From Facebook's perspective this may still be effective at discouraging new companies from entering the field. The venture capital for any new location based service companies probably just dried up.
I have tried a couple of these services and have explored using most of them. None of them seem to me to have gotten it completely right. I think there is still room for a new company to come in and sweep up the market. With the patent announcement that is less likely too be a new kid on the block.
It probability does not matter that the parent is almost certainly invalid. Facebook wins just by having the threat of a lawsuit.
Re: Not as tough as for any possible competition..
No matter how you try to rationalize it, Eli is going to be facing competition for some of its drugs. Looking through rose colored glasses isn't going to solve their problems. That is what got them into the situation they will be facing in a year or two.
It is true that not all drugs with expired patents get generics. The problem for Eli is that the most popular drugs and the ones with insanely high profit margins are the ones that are most likely to get generic competition. If a drug is unlikely to get a generic equivalent, then the chances are pretty good that it isn't a profit center for Eli.
You are deluding yourself if you think there are not other drug companies out there with distribution networks and manufacturing facilities. There are plenty of companies that do this; they are set up to pick up generic drugs using facilities they already have and they can dump them into their established distribution networks. Gearing up the manufacturing process is the hardest part, but they have biochemical engineers who are very good at doing just that. They usually wait until they are sure the patent doesn't get extended, and they get ready to go.
The bottom line is what we see in the market when other major (and some minor) drugs go generic. The price of the name brand drops, and the demand for the name brand also drops. Maybe by some miracle one of Eli's major profit drugs will escape this fate, but Eli has a lot of very profitable drugs that it will be losing monopoly control over. It might not put them under, but I am very glad I don't own any Eli stock.
Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" That is precisely what happened here.
If Eli Lilly wanted to have a good stable of patents beyond the next year or two, they would have had to invest in research ten or twelve years ago. The top executives who set priorities for the company back then had to decide whether to spend money on marketing or on research. Those executives probably had bonus systems set up to reward short-term profits, and that is what putting money into marketing would generate.
The top executives knew that in ten years they would either be retired or would have moved to another company. Research to develop new drugs is expensive and would take money from marketing; it was probably very easy for them to convince themselves that new patents were not important.
You could argue that putting money into getting more drug patents would only extend the problem of relying on patents. But if they had pursued research they would at least have another decade of two of profitability. Large scale patent forms are unlikely, and even if reforms happen, I am sure that the pharmaceutical industry is going to protect its corner of the system.
At least they are consistent. ASCAP has pretty much shut down the small venues and open mike nites where these artists get their start. Now they are cutting their fees. Does having your fees cut by 30% matter if they have cut close to 100% of your ability to get into the business to start with.
Perhaps the small artists should push to the law changed make any audience with fewer than 250 patrons exempt from collection society licensing.
Competition seems to be the thing that modern media businesses fear the most. Live was so comfy-cozy (and profitable) when it was easy to enforce monopoly power.
The industries that benefit in the short term from ACTA should take a lesson from the gambling industry. How many years will it be before those same industries are struggling (and whining) under the burdens imposed on them by ACTA-related legislation?
For some of the comments, such as "And, a king kong jerk to boot." it seems like the filing of the lawsuit might in itself prove that some of the allegations are correct, and the truth is a defense against libel.
One reason it is impossible to find a magic bullet in most industries is that you have moving targets. Any magic bullet you managed to find would no longer be a magic bullet as soon as the market shifted or a disruptive technology came along.
There are some industries that come pretty close to having a magic bullet. I would argue that the CD industry was a magic bullet for the record labels. The problem they have is that the target did start moving. The industry has gotten some legislation that attempts to keep the target from moving. They want more legislation in the hope that they can move the target back to where it used to be. However, markets move no matter what legislation is passed, and they can never be made to flow backwards.
I hope the motorcyclist sues for malicious prosecution. This case would seem to be the very epitome of that concept. The guy was arrested because he embarrassed the government, even though it was obvious that what he was arrested for would never stand up in court.
But if some things I got paid for are now free, I might have to change the way I do things. My guaranteed gravy train of money might go away. I might get new competitors, and I hate to compete. Progress is a bitch!
/sarcasm
Depending on the market, the average ISP customer is worth $600 to $1500 per year. By definition, when you kick off a customer, you have already invested in building out to that customer's location. The marginal cost of serving that customer is most likely close to zero, and most of that investment can't be transfered to another customer. Furthermore, you have a relatively fixed sized market. Once an area is well served, it is hard to get new customers in that area. So, when a cable company kicks off customers it is hurting its own bottom line pretty severely.
I am guessing that either a)they got a new lawyer who is being over cautious or b)someone from the recording industry got to a naive executive in the company and convinced them that DCMA required the ISP to kick off customers.
If they kick off many customers, someone on the finance side of the company is going to look at the revenue line and bring the ISP to its financial senses.
It sounds like someone (or a lot of someones) in the recording industry should take Econ 101 and learn about how prices are supposed to be set in the marketplace.
English 101 would not hurt either. They could ask the teacher to clarify the difference between "price" and "value."
First, there are laws made by Congress involved here. Congress passed copyright laws and the DCMA which the company used to sweep away criticism. Private companies may have filed the suits, but the laws they used for authority to do so are from congress. There have been conflicts between copyright and freedom of speech in the past, and that is much of the fair use doctrine comes in.
Second, there have been rulings that make it clear that the first amendment extends beyond just Congress making laws. There isn't much question that it also applies to other levels of government. Lots of state laws have been struck down due to the pesky first amendment even though Congress had nothing to do with them. It gets trickier once you move beyond government, but there are court cases saying that the right to free speech extends onto private property if the area is held forth as a public forum. A fan site open to anyone to post comments would certainly seem to fall under the public forum doctrine.
Among other things, they are suppressing a lot of reviews and opinions. That would seem like a pretty clear denial of free speech. It seems like one thing to issue DCMA takedowns of actual infringing material. It is something quite different to use copyright to sweep away protected speech. But I guess we have reached a point where the businesses that trade in IP are an authority above the constitution and bill of rights.
Taxing media has never done anything except take money from the wrong people and give it to the wrong people.
Most pirated movies go to hard disk, smartphones, iPads, and other devices. Downloadedd movies rarely make it to blueray. You could try taxing all the things it does go to, but a couple of years from now it would be going somewhere else we never thought of. Meanwhile everyone owning a smartphone or hard drive would be paying the tax and piracy would continue unabated.
I wonder how much of the Google deal will end up going to the artist. If the YouTube deal is any guide, the labels will structure this so the get to keep all of their share without giving a penny to the artists.
I wonder how much of the Google deal will end up going to the artist. If the YouTube deal is any guide, the labels will structure this so the get to keep all of their share without giving a penny to the artists.
On the post: Meet The Patent Thicket: Who's Suing Who For Smartphone Patents
Firms with only incoming arrows
On the post: Facebook Patents Foursquare?
still somewhat effective patent
I have tried a couple of these services and have explored using most of them. None of them seem to me to have gotten it completely right. I think there is still room for a new company to come in and sweep up the market. With the patent announcement that is less likely too be a new kid on the block.
It probability does not matter that the parent is almost certainly invalid. Facebook wins just by having the threat of a lawsuit.
On the post: Eli Lilly's Reliance On Patents May Be Its Downfall
Re: Not as tough as for any possible competition..
It is true that not all drugs with expired patents get generics. The problem for Eli is that the most popular drugs and the ones with insanely high profit margins are the ones that are most likely to get generic competition. If a drug is unlikely to get a generic equivalent, then the chances are pretty good that it isn't a profit center for Eli.
You are deluding yourself if you think there are not other drug companies out there with distribution networks and manufacturing facilities. There are plenty of companies that do this; they are set up to pick up generic drugs using facilities they already have and they can dump them into their established distribution networks. Gearing up the manufacturing process is the hardest part, but they have biochemical engineers who are very good at doing just that. They usually wait until they are sure the patent doesn't get extended, and they get ready to go.
The bottom line is what we see in the market when other major (and some minor) drugs go generic. The price of the name brand drops, and the demand for the name brand also drops. Maybe by some miracle one of Eli's major profit drugs will escape this fate, but Eli has a lot of very profitable drugs that it will be losing monopoly control over. It might not put them under, but I am very glad I don't own any Eli stock.
On the post: Eli Lilly's Reliance On Patents May Be Its Downfall
Priority
If Eli Lilly wanted to have a good stable of patents beyond the next year or two, they would have had to invest in research ten or twelve years ago. The top executives who set priorities for the company back then had to decide whether to spend money on marketing or on research. Those executives probably had bonus systems set up to reward short-term profits, and that is what putting money into marketing would generate.
The top executives knew that in ten years they would either be retired or would have moved to another company. Research to develop new drugs is expensive and would take money from marketing; it was probably very easy for them to convince themselves that new patents were not important.
You could argue that putting money into getting more drug patents would only extend the problem of relying on patents. But if they had pursued research they would at least have another decade of two of profitability. Large scale patent forms are unlikely, and even if reforms happen, I am sure that the pharmaceutical industry is going to protect its corner of the system.
On the post: ASCAP Tells Artists It's Cutting Their Payments As It Brags To The Press How Much More Money It's Collecting
Re: Damn it
Reference: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html
On the post: ASCAP Tells Artists It's Cutting Their Payments As It Brags To The Press How Much More Money It's Collecting
Perhaps the small artists should push to the law changed make any audience with fewer than 250 patrons exempt from collection society licensing.
On the post: Is It Legal For A UK Pub To Access A Greek Satellite System To Get Cheaper Football Games On TV?
Competition
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: MPAA In Favor Of Current ACTA Text Before Anyone's Supposed To Have Seen It
Lessons from on-line gambling?
On the post: Winemaker Charles Smith Sues Over Anonymous Blog Comments
Lawsuit as proof
On the post: The Search For The Mythological Magical Business Model Bullet
Moving targets
There are some industries that come pretty close to having a magic bullet. I would argue that the CD industry was a magic bullet for the record labels. The problem they have is that the target did start moving. The industry has gotten some legislation that attempts to keep the target from moving. They want more legislation in the hope that they can move the target back to where it used to be. However, markets move no matter what legislation is passed, and they can never be made to flow backwards.
On the post: Verizon CEO Actually Recognizes That People Want To Cut The Cord
Denial
On the post: Judge Tosses Out Wiretapping Charges Against Motorcyclist Who Filmed Cop With Helmet Cam
Re: Job was already done.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Embracing 'Free' Doesn't Mean You Make No Money
But...
/sarcasm
On the post: US ISP Suddenlink Claims The DMCA Requires They Disconnect Users
Some math
I am guessing that either a)they got a new lawyer who is being over cautious or b)someone from the recording industry got to a naive executive in the company and convinced them that DCMA required the ISP to kick off customers.
If they kick off many customers, someone on the finance side of the company is going to look at the revenue line and bring the ISP to its financial senses.
On the post: Label Complains That Amazon Devalues Artists By Making Music Cheap
Econ 101
English 101 would not hurt either. They could ask the teacher to clarify the difference between "price" and "value."
On the post: Movie Producers Want Sole Ownership Of Facebook Fans
Re: Re: First Amendment
First, there are laws made by Congress involved here. Congress passed copyright laws and the DCMA which the company used to sweep away criticism. Private companies may have filed the suits, but the laws they used for authority to do so are from congress. There have been conflicts between copyright and freedom of speech in the past, and that is much of the fair use doctrine comes in.
Second, there have been rulings that make it clear that the first amendment extends beyond just Congress making laws. There isn't much question that it also applies to other levels of government. Lots of state laws have been struck down due to the pesky first amendment even though Congress had nothing to do with them. It gets trickier once you move beyond government, but there are court cases saying that the right to free speech extends onto private property if the area is held forth as a public forum. A fan site open to anyone to post comments would certainly seem to fall under the public forum doctrine.
On the post: Movie Producers Want Sole Ownership Of Facebook Fans
First Amendment
On the post: Intel Threatens To Use The DMCA Against Anyone Who Uses The HDCP Crack
Re:
Most pirated movies go to hard disk, smartphones, iPads, and other devices. Downloadedd movies rarely make it to blueray. You could try taxing all the things it does go to, but a couple of years from now it would be going somewhere else we never thought of. Meanwhile everyone owning a smartphone or hard drive would be paying the tax and piracy would continue unabated.
On the post: Why Are The Record Labels Demanding Money To Let People Stream Legally Purchased Music?
How much for the artist?
On the post: Why Are The Record Labels Demanding Money To Let People Stream Legally Purchased Music?
How much for the artist?
Next >>