead Always Knew How To Connect With Fans
If only a few more would take such a practical and objective view of their business decisions, perhaps there wouldn't be so much fodder for this blog. There are options aside from copyright maximalism and give it away and pray. Not even a middle ground; just sane, logical and profitable options.
I wish this subtle point received a little more focus a little more often.
On the post: Iceland Wants To Become A Hub For Free Speech Journalism Protection
Re: Re:
How can we have any sort of reasonable discourse and make any sort of progress if either party is afraid of reprisal for the things they say?
I assume you hide behind a pseudonym because you do fear consequences from your speech, however unjust those consequences may be. Perhaps even as simple as some people might (unjustifiably) take some inappropriate action against you. But you argue that everyone else should take full responsibility for everything they say because there's never any consequences?
It's not just the government to fear, it's idiots too.
On the post: Judge Not Amused By South Butt's Amusing Legal Filing
Re: Frivolous Arguments
On the post: Eric Schmidt On How To Encourage Innovation
Re: Maybe not so disappointing...
I found Schmidt's piece wonderfully optimistic and of a different tone than my previous impressions of him. I'm still not sure I'd give him full credit of doing all that intentionally, but I wholeheartedly agree it would be nice to have constructive debate on the other aspects of innovation reform that went somewhere instead of stalling on the IP mess.
On the post: Once Again: The iiNet Decision Did Not Make Unauthorized Downloading Legit
Re: Re: Let's take it to extremes
On the post: Conference Board Of Canada Releases New Report On Copyright That Isn't Just A Cut And Paste From US Lobbyists
Re: Conference Board Of Canada
Next >>