It is somewhat ironic that you should complain of things being blown out of proportion when you did not include the appropriate factor of proportionality for the argument started in your title, which would be, in the context established by what you have said so far, the ratio of miles driven manually versus autonomously in that timespan and in that geographical region.
I am strongly in favor of autonomous vehicle development advancing as fast as is safely possible, but I am averse to bogus and sloppy arguments.
It used to be that only clueless individuals and small companies threatened journalists for reporting news, but it is disturbing that the giants thing that this is a useful thing to do. I hope Facebook can be SLAPped down.
Beyond that, by pointing out that this is not a simple breach, I hope this will bring attention to something worse, that Facebook's 'business as usual' is hardly distinguishable from a breach.
I agree with just about everything Mike says here, but there may be a reason to acquire a patent you don't intend to enforce: to preempt a competitor or troll from doing so. Given the USPTO's irrational interpretation of the concepts of obviousness and prior art, having a patent may help in fending off subsequent attempts at patenting the same thing.
That said, AmEx's amicus brief to the CAFC still makes no sense, because no such defense would be necessary in the absence of business-process patents, and their absence would be the best possible reassurance that they could not be used to derail standards.
For the USPTO, this is a wonderful business model: they do a crappy job, and thereby drum up more business!
"I've been having some interesting discussions about privacy lately, because it's a topic that is a bit more complex than a lot of people are willing to admit."
It is actually simpler than you make it seem; the complication exists only in your discussion of it, which appears to be a tortuous attempt to reconcile it with your political dogma.
"The real problem tends to come in when the privacy violations are done in ways that were not a part of the bargain."
That's a simple, reasonable position. So, if I send email to you, what bargain exists between me and Google with regard to information about me in that email?
I can't choose what email service the people I need or want to communicate with use. I can't enter in to a bargain with the provider of that service.
It is simple, if you are not trying to create a spurious distinction between government and corporate snooping.
Mike, you chide your opponents (real or imagined) for not giving time its due, but you are yourself lax in this regard.
The price of goods are generally pushed towards the marginal cost, but rarely do they immediately reach that value, and it is in the area under the curve that 'monopolistic competition' works. It is an unstated assumption in your own description of the concept, with its 'fleeting competitive advantage'.
Furthermore, you are right to point out that it is this way in every competitive market. It is this way for Honda and Toyota, and that is a good thing for society.
These are competitive enterprises by your own definition, but if there were some circumstance that forced their prices to immediately fall to the marginal cost for anything they did (every now and then, some misguided government enacts a law with this effect in some market segment), then in practice, they couldn't even operate, making the question of whether they could compete moot.
Time and rates of change are relevant factors, and so there are circumstances involving prices at marginal cost where companies that are otherwise competitive could not compete. Consequently, the premise stated in the title of this article is false.
This doesn't settle the broader issues of competitiveness and public policy, but it takes this particular argument out of play.
Mike writes:
"The point is that there is still demand to get across the river, right? Therefore, it is in someone's best interest to build that bridge -- but they need to realize that they won't profit directly from the bridge, but from additional services. And, even if others can take a lane for free and copy, the originator can still do quite well just by being the first and having the associated brand."
Then a bunch of well-armed guys show up and take over the operation, taking all the revenue for themselves. Then another bunch sets up a roadblock at the other end and impose a toll of their own, and the span of the bridge turns into a free-fire zone and the situation becomes indistinguishable from Somalia. What's to stop this? Don't say the law, imposing an artificial concept of ownership on the situation...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by araybold.
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Re: Re: tl;dr
'I read the headline as "the media are focusing on the dangers of self-driving cars while accepting the dangers of manually-driven cars as a given."'
Why don't you re-read my original post with the actual title firmly in mind, and see if you have anything relevant to say.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If You Want to Make a Rational Argument
Re: Re: If You Want to Make a Rational Argument
If You Want to Make a Rational Argument
I am strongly in favor of autonomous vehicle development advancing as fast as is safely possible, but I am averse to bogus and sloppy arguments.
If it is Not a Simple Breach, it is Worse
Beyond that, by pointing out that this is not a simple breach, I hope this will bring attention to something worse, that Facebook's 'business as usual' is hardly distinguishable from a breach.
Reason to Patent
reason to acquire a patent you don't intend to enforce: to preempt a
competitor or troll from doing so. Given the USPTO's irrational
interpretation of the concepts of obviousness and prior art, having a
patent may help in fending off subsequent attempts at patenting the same
thing.
That said, AmEx's amicus brief to the CAFC still makes no sense, because
no such defense would be necessary in the absence of business-process
patents, and their absence would be the best possible reassurance that
they could not be used to derail standards.
For the USPTO, this is a wonderful business model: they do a crappy
job, and thereby drum up more business!
Not so Hard
It is actually simpler than you make it seem; the complication exists only in your discussion of it, which appears to be a tortuous attempt to reconcile it with your political dogma.
"The real problem tends to come in when the privacy violations are done in ways that were not a part of the bargain."
That's a simple, reasonable position. So, if I send email to you, what bargain exists between me and Google with regard to information about me in that email?
I can't choose what email service the people I need or want to communicate with use. I can't enter in to a bargain with the provider of that service.
It is simple, if you are not trying to create a spurious distinction between government and corporate snooping.
Hyperbole
Time is of the Essence
The price of goods are generally pushed towards the marginal cost, but rarely do they immediately reach that value, and it is in the area under the curve that 'monopolistic competition' works. It is an unstated assumption in your own description of the concept, with its 'fleeting competitive advantage'.
Furthermore, you are right to point out that it is this way in every competitive market. It is this way for Honda and Toyota, and that is a good thing for society.
These are competitive enterprises by your own definition, but if there were some circumstance that forced their prices to immediately fall to the marginal cost for anything they did (every now and then, some misguided government enacts a law with this effect in some market segment), then in practice, they couldn't even operate, making the question of whether they could compete moot.
Time and rates of change are relevant factors, and so there are circumstances involving prices at marginal cost where companies that are otherwise competitive could not compete. Consequently, the premise stated in the title of this article is false.
This doesn't settle the broader issues of competitiveness and public policy, but it takes this particular argument out of play.
re: Mixed up
"The point is that there is still demand to get across the river, right? Therefore, it is in someone's best interest to build that bridge -- but they need to realize that they won't profit directly from the bridge, but from additional services. And, even if others can take a lane for free and copy, the originator can still do quite well just by being the first and having the associated brand."
Then a bunch of well-armed guys show up and take over the operation, taking all the revenue for themselves. Then another bunch sets up a roadblock at the other end and impose a toll of their own, and the span of the bridge turns into a free-fire zone and the situation becomes indistinguishable from Somalia. What's to stop this? Don't say the law, imposing an artificial concept of ownership on the situation...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by araybold.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt