Your comment sounds like something that came up after a few hours of hitting the bong. So either it was really good sarcasm and I almost missed it OR you actually believe more patents equal more progress.
I agree that patents on inventions are a great idea. Patents on ideas are just stupid. If I can imagine something but have no way to implement it, then why should I deserve compensation?
Your argument points us to history and then you say every time that something new comes out, it's because of patents. Logically that would mean that prior to patents in history there were no inventions and nothing new. And then you end it with IT'S A PROVEN FACT!!!
Put the bong down, and go back to the history books. Better yet, try a dictionary and look up the words "proven" and "fact".
His analogies may be wrong, but you are missing the whole point of the song. The music industry whined and moaned that cassettes and home taping would kill music. They are making fun of that prediction 25+ years later. Just like the VCR would destroy the movie industry.
As I remember it the VCR created the Movie rental market, and cassettes just forced me to re-purchase music I had paid for but in a different format.
The point of the song is to remind us that home taping didn't kill music and neither will file sharing kill music. The industry just needs to adapt, although this time it may not be as easy as in the past; but that's just the nature of technological advancement.
I'm not sure about privatization of the USPS. While I can completely agree that there needs to be some change in how the post works, I'm guessing that it will evolve naturally. The USPS is a huge employer. Besides the concern over service to rural America, the economic impact of privatizing the postal service would be a nightmare.
I think the biggest problem with IP Lawyers is the way they present their arguments for IP Law. If they would just shift from "We are protecting the rights of content creators and have their best interests in mind," to the more correct "We work for some of the greediest bastards in the world and in order to keep getting a fat check we MUST manipulate an outdated system with every tool we can think of," then I would have more respect for them.
Mike Masnick is always saying what follows. It's interesting to hear it coming from someone who actually teaches innovation at M.I.T.
Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, agrees.
“It’s a bad scene right now," he told the Times' Bilton. "The social value of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation — that’s what society gets out of it,” he said. “The net effect is that they decrease innovation, and in the end, the public loses out.”
I think the biggest problem with IP Lawyers is the way they present their arguments for IP Law. If they would just shift from "We are protecting the rights of content creators and have their best interests in mind," to the more correct "We work for some of the greediest bastards in the world and in order to keep getting a fat check we MUST manipulate an outdated system with every tool we can think of," then I would have more respect for them.
Mike Masnick is always saying what follows. It's interesting to hear it coming from someone who actually teaches innovation at M.I.T.
Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, agrees.
“It’s a bad scene right now," he told the Times' Bilton. "The social value of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation — that’s what society gets out of it,” he said. “The net effect is that they decrease innovation, and in the end, the public loses out.”
This is just standard Telecom mentality. For some reason the average Telecom consumer doesn't seem to care about paying extra for services.
There was a time when phone calls were flat rate in your area code, then they began charging to call outside your area code, then they began charging based on distance.
Wireless and VoIP took the bite out of long distance charges, but then some VoIP providers learned from Telecom that they could charge for long distance and consumers would just accept it.
Its interesting that consumers are not accepting this mentality when it comes to broadband. It's probably a good thing that consumers are taking a stand, since that broadband pipe is the key to VoIP and IPTV. Giving in to metering now will seriously affect the pricing for those other services.
Why dance around the obvious? Telecom is a cash cow for State and Local governments and will continue to get preferential treatment from the Federal level as long as it remains a cash cow.
The government won't even see that the RBOCs and MSOs are basically the same types of providers now, but the laws regarding their regulation are still separate. It's the same thing we see all the time here, the technologies moved past the laws, and old business models are struggling to survive.
I personally love the claim by both Cable and the Telecoms that there is a bandwidth shortage so they have to change to metered plans to conserve. Their networks are so stressed for bandwidth and yet the Telecoms are still trying to get a foothold in video with IPTV. Doesn't video require A LOT more bandwidth? Could it be that it's a lot more palatable to tell consumers there's a bandwidth shortage rather than just say we need bigger profits to cover our taxes?
Ok maybe it's me, but I don't feel the slightest bit threatened.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about this guy's copyright. I suppose there are some people out there who do care about the work of his father and I think that he should be honored that his father's works are remembered at all.
Call me crazy, but it seems like the inherent greed in the system is driving people to believe that all thought can be copyrighted.
(CR * TM * P)+ S = $$$ Copyright or Trademark or Patent then Sue and you will make millions. This seems to be the equation that describes what most people believe to be the best business model on the web at the moment when it comes to IP.
It will just get to the point where it becomes completely ridiculous and bogs down an already burdened court system and then it will effect a change.
On the post: Microsoft Loses Yet Another Patent Lawsuit
Re: Re:WTF ?!?!
I agree that patents on inventions are a great idea. Patents on ideas are just stupid. If I can imagine something but have no way to implement it, then why should I deserve compensation?
Your argument points us to history and then you say every time that something new comes out, it's because of patents. Logically that would mean that prior to patents in history there were no inventions and nothing new. And then you end it with IT'S A PROVEN FACT!!!
Put the bong down, and go back to the history books. Better yet, try a dictionary and look up the words "proven" and "fact".
On the post: Dan Bull Recaps How Home Taping Killed Music With His Latest Song
Re: Didn't quite get it
As I remember it the VCR created the Movie rental market, and cassettes just forced me to re-purchase music I had paid for but in a different format.
The point of the song is to remind us that home taping didn't kill music and neither will file sharing kill music. The industry just needs to adapt, although this time it may not be as easy as in the past; but that's just the nature of technological advancement.
On the post: The US Postal Service's Business Model Is Outdated. Is It Time To Wind It Down Or Privatize It?
Vote for Change?
On the post: Pointless Stats: Number Of Patents Held By Apple, Google And HTC
The professional agrees with Mike
Mike Masnick is always saying what follows. It's interesting to hear it coming from someone who actually teaches innovation at M.I.T.
Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, agrees.
“It’s a bad scene right now," he told the Times' Bilton. "The social value of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation — that’s what society gets out of it,” he said. “The net effect is that they decrease innovation, and in the end, the public loses out.”
On the post: Pointless Stats: Number Of Patents Held By Apple, Google And HTC
The professional agrees with Mike
Mike Masnick is always saying what follows. It's interesting to hear it coming from someone who actually teaches innovation at M.I.T.
Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, agrees.
“It’s a bad scene right now," he told the Times' Bilton. "The social value of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation — that’s what society gets out of it,” he said. “The net effect is that they decrease innovation, and in the end, the public loses out.”
On the post: Bad Publicity, BBB Complaints Causing AT&T To Reconsider Metered Broadband?
Same old game
There was a time when phone calls were flat rate in your area code, then they began charging to call outside your area code, then they began charging based on distance.
Wireless and VoIP took the bite out of long distance charges, but then some VoIP providers learned from Telecom that they could charge for long distance and consumers would just accept it.
Its interesting that consumers are not accepting this mentality when it comes to broadband. It's probably a good thing that consumers are taking a stand, since that broadband pipe is the key to VoIP and IPTV. Giving in to metering now will seriously affect the pricing for those other services.
On the post: Michael Powell A Bit Quick To Claim Google Broadband Is Viable Competition
Gov't + Telecom = Tons of CASH
The government won't even see that the RBOCs and MSOs are basically the same types of providers now, but the laws regarding their regulation are still separate. It's the same thing we see all the time here, the technologies moved past the laws, and old business models are struggling to survive.
I personally love the claim by both Cable and the Telecoms that there is a bandwidth shortage so they have to change to metered plans to conserve. Their networks are so stressed for bandwidth and yet the Telecoms are still trying to get a foothold in video with IPTV. Doesn't video require A LOT more bandwidth? Could it be that it's a lot more palatable to tell consumers there's a bandwidth shortage rather than just say we need bigger profits to cover our taxes?
On the post: Poet's Son Says No One Can Quote Father Without Paying Up... Even Academic Dissertations...
nextgen greed
Personally I don't care one way or the other about this guy's copyright. I suppose there are some people out there who do care about the work of his father and I think that he should be honored that his father's works are remembered at all.
Call me crazy, but it seems like the inherent greed in the system is driving people to believe that all thought can be copyrighted.
(CR * TM * P)+ S = $$$ Copyright or Trademark or Patent then Sue and you will make millions. This seems to be the equation that describes what most people believe to be the best business model on the web at the moment when it comes to IP.
It will just get to the point where it becomes completely ridiculous and bogs down an already burdened court system and then it will effect a change.
Next >>