Take a little walk with me here, it will have a point relevant in that it brings up interesting points and questions for discussion. I need to be somewhat vague as it is being worked on, but it is a fully featured, remote site capable, audit, logging, IA and security tool for computers and networking centers with some basic trend analysis built in.
Recently I came up with an idea, that the company I work for, (a computer services and contract company) is looking at potentially producing and selling to commercial enterprises and governmental agencies. The question is did I invent it? Absolutely nothing in it is new. I am using existing techniques and technologies in new ways to achieve a goal that many have tried and some have had marginal successes in. What would you think at this point?
Lets examine how I invented this. I was on the phone talking to a customer that gave me several requirements. I spent over 4 hours dealing with this because their requirements were not matching up with one another and their actual need was being ignored in favor of checking boxes on forms that they met requirements. I was also being given no flexibility in how this could be done. I hung up the phone before I got in trouble took a break and ranted for about 10 minutes. I then realized I had solved the core problems their requirements had sprung from. I looked at it carefully and had found a good and sound way to meet their requirements and solve the under lying problem. That night I thought more about it and realized I could add more to it and solve many other problems and issues that were related at the same time. All of these things were preexisting techniques and technologies put together in new ways for a new purpose. I decided to discuss it with the company I work for. The CEO decided to get 6 other people involved to look at this new "invention." They deemed it a wonderful thing that they wanted in their data centers as well and saw no major problems with it. So now again, is this still an invention?
Now we get to the where this crosses the paths with what this article is about.... is it patentable? Do we owe others for using their off the shelf technology in new ways? Is there any other patenting or licensing in the way despite a completely independent "invention" of this? All of this discussion has to happen before we can spend any money to develop this because it may cost us more in the long run to bring this "invention" to market than to ignore it. Is that what the end goal of our system is supposed to be? Notice I haven't even begun to discuss marketability, profit, and so forth because first we have to make sure this can even be done without people making claims to it financially. Does it make any sense that a product with a demand, that solves a problem, and is a new idea probably won't make it to market because our system has so many roadblocks financially and legally that it can't even succeed or fail on its own merits on the market?
I hope this makes some sense to people. I am pointing out from personal experience just how difficult our system has become where it actually discourages innovation and invention rather than fostering and promoting it.
I think more people need to be aware what doesn't make it to market because of the system to see what has been lost.
I think this is the problem, lawyers have a vested interest in keeping EULAs that nobody reads legal. The fact that it doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements for a legal contract aside.
Also on software shouldn't you be allowed to return it for a full refund if you don't agree to the EULA?
Since ideas and property are different the idea you have proposed holds no value. Show me one idea that can be owned and I will agree your idea has merit.
You can remove what can only grow by the taking. An idea shared is now 2 ideas. How does this deprive anybody of goods?
I believe you hit this one out of the park. I have to agree completely. The fact that a collaborative and competitive environment existed is why we have the computers we do today.
So he must prove innocence? I didn't think our system worked that way. I was under the impression that the burden of proof was on those making the accusation not the accused. He does not "deserve" to be arrested, if there was a credible threat I'd say differently.
This was to be posted on the other thread, I am putting it here where you were "wronged."
Only a lawyer could quibble over such a statement being a lie. It is obviously an expression of emotion.
I am also disgusted by those that use a system that is highly broken to make a profit. I say anyone considering this as a viable option is just a profit monger that has no respect for the purpose of law or the rights and property of others. You have demonstrated already you have no respect for others so it seems I am not that far from the mark.
I try to make others aware of issues in IP law in my job as a computer professional, consultant and contractor. I am also active politically to help educate everyone on the harms these laws and loop holes have created for us all. I am trying to make the world better for us all, even you. This is where the disgust stems from, as you exploit the problems rather than see a problem and try to fix it. It speaks of a weak character that you would deem short term personal gain of more importance than cultural gain for society.
Look at stories in the public domain such as "Alice in Wonderland." Money can be made quite readily and easily from this based on the merit of what you add, and how you interpret the work, not in what you can squeeze out of the public.
We are living in a time when our own culture is locked up and not available to us. When has this ever happened in history?
This story is a case where not one person was harmed in any way at all. In fact I imagine that the file sharing actually increased the exposure this work had. A smart business person might try to sell to this audience rather than litigate. This does prove there is still a demand for the work.
Part of the issue is that "the long tail" of economics is less true on the internet than the old school brick and mortar mentality. You can make a successful business operating on what other deem "unworthy" to offer in their store. this is made possible by the open nature of the internet, the ease of file sharing, and the cheapness of storage relative to the value of the commodity.
I'd think a better business model than to sue others for infringement would be to try and license "abandoned" yet still protected content and sell it to provide some money to both your interests and those that produced the works.
I am not against people making profit, I am quite for it, but it needs to also respect the rights of the public. Abusing a system for personal gain should be reviled when there are legitimate and effective means to make a profit. Why not try to help everyone, and at the same time make a profit, rather than exploit what you know is broken.
I assume her will at some point if he feels it is worth his time.
So a semantic difference of expression leads you to hijack a different thread? Also please link the offending article so i can see it in context, after all that is what makes the cases here. I'd like to see it for myself, as you have shown little restraint nor reason for me to take you at your word.
Is a statement of opinion a lie? I think you are a juvenile who was coddled into a sense on entitlement as a child. Does that mean I have to apologize? I don't think that'll ever happen. Just relax and realize the world is a big place and that a free exchange of ideas promotes freedoms and growth for all.
If he stated it as fact can't you use the libel and slander laws to solve the problem? Or do you feel it won't hold up before a judge? It'd be great practice for your future as an exploiter of a broken system.
So obfuscation is the correct way to make sure customers pay? I'd imagine that if your business is dependent upon people paying you that you might make it easier for someone to notice they need to pay you. This individual went to some effort to comply. Is there a point when "due diligence" is served or must I read 100% of all laws passed and ever passed to be sure I don't break any? (Something most politicians making the laws don't even do)
So by your logic if I walk down the street with a portable radio and walk into a business I need a license from two sources for this "broadcast"?
It seems from the link you supplied like a good number of people in the UK need to be sued for failure to comply. I know I'd protest a law written as such and talk to my representatives about getting it changed. I know I do this now for the laws in the US I see as unjust and out of scope.
On the post: Chief Patent Judge Feigns Ignorance Of How Often Patents Are Used To Hinder Innovation
Am I an inventor?
Recently I came up with an idea, that the company I work for, (a computer services and contract company) is looking at potentially producing and selling to commercial enterprises and governmental agencies. The question is did I invent it? Absolutely nothing in it is new. I am using existing techniques and technologies in new ways to achieve a goal that many have tried and some have had marginal successes in. What would you think at this point?
Lets examine how I invented this. I was on the phone talking to a customer that gave me several requirements. I spent over 4 hours dealing with this because their requirements were not matching up with one another and their actual need was being ignored in favor of checking boxes on forms that they met requirements. I was also being given no flexibility in how this could be done. I hung up the phone before I got in trouble took a break and ranted for about 10 minutes. I then realized I had solved the core problems their requirements had sprung from. I looked at it carefully and had found a good and sound way to meet their requirements and solve the under lying problem. That night I thought more about it and realized I could add more to it and solve many other problems and issues that were related at the same time. All of these things were preexisting techniques and technologies put together in new ways for a new purpose. I decided to discuss it with the company I work for. The CEO decided to get 6 other people involved to look at this new "invention." They deemed it a wonderful thing that they wanted in their data centers as well and saw no major problems with it. So now again, is this still an invention?
Now we get to the where this crosses the paths with what this article is about.... is it patentable? Do we owe others for using their off the shelf technology in new ways? Is there any other patenting or licensing in the way despite a completely independent "invention" of this? All of this discussion has to happen before we can spend any money to develop this because it may cost us more in the long run to bring this "invention" to market than to ignore it. Is that what the end goal of our system is supposed to be? Notice I haven't even begun to discuss marketability, profit, and so forth because first we have to make sure this can even be done without people making claims to it financially. Does it make any sense that a product with a demand, that solves a problem, and is a new idea probably won't make it to market because our system has so many roadblocks financially and legally that it can't even succeed or fail on its own merits on the market?
I hope this makes some sense to people. I am pointing out from personal experience just how difficult our system has become where it actually discourages innovation and invention rather than fostering and promoting it.
I think more people need to be aware what doesn't make it to market because of the system to see what has been lost.
On the post: Supreme Court Chief Justice Admits He Doesn't Read Online EULAs Or Other 'Fine Print'
Re: Re: It's the laws...all of them
Also on software shouldn't you be allowed to return it for a full refund if you don't agree to the EULA?
On the post: The Owner Of A Site That Tracks Reports Of Bedbug Infestations Threatened By Upset Hotel Owners
Re: Safe Harbor?
I am now off to research safe harbor provisions in law.
On the post: Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers
Re: Re:
On the post: Even Without COICA, White House Asking Registrars To Voluntarily Censor 'Infringing' Sites
Re:
You can remove what can only grow by the taking. An idea shared is now 2 ideas. How does this deprive anybody of goods?
On the post: Why Must Patent Supporters Rewrite History In Attempt To Have The Feds Subsidize Patents
Re: Microcomputer???
On the post: More Stories Of People Arrested For Making Joke Threats On Social Networks
Re: Good Job NYPD
On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie
dear average joe
Only a lawyer could quibble over such a statement being a lie. It is obviously an expression of emotion.
I am also disgusted by those that use a system that is highly broken to make a profit. I say anyone considering this as a viable option is just a profit monger that has no respect for the purpose of law or the rights and property of others. You have demonstrated already you have no respect for others so it seems I am not that far from the mark.
I try to make others aware of issues in IP law in my job as a computer professional, consultant and contractor. I am also active politically to help educate everyone on the harms these laws and loop holes have created for us all. I am trying to make the world better for us all, even you. This is where the disgust stems from, as you exploit the problems rather than see a problem and try to fix it. It speaks of a weak character that you would deem short term personal gain of more importance than cultural gain for society.
Look at stories in the public domain such as "Alice in Wonderland." Money can be made quite readily and easily from this based on the merit of what you add, and how you interpret the work, not in what you can squeeze out of the public.
We are living in a time when our own culture is locked up and not available to us. When has this ever happened in history?
This story is a case where not one person was harmed in any way at all. In fact I imagine that the file sharing actually increased the exposure this work had. A smart business person might try to sell to this audience rather than litigate. This does prove there is still a demand for the work.
Part of the issue is that "the long tail" of economics is less true on the internet than the old school brick and mortar mentality. You can make a successful business operating on what other deem "unworthy" to offer in their store. this is made possible by the open nature of the internet, the ease of file sharing, and the cheapness of storage relative to the value of the commodity.
I'd think a better business model than to sue others for infringement would be to try and license "abandoned" yet still protected content and sell it to provide some money to both your interests and those that produced the works.
I am not against people making profit, I am quite for it, but it needs to also respect the rights of the public. Abusing a system for personal gain should be reviled when there are legitimate and effective means to make a profit. Why not try to help everyone, and at the same time make a profit, rather than exploit what you know is broken.
On the post: Craigslist Shuts Down Adult Services; Says It's Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PRE-EMPTIVE ALERT:
So a semantic difference of expression leads you to hijack a different thread? Also please link the offending article so i can see it in context, after all that is what makes the cases here. I'd like to see it for myself, as you have shown little restraint nor reason for me to take you at your word.
On the post: Craigslist Shuts Down Adult Services; Says It's Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PRE-EMPTIVE ALERT:
On the post: Craigslist Shuts Down Adult Services; Says It's Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: PRE-EMPTIVE ALERT:
On the post: Bartenders Looking For Greater Intellectual Property Protection For Drinks
Re: Re: Bah??!!
wow can't type today
On the post: Bartenders Looking For Greater Intellectual Property Protection For Drinks
Re: Bah??!!
On the post: Music Publishers Angry That Apple Didn't First Grovel To Them About 60-Second Song Previews
Re: They are irrelevant to me
On the post: Raising Money To Put Famous Classical Music Recordings Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: I donated
On the post: Raising Money To Put Famous Classical Music Recordings Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: I donated
I'm all about helping where I can.
On the post: Raising Money To Put Famous Classical Music Recordings Into The Public Domain
I donated
The EFF article ends in a great way, you should read it.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch, Pirate? Gave Away Jimi Hendrix CD Without Clearing The Rights
Re: Seems fair...
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
I need to go to the UK and walk around with my radio.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
So by your logic if I walk down the street with a portable radio and walk into a business I need a license from two sources for this "broadcast"?
It seems from the link you supplied like a good number of people in the UK need to be sued for failure to comply. I know I'd protest a law written as such and talk to my representatives about getting it changed. I know I do this now for the laws in the US I see as unjust and out of scope.
Next >>