I e-mailed him a note that professors should encourage students to share information and this is his response:
"Please find a common response to the voluminous emails I received regarding my
patent. Most of the students were “outraged”, “disgusted”, and used
abusive and even threatening language. I believe education is formation of
character and so I shall respond. Many misperceptions exist about the role of
patents in textbook publishing and also about me and my own work. My hope is
that one can engage in civil debate with an open mind to change one’s
opinion when presented with logic and evidence. Please contemplate:
Research-active universities do not reward professors for publishing textbooks
yet many top professors have written textbooks. One can only assume the
motivation WAS monetary. My example of Paul A. Samuelson and the 19 editions
of ECONOMICS is indeed classic. With rampant piracy, the best and brightest
will no longer publish textbooks and the students will suffer from inferior
Open access is indeed a good idea for scholarly cutting-edge work as
professors want their work read. But as per (1), scholarly cutting-edge work
does not include textbooks.
De facto open access of textbooks will extinguish the Publishing industry from
producing top-rate textbooks and an analog can be found with open access of
genetic resources of which I can profess some expertise. I have written
extensively about “biopiracy” and “biofraud” by the US pharmaceutical
companies and how habitat conservation is undermined in the biodiverse tropics
(and US National Parks). Let’s also be clear that I earn nothing from these
publications and copy and paste some recent scholarly publications here. I
have also maxed out from any sort of career advancement at my institution. I
invented the patented system largely for the same reason that I research and
publish: the challenge and joy of puzzle-solving.
The patent requires that students participate in Discussion Boards. I think
this is a good idea especially today when most students do not know the
majority of students in their class. Since the time of the Socrates,
discussion has been the enabler of learning. The requirement to adopt the
Discussion Board fosters such learning. Note well: no Publisher is forcing any
professor’s hand to adopt their book under the patented system. However, a
professor cannot adopt the Publishers’s book, let it be pirated, and then
not subscribe to the Publisher’s Discussion Board that guarantees a payment
for use of the Publisher’s textbook. The billion-dollar firm Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt has recently filed Chapter 11 of bankruptcy. Others will
Students of low income should apply for the US Federal Pell Grant which is
means-tested. As owner of the patent, I want Publishers to waive the fee for
students who present evidence of the Pell Grant. As such, the patent greatly
benefits students of low income. Today, some low income students are put in
moral dilemma to pirate or not attend university. My patent directly helps
As Publishers capture fees from pirated downloads and the used book market,
the price of textbooks will fall for students who are not on the Pell Grant.
Ironically, the patent encourages free access to textbooks for self-taught
students (no need to access a Discussion Board). Publishers will have no
reason to encrypt textbooks and, I suspect, many will even put them on line.
So, the textbooks in their latest edition become valuable resources for the
self-taught students and graduates.
Finally, what will happen to the royalties of the patent? Academic freedom is
under assault everywhere. Half the royalty income from the patent will
finance initiatives to promote academic freedom and is written into the
language of the patent in various Claims.
You need not agree. So please join blogs and elaborate reasoned responses to
my arguments. I hope I may have persuaded some of you that your initial
impression was indeed mistaken. If nothing else, I hope I have persuaded all
of you that abusive and threatening language undermines public support for
higher education. Arguments must be reasoned, politely.
He's written a book that at least mentions the public domain in the title, The Museum of Bioprospecting, Intellectual Property, and the Public Domain on his website at http://josephhenryvogel.com/home.html so maybe this is just a demonstration of the ridiculousness of patent law.
They told him to sue megaupload OR carpathia..the company they saddled with thousands of dollars a day tab to keep these servers running.
Since megaupload no longer has access to the data...what can they do? That means the company trying to run a business, has already been saddled with a hefty price tag, should also be sued because the government doesn't want to deal with the problems with its case?
Valve is fairly open about the success/failure of Steam. They said they made way more in the short time that Team Fortress went f2p than they did when they charged for the game and they have more people playing.
As far as revenue, Steam's keeps going up. There are games I don't buy like Crusader King's II at $40, but just bought on sale for $13. The point being, I would never have purchased the game at $40 or even $30...maybe..at $20. I would have thought about it..., but $13...I bought it in an instant and I may never actually get around to playing it.
A big thing that is missed is that people like me will buy a lot of those 75% sales and never play the games. There's a number of games (recently Crusader Kings II and its DLC) that I kinda sorta though maybe...possibly, but not really might want to play someday.
I bought it for the $13 with the DLC. It will likely sit like a hundred or so other games that I will never touch. So basically, I just gave them $13 for nothing.
I remember that happening. 2k Sports started putting out a better product so EA got an exclusive license with the NFL meaning 2k couldn't use actual player names which is a death knell for a sports game.
It most certainly is, but that's how 'debating' is for the most part nowadays. The people who believe that copyright is useful don't care about anything other forcing people into their way of thinking.
Ignore anything you dislike and live in your own dreamworld.
It's a FOX news world of debating. Doesn't matter if it true, relevant or even makes sense, you just keep repeating it enough times and it changes the whole debate from a useful conversation to a muddy wishwash uselessness.
Technology is difficult to understand. If the RIAA wants to develop new database technology that doesn't suffer from limits, give it a license that allows free use then we can talk.
Also, reading or looking into the issue is good. Google said in blatant terms, there is no limit. You can only add 1000 at a time to prevent the system from getting flooded and breaking down. You can submit 1000 as many times as you want.
Google limits all automated searches to prevent abuse. Any competent IT person limits things like e-mail login attempts, connections, etc etc to prevent systems from being abused.