You sure post a lot of links to pro-troll propaganda, but never once say what your actual company is. Gee... I wonder why.
Anyway, having quite a bit of familiarity with the speech recognition space, and knowing that it's a giant patent thicket, if you're actually doing something innovative, I can assure you that you're going to get sued by Nuance or some others in the space who have it locked up with patents already.
Anyway, as we've pointed out many times, ideas are meaningless. It's all about execution. If you can't execute, you're fucked. Meanwhile, Google has tried copying lots of others' ideas and often failed because they're not good at executing. Look at the failures of Wave, Reader, Knol and many other Google projects. If you're too worried about Google you're probably not executing very well.
That's what you say. Someone with a bit more knowledge said otherwise in testimony before Congress.
Kappos has been hired to work for the group I mentioned in the article above, to fight against meaningful patent reform. He's not exactly an unbiased party.
Frankly, the customer exception is so weakly written as to be almost useless. It should be strengthened, not done away with. As it stands, the stay only happens if a company sues *both* customers and upstream. And this is eminently reasonable (except, of course, if you're abusing the system). The concept of patent exhaustion does matter, you know. I recognize that patent trolls hate it, but that's because they want to double, triple and quadruple dip.
Aha. So let's do fee shifting across the board. Eliminate bogus ADA, employment discrimination, personal injury, and landlord tenant cases. There's litigation abuse everywhere, and it's a feature of the American system. Sure, access to justice may be reduced, but we'll get rid of bogus cases.
Other countries actually have had success with fee shifting in helping get rid of bogus cases. That you seem unaware of this says something. Not something good, mind you.
Many startups are working on real technology rather than the latest inane game or teen fad, and they absolutely are worried about protecting their technology. The self-righteous ignorance in this debate is staggering.
I don't deal with startups working on "inane games or teen fads." Nearly all are doing what I would consider "real technology." None are worried about "protecting" innovation. They know they can win in the market, so what's to protect? You call me ignorant based on your own ignorance.
I had started to wonder why Techdirt does not automatically block duplicate comments (like the half-dozen posted above) then I noticed that they differ by one character.
Damn that's sneaky.
It's the first spambot attack I've seen here, which is quite remarkable for a completely unrestricted "open comments" site. Other 'guest posting allowed' sites I've dealt with have had rather onerous filtering mechanisms set up, and despite that, plenty of spam-bots still got through.
We've put a fairly strong effort behind our spam fighting -- but one with a focus on allowing most comments. We still get somewhere around ~1000 spam comments per day, but on a good day, less than 5 will get through. I won't say much about how we fight it, so as not to reveal any hints for the spammers, but it involves a variety of different approaches all working together. It's not perfect -- and generally about 5 legitimate comments also end up being held for review, but we try to be pretty quick to release those. Thankfully, our system is set up in a manner that makes it easier to spot the legit comments that are held (w/o revealing much -- certain types of spam are so obviously spam they can be routed to a different review queue, whereas only a small number are in the question mark category -- which is where all "false positive" comments end up.
Like anything else, it's always a delicate balance between freedom(anarchy) and order(oppression) but I've got to say that Techdirt seems to handle it remarkably well. I've not had a single comment deleted here (that I'm aware of) -- and yet, this place is not overrun with spammers (and trolls) as many lightly or unmoderated sites tend to be.
The only comments we'll delete are the obvious spam attacks like the one above. But, as I said, those are pretty rare to get through.
Anyway, I've just cleared out that spam attack. Sorry about that.
The abusive litigation problem is a smokescreen for an effort by some very big companies (Google, Samsung, and others) to weaken the patent system
No, it's an effort to fix a very broken patent system.
Take fee shifting for example. If that passes, which startup will be able to prevent a big company from completely ripping off its technology?
I would imagine many, assuming they have a legitimate case. Fee shifting only happens in bogus cases.
Or the customer exception. Samsung will point to Foxconn, Foxconn will point to TSMC, TSMC will point to ten different companies, and the innovator will have no one to go after. It will be open season on American innovation.
Hahahah. That's simply untrue. The customer exception is pretty clearly defined and what you describe simple would not be enabled under the program.
Stop pulling your talking points from Intellectual Ventures lobbyists, because it just looks silly.
So before you mindlessly repeat inanities, ask yourself this: what does the measure do to a start-up's ability to protect its innovation?
I work with startups on a daily basis. None (and I do mean none) are worried about "protecting" their innovation. They're ALL worried about getting sued by patent trolls for their innovation. They worry about user adoption, but they're confident that if someone else "copies" them, that they're better positioned to out innovate the copycat.
The labels themselves admit that 90% of artists they sign never see a dime in royalties. Pointing to the few successful artists at the top (Madonna, Maroon 5) means nothing. The vast majority of artists signed to labels never see a dime in royalties.
And what do you mean by more artists are getting paid for creating more music today than ever before in history? What does getting paid mean? The busker on the street gets paid for his music too, but can he survive on that?
I mean exactly what I said. And, yes, you're correct that the busker may not be able to survive on what he makes, but that was true before the internet as well. Nothing has changed on that front -- other than that the really good busker can build a wider audience now.
Which artiste today, not signed by the labels, is making as much money as, oh say, Maroon 5?
Complete red herring. I could easily point to plenty of artists that make more than the *average* artist signed to a label today. Holding up Maroon 5 is pointless.
I'm pretty sure the labels are no angels, but you're suggesting that they didn't play any part in promoting artistes. That's what I find rather ridiculous on every level.
Musicians deserve to be compensated for their music. Pirating is the reason they aren't making money from their music.
This is ridiculous on almost every level. No one deserves to be compensated for merely deciding to put in effort. What if the music sucks? You get compensated by convincing someone to pay for your works. If you can't do that, you don't get compensated.
As for the reason many artists aren't making money -- it has nothing to do with piracy. The history of the recorded music business is full of stories of artists who can't make money, starting long before piracy was a thing. It's simply tough to make money as a musician.
And, in fact, artists who *DO* make money often don't make money from selling music in the first place (many on major label deals never see a dime from selling their music), but through alternative means, such as touring and licensing.
Finally, today, thanks to direct to fan support and other online tools, there are dozens of new ways to earn revenue that have nothing to do with piracy.
These bullshit arguments about musicians not being able to make money were common a decade ago. It's ridiculous to argue it's still true today. More artists are getting paid for creating more music today than *EVER* before in history.
No. I didn't say that. I said that it's a bad PR move, and I don't understand why Dropbox would do it.
because she supported warrentless surveillance, so you will make the same argument and protest against anyone from the Obama administration when they try to get on boards of tech companies
Yes, easily. If they were integral to promoting the surveillance state (or bad IP law, or other issues of concern to me).
I am sick of people claiming that they are upset about an issue when they are really just upset that the person was on the wrong team.
I'm curious as to which "team" you think I support? We have never supported any particular team at all. We have regularly called out people on both "teams" when they do something stupid, just as we've celebrated those on both "teams" when they've done good things.
I'm not on any team and this site has never supported any of the major political parties. In fact, we specifically do not name what party anyone is a part of (unless it's central to the story) because doing so immediately leads to idiots making it into a partisan thing.
So, seriously: which team am I on? If you'd like I'm happy to show you where we've criticized both Democrats and Republicans as well as celebrated both Democrats and Republicans.
This has nothing to do with teams.
I was involved in several groups that supported Net neutrality and when Obama was elected the groups disbanded. We still don't have net neutrality.
Out of curiosity, could you point out what net neutrality groups have disbanded? I'd love to hear about that.
I don't think you know what that means. Nor is it applicable here. As noted in the article pretty clearly (did you read it?) the concern is about how this appears. And the fact that so many people are angry about it appears to justify that concern.
People seem to forget she was doing her job when she went on the Sunday talk shows and defended warrentless searches and spying. It doesn't make it right, but unfortunately that is how our system operates. If she didn't do that she would been forced to resign to "spend more time with her family" the following Monday.
She may be a bad idea on the Board for a lot of reasons, but for doing her job in the Bush Administration? I don't think that really tells us much about how she will advise on privacy issues as a board member. That said, she is basically a statist, so I'd expect the status quo. Dropbox would be the company to make a stand for user privacy.
I tried to be clear in the post that my issue is less with what her actual opinions are or for what she'll actually do, but for the public perception aspect of it, given the widespread existing concerns about Dropbox.
I beg to differ, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Copyright protection for a photograph extends only to those components of a work that are original to the author.
Yes. But that includes framing and lighting. And the paintings copy that. So... But if you were to argue that they're fair use, we'd agree with you.
No one is saying that these are infringing. Just wondering if there's a lawsuit coming.
The subjects face or likeness is never "original" to the author (or photographer).
While the photographer does own the rights to redistribution of his actual photo, he does not ever own the likeness of a persons face so there is nothing illegal or even wrong in painting someone's face from someone else's photograph.
Yes. We agree. And yet, the AP still sued Shepard Fairey over the same damn thing. We agree that this shouldn't be infringing for all the reasons you say. But there have been identical lawsuits.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that private rights of action were removed by an amendment during the bill's consideration. Assuming this to be the case, continuing to say that SOPA provided a private right of action is very misleading, making it seem to the uninitiated as if it was at all times a bedrock principle.
I know all you do is try to nitpick everything we say to try to make it look like we were wrong, but you're going to have to try harder. *Technically* SOPA is no longer a bill, so if you want to go by technicalities, you could claim that since it's no longer a bill, that making any claims about SOPA is now false.
But the point here was that Singapore is taking a SOPA-style approach with this new bill, and SOPA did -- for many months -- include just such a private right to action. It was only removed after folks like us called it out for how problematic it was (and people like you scolded us for supposedly misrepresenting it). And, yet now you want to pretend that it was never really in the bill and we should never refer to it again? Really? Are you *that* desperate?
Rapidshare had a reward scheme just like Megaupload but they were never shutdown and had their assests seized and frozen and the company still remains in operation today. Rapidshare were exactly the same as Megaupload and yet one company gets shutdown with assets seized and frozen whilst the other company remains in operation to this day.
Note an important difference: Rapidshare hired some lobbyists in DC. No joke.