>>The better question to ask is did LV & Burberry put them up to this or was this just NY cracking down on anything seen as infringing.
I still consider the IP holders responsible. They are the ones who convinced the police to spend lots and lots of taxpayer money to enforce their private IP rights. If I whip a pit bull into a killing frenzy and turn it loose, then I am responsible for the consequences.
The IP holders probably have a technically correct argument. However, this is a classic case where bad things happen when lawyers are allowed to dictate business decisions.
The nurse watching an instrument is an excellent example of the problems with the "mental operation" standard. However, the real problem isn't that the mental operation standard is a particularly bad standard. I maintain that any standard you come up with is going to have similar problem cases, especially at its margins.
The real problem is that the patent system is an artificial system that the government tries to impose on the market. Because the patent system isn't a natural feature of the market the rules we impose will always be arbitrary and in some cases seem to be silly.
If we are going to have a patent system at all, then we have to accept that there are going to be some rules that don't quite make sense in all situations. The best that we can hope for is that we could develop a set of rules that make sense most of the time and don't get too badly in the way of innovation. Unfortunately the current system is exactly the opposite. The rules don't make sense most of the time, and the system seems designed to block innovation.
Is the administration so deeply under the influence of the MPAA that they are willing to lose the next election? The evidence seems to indicate that they are.
The next Presidential election in the US appears to be a close call at this point. Protect IP has a great deal of potential for getting the President a lot of bad press and pissing off a significant part of the electorate. In a close election it could make a difference.
>>I was reading with interest on Ars Technica how the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has gotten into the fray and said if an algorithm can be done with paper and pencil, it is not patentable
Yes, that has been covered here at TechDirt extensively over the last week or so. My opinion is that it is definitely a step in the right direction, but there are still a lot of bad patents, including some software patents, that would be going through even with this ruling in place.
I think the most important thing going on with the CAFC decision is that it has started a lot of people thinking about the downside of patents. Way too many influential people have been assuming that more patents means more innovation, and more innovation means more jobs. Some of them are finally starting to realize that patents, at least in their current form, are holding back innovation and cutting job creation.
The movie industry and video producers want on-line to generate the same income stream that they are accustomed to, and it probably isn't going to happen. They say things like "How is online going to support a $200 million movie?"
There isn't really a social purpose for $200 million movies or TV shows that cost $10 million per episode. That didn't happen in the 1950's, and there were still some fantastic productions.
The video production industries are going to have to find ways to cut costs. Yes the ending production might not be up to the high technical standards we have become accustomed to, but if the market does not support high production costs, then we will have to get used to lower standards.
A lot of the astronomical production costs are self-inflicted by the industry. If you pay actors a million dollars and episode or fifty million for a movie then, yes, it will be expensive to produce videos.
The movie and TV industry got fat and happy in the 1970's and 1980's because the public didn't have many options for entertainment. Times are getting leaner, and the industry is going to need to find ways to trim the excesses from production costs.
It surprises me that the TV networks have not figured out how to do commercials on their streaming sites. Typically there is one extremely obnoxious commercial that runs every few minutes. Each series will have its own commercial and it just runs over and over and over if you try to watch the program. Very often the commercial is at a much higher volume level than the show itself, just to add to the annoyance. (NBC seems to be the worst at doing this).
If you are in the business of selling attention (as the networks are supposed to be) you would think that they would know that showing the same obnoxious commercial over and over is the best possible way to get people to tune out the commercials, or stop watching the program completely.
The networks don't seem to spend much time thinking about how to do network delivery. They put a lot of time and energy into designing the web site around the videos, but then they totally ignore how the content is actually delivered. And after the first week of the season you will typically find that there are a lot of non-functioning links. It appears that management spends a lot of time designing the site for each season, but then abandons all interest in the site after the season starts. I am guessing that the network executives never try to spend an evening watching their on-line content.
>>Google needs to release those patents into public domain. End that bullshit circlejerk.
The problem is that Google doesn't need the patents to build its system. It needs the patents so that if one of the other cell phone vendors sues Google, they can sue back. That is what is going on between Apple and HTC. Apple sues HTC and tries to block HTC imports. HTC retaliates and sues Apple and tries to block Apple imports. If Google simply makes the patents public they loose the "Mutually Assured Destruction" defense.
It might be possible to craft some type of release mechanism that says that anyone may use the patents, but if you sue anyone using other patents they would loose the the right to use the Google patents.
The point of all this is that absolutely none of it has anything to do with innovating in anything except legal maneuvering.
Kodak may be the next example. They are setting on an estimated 3 billion dollars of patents.
What these buyouts really do is transfer funds out of innovative companies and into the bank accounts of shareholders of the selling company. I doubt if we could have designed a system to better cripple innovative companies.
I agree. I singled software patents out in this case because it is the low hanging fruit of the patent system. Anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the status quo should be able to see the problems of software patents, even if they believe that other things like pharma patents and traditional hardware patents are OK. In fact, I closed my comment with "I hope the Supreme Court blesses this CAFC ruling. And further, I hope that it signals a real evaluation of the usefulness of other types of patents and their impacts on innovation."
I do think that software patents are somewhat worse than other patents. The main reason is that the speed of innovation in the software industry should be much faster than other industries, and the 17 year term of patents is way, way out of sync with the pace of innovation. I say that software development should be faster, but unfortunately patents are slowing software development to a crawl. It is hard to do any major software development that doesn't run into a thicket of bad software patents.
Another reason that software patents are a little different is because software patents tend to be so bad; as the article notes, software patents are often just documenting mental processes, and those types of patents should not be valid. Software patents seem to breed like rabbits. There is little if any research behind a lot of them; they often read like they are cranked out after a bit of armchair speculation. Examiners lack the background to evaluate software patents, and it is even easier to slip a dodgy software patent through the system than some other types.
Eliminating software patents is a good place to start, but in the long term I hope that it causes more people to raise questions about the merits of other types of patents.
The Supreme Court usually likes for lower courts to work out things like definitions and standards. Once the lower court seem to have something that works SCOTUS often steps in to bless the lower court rulings. Or, if there are multiple competing and contradictory rulings the high court will step in, but usually only after there has been a fairly protracted debate at the appellate level. I see the Bilsky case as a step in that process. The Supremes used it to signal that they though CAFC was on the right track with Bilsky, but their definitions were incomplete.
The Supreme Court basically said that software patents were not legal in Gottschalk v. Benson and has let the matter rest since 1972. By remaining silent they have let the lower courts and the Patent Office experiment with software patents. Now just about everyone but the patent trolls and their attorneys recognize that software patents do not promote progress and actually hold it back more often than not.
I hope the Supreme Court blesses this CAFC ruling. And further, I hope that it signals a real evaluation of the usefulness of other types of patents and their impacts on innovation.
I doubt that any major game company could emulate this system. They are too over-managed and over-organized to respond to the market.
I imagine most western game companies would respond something like this:
Set up a new server just because demand had developed in an area? Ridiculous! We have a five year plan for rolling out game servers. It was developed before the game was even released and represents the best thinking of the graduates of top MBA schools. Changing the plan would require hiring the very best consulting agencies and months of review. Market demand is too fickle. It would take at least a year of planning and negotiation with IP rights holders in order to set up a single new server, and by that time the gamers would have moved on to other games.
One problem that none of the proponents of this type of plan want to address (at least in public) is the question of who gets a cut of content tax. Generally the people who get a cut are the ones who were around the table when the plan was devised. New companies are going to find it terribly difficult to break into the club. If someone finds a new business model they will be competing against businesses that have guaranteed tax subsidies. So even if the new business is more efficient and better, the old moribund institutions can sit back and collect their pensions at the expense of the efficient ones.
Big media thinks that it can force people back to cable because they can restrict content. They think that the solution is to stop distributing over the Internet, and people will come flooding back.
There are three problems with this philosophy.
1) Like most content providers, they over estimate the value of their content. They may produce some great programs, but there are lots of other forms of entertainment.
2) They assume that they have exclusive control over the making of of programming. Netflix is already getting into original production, and others are following.
Major league sports is still one thing that big media still mostly controls. As the cable and dish market declines, sports may see the opportunity to open up Internet access.
3) They assume that things will stay the same forever, or at least for a few years. But if you want to see cable cutting in action, go visit a college residence hall. Note how many rooms have no TV. If they do have a TV, it is most likely used for a big screen display for video games or Internet content. And consider that cable TV is probably being provided free or as part of the room fees. Once upon a time if you walked through a residence hall on a fall Sunday afternoon you would hear nothing but football. Now maybe one room in 10 has football playing.
Big media and pro sports had better wake up or they will lose an entire generation. Or maybe they have already lost them.
>>I still won't be buying anything or spending money on them, I found free(as in freedom) music and I ain't going back.
Don't be too content about keeping that type of music site if Protect IP passes. The list of banned sites will probably be based on the RIAA's list of "pirate" sites. We have already seen those lists, and a lot of the sites promote the type of free music you enjoy. Once they get the full weight of law enforcement behind them, the definition of pirated music will be any site that promotes non-RIAA music.
On the post: NYC Arrests Stop Dead Chinese From Infringing
Re: Re:
I still consider the IP holders responsible. They are the ones who convinced the police to spend lots and lots of taxpayer money to enforce their private IP rights. If I whip a pit bull into a killing frenzy and turn it loose, then I am responsible for the consequences.
On the post: NYC Arrests Stop Dead Chinese From Infringing
On the post: FCC Asks AT&T To Explain Discrepancy Over Claimed Need For T-Mobile vs. Internal Discussions
We need more competition in the mobile world, not less.
On the post: 'What Idiot Wrote The Patent That Might Invalidate Software Patents? Oh, Wait, That Was Me'
The real problem is that the patent system is an artificial system that the government tries to impose on the market. Because the patent system isn't a natural feature of the market the rules we impose will always be arbitrary and in some cases seem to be silly.
If we are going to have a patent system at all, then we have to accept that there are going to be some rules that don't quite make sense in all situations. The best that we can hope for is that we could develop a set of rules that make sense most of the time and don't get too badly in the way of innovation. Unfortunately the current system is exactly the opposite. The rules don't make sense most of the time, and the system seems designed to block innovation.
On the post: Guy Suing Google For $500 Billion, Now Suing Microsoft For The Same Amount
On the post: First Year Associate Fired After Telling Partners He Had A 'Superior Legal Mind' Sues Firm For $77 Million
If someone feels a need to tell you that they have a "superior mind" then you can be pretty sure that they don't.
On the post: Can PROTECT IP Be Fixed?
The next Presidential election in the US appears to be a close call at this point. Protect IP has a great deal of potential for getting the President a lot of bad press and pissing off a significant part of the electorate. In a close election it could make a difference.
On the post: Clear & Concise Explanation Of The Problem With Patents
Re: Hard Math
Yes, that has been covered here at TechDirt extensively over the last week or so. My opinion is that it is definitely a step in the right direction, but there are still a lot of bad patents, including some software patents, that would be going through even with this ruling in place.
I think the most important thing going on with the CAFC decision is that it has started a lot of people thinking about the downside of patents. Way too many influential people have been assuming that more patents means more innovation, and more innovation means more jobs. Some of them are finally starting to realize that patents, at least in their current form, are holding back innovation and cutting job creation.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
There isn't really a social purpose for $200 million movies or TV shows that cost $10 million per episode. That didn't happen in the 1950's, and there were still some fantastic productions.
The video production industries are going to have to find ways to cut costs. Yes the ending production might not be up to the high technical standards we have become accustomed to, but if the market does not support high production costs, then we will have to get used to lower standards.
A lot of the astronomical production costs are self-inflicted by the industry. If you pay actors a million dollars and episode or fifty million for a movie then, yes, it will be expensive to produce videos.
The movie and TV industry got fat and happy in the 1970's and 1980's because the public didn't have many options for entertainment. Times are getting leaner, and the industry is going to need to find ways to trim the excesses from production costs.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
If you are in the business of selling attention (as the networks are supposed to be) you would think that they would know that showing the same obnoxious commercial over and over is the best possible way to get people to tune out the commercials, or stop watching the program completely.
The networks don't seem to spend much time thinking about how to do network delivery. They put a lot of time and energy into designing the web site around the videos, but then they totally ignore how the content is actually delivered. And after the first week of the season you will typically find that there are a lot of non-functioning links. It appears that management spends a lot of time designing the site for each season, but then abandons all interest in the site after the season starts. I am guessing that the network executives never try to spend an evening watching their on-line content.
On the post: Motorola Deal Showing Massive Loss To Innovation Caused By Patents
Re:
The problem is that Google doesn't need the patents to build its system. It needs the patents so that if one of the other cell phone vendors sues Google, they can sue back. That is what is going on between Apple and HTC. Apple sues HTC and tries to block HTC imports. HTC retaliates and sues Apple and tries to block Apple imports. If Google simply makes the patents public they loose the "Mutually Assured Destruction" defense.
It might be possible to craft some type of release mechanism that says that anyone may use the patents, but if you sue anyone using other patents they would loose the the right to use the Google patents.
The point of all this is that absolutely none of it has anything to do with innovating in anything except legal maneuvering.
On the post: Motorola Deal Showing Massive Loss To Innovation Caused By Patents
What these buyouts really do is transfer funds out of innovative companies and into the bank accounts of shareholders of the selling company. I doubt if we could have designed a system to better cripple innovative companies.
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re:
Most people who now call themselves Christians would have been a lot more comfortable hanging out with the Romans than they would have with Jesus. Check out http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/04/24/jesus-was-more-like-me-than-you/ for a graphic illustration.
And yes, I know that the Bible doesn't say that Mary Magdalan was a prostitute. We can blame Pope Gregory for that charge.
On the post: Court Ruling Opens The Door To Rejecting Many Software Patents As Being Mere 'Mental Processes'
Re: Re:
I agree. I singled software patents out in this case because it is the low hanging fruit of the patent system. Anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the status quo should be able to see the problems of software patents, even if they believe that other things like pharma patents and traditional hardware patents are OK. In fact, I closed my comment with "I hope the Supreme Court blesses this CAFC ruling. And further, I hope that it signals a real evaluation of the usefulness of other types of patents and their impacts on innovation."
I do think that software patents are somewhat worse than other patents. The main reason is that the speed of innovation in the software industry should be much faster than other industries, and the 17 year term of patents is way, way out of sync with the pace of innovation. I say that software development should be faster, but unfortunately patents are slowing software development to a crawl. It is hard to do any major software development that doesn't run into a thicket of bad software patents.
Another reason that software patents are a little different is because software patents tend to be so bad; as the article notes, software patents are often just documenting mental processes, and those types of patents should not be valid. Software patents seem to breed like rabbits. There is little if any research behind a lot of them; they often read like they are cranked out after a bit of armchair speculation. Examiners lack the background to evaluate software patents, and it is even easier to slip a dodgy software patent through the system than some other types.
Eliminating software patents is a good place to start, but in the long term I hope that it causes more people to raise questions about the merits of other types of patents.
On the post: Court Ruling Opens The Door To Rejecting Many Software Patents As Being Mere 'Mental Processes'
The Supreme Court basically said that software patents were not legal in Gottschalk v. Benson and has let the matter rest since 1972. By remaining silent they have let the lower courts and the Patent Office experiment with software patents. Now just about everyone but the patent trolls and their attorneys recognize that software patents do not promote progress and actually hold it back more often than not.
I hope the Supreme Court blesses this CAFC ruling. And further, I hope that it signals a real evaluation of the usefulness of other types of patents and their impacts on innovation.
On the post: Chinese Gaming Company Recognizes That 'Pirates' Are Underserved Customers
I imagine most western game companies would respond something like this:
Set up a new server just because demand had developed in an area? Ridiculous! We have a five year plan for rolling out game servers. It was developed before the game was even released and represents the best thinking of the graduates of top MBA schools. Changing the plan would require hiring the very best consulting agencies and months of review. Market demand is too fickle. It would take at least a year of planning and negotiation with IP rights holders in order to set up a single new server, and by that time the gamers would have moved on to other games.
On the post: Journalist Bemoans Fact People Won't Pay For Online Content; Suggests Users Be Forced To Pay For Online Content
On the post: Will TV Providers Finally Realize That People Really Are Cutting The Cord -- And Not Just Because Of The Economy
Big Media mindset
There are three problems with this philosophy.
1) Like most content providers, they over estimate the value of their content. They may produce some great programs, but there are lots of other forms of entertainment.
2) They assume that they have exclusive control over the making of of programming. Netflix is already getting into original production, and others are following.
Major league sports is still one thing that big media still mostly controls. As the cable and dish market declines, sports may see the opportunity to open up Internet access.
3) They assume that things will stay the same forever, or at least for a few years. But if you want to see cable cutting in action, go visit a college residence hall. Note how many rooms have no TV. If they do have a TV, it is most likely used for a big screen display for video games or Internet content. And consider that cable TV is probably being provided free or as part of the room fees. Once upon a time if you walked through a residence hall on a fall Sunday afternoon you would hear nothing but football. Now maybe one room in 10 has football playing.
Big media and pro sports had better wake up or they will lose an entire generation. Or maybe they have already lost them.
On the post: Out With The Old... In With The Older At The RIAA
Re:
Don't be too content about keeping that type of music site if Protect IP passes. The list of banned sites will probably be based on the RIAA's list of "pirate" sites. We have already seen those lists, and a lot of the sites promote the type of free music you enjoy. Once they get the full weight of law enforcement behind them, the definition of pirated music will be any site that promotes non-RIAA music.
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Next >>