The problem with this is, even though your opinions are respectable, we lose the capitalism.
The capitalism need consumers and consumers have to be workers first. If workers get no paid, apart from "exposure", "conversation", "engagement" and this kind of social media stuff people can not pay for products and services and the capitalism collapse.
I think your understanding of capitalism may be a bit limited.
A few key points: (1) capitalism is about the exchange of utility for utility where each party feels better off. Sometimes the utility is money, but not always. There are ways to get paid that aren't money. (2) You presume, incorrectly, that none of these actions then also lead to payment. That's wrong. Exposure, conversation and engagement can and often do lead to monetary compensation as well. You just have to figure out how to find the friction point where you can turn it into money...
What is it about SV that makes persons residing there think that the US economy revolves around them? Yes, electrons moving from Point A to Point B to accomplish Task C can be quite useful, but then again so are the incredibly large number of other goods and services created/manufactured throughout the US. Just because something is associated with the "Net" does not mean that its interests somehow transcend in importance the interests of others.
Not sure why you assume (incorrectly) that I'm talking about Silicon Valley. I'm not. I'm talking about all kinds of innovation. You don't increase innovation by locking up ideas.
While I do not share your view that the NSA is inherently evil (it does do a heck of a lot more than what has been discussed on this site), I obviously take issue with anything that can even remotely be interpreted as those in its employ sharing that same characteristic.
Why do you continue to insist on taking what I said out of context? I did NOT say that the NSA is inherently evil, nor do I believe it. The *quote* was clearly pointing out that they should have realized that MAKING THEMSELVES LOOK TO BE EVIL is a monumentally stupid move. I don't understand how I can be any clearer.
Put the snippet in context and you'd understand what it meant. Why you insist on misrepresenting what I said -- as you have for years, is known only to your sick and demented mind.
And, BTW, Wyden set Clapper up, leaving Clapper with no choice but to answer as he did in order to not disclose, directly or indirectly, classified information.
You don't want to start on that bullshit again. We wiped the floor with that last time. Now you're just trolling. You really are not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are.
I now appreciate your point. It is not what you actually said, but your "intent" in how you used it.
Mea culpa for taking your words at face value.
Uh no. You directly took my words out of context. You did the opposite of taking them at face value. It would be like me taking your "mea culpa" and saying "it's so nice to see you finally admit that you made a giant mistake."
You know that you're not admitting that. I know that you're not admitting it. Only a complete moron who takes others words out of context would think otherwise. You're not that moronic, are you?
Nothing quite like generalizing so as to insult an organization staffed by persons (many likely even your neighbors) who are by no stretch of any definition (save perhaps yours) "evil". Feel free to take poetic license to a point, but this is not one such point.
I see. You've gone from your usual position of making totally false statements to now taking my comments completely out of context and pretending I said something I did not. When put back *into* context, I'm pretty clearly not calling the NSA "evil." I'm saying that the logo screams out "we're evil!" which is why it was probably a mistake.
But, point taken that you don't seem to mind them spying on everyone but it crosses the line to call violating everyone's rights as "evil."
Dana Rohrabacher has an interesting article that mentions why this House bill is fraught with unintended consequences that make it only too clear this bill is about "The Big Un's" feathering their legal nest by swatting away pests.
That article is so full of wrong it's not even funny. That's an article from a supporter of patent trolling. This bill doesn't go nearly far enough in swatting down patent trolls, but whining about how this will harm those poor poor patent trolls. Come on. You're so transparent.
Yes, there are some neer-do-wells who work at gaming the system, just like virtually all other areas of law.
Uh, no. The MAJORITY of the system is gamed by neer-do-wells at this point. The system is broken. Look, I know it's been a big part of your life, and you can't see through the massive blinders you have on reality, but you're simply wrong about this one. The patent system is broken. This is a small fix that will only hurt the worst of the worst. It needs to go further.
Are there any further avenues for appeal once CAFC makes its decision?
There can be a request to CAFC to rehear the case "en banc" (with a full slate of 11 judges, rather than just a 3 judge panel). That happens sometimes, but it's pretty rare. The ruling would have to be pretty contentious for that to happen...
Then they can request that the Supreme Court hear the case, which is also a long shot since the Supreme Court rejects most such requests. A high profile case hitting on a key point may be of more interest to the Supreme Court, but it's much more likely to take a case if it sees a circuit split in the ruling with other appeals courts. Whether or not that's the case will depend heavily on what the ruling says...
So... yes, there's the possibility of appeals, but also a very real possibility that no such appeals will be heard.
The "few exceptions" you dismiss in your article include hundreds of U.S. universities that have a positive cash flow from licensing the inventions of their professors and students.
This is simply not supported by the facts. The data suggest that about 10 to 20 universities have positive cashflow. The rest are negative.
Even for the universities that do not make money with their licensing programs, they get SOME return that allows them to fund more research than they otherwise would.
You may be an inventor, but you are bad at accounting. Losing money on tech transfer means less money to fund research. Not more.
Furthermore the process of developing the ideas to a point that qualifies for patent protection and then working to market the patents is a very positive learning experience for young inventors and is a critical part of the process to connect university research to real world solutions that help society.
No, it's not. Learning how to patent something is a wasted skill. Learning how to bring a product to market is valuable. Patents have nothing to do with that.
You likely have good intentions, but you are a victim of the massive spending on the "anti-troll" campaign waged by giant tech companies - principally Google, Cisco and Intel.
This is laughable. I am not a victim of any such campaign. Rather I have studied economics and read the research and came to my own conclusion. In fact, I've challenged the actions of all 3 companies who I feel have abused the patent system themselves.
I will also note that you ignore the copious research showing how patenting university research has slowed down the ability of universities to do groundbreaking research.
How many snivels have I heard here about "clueless" judges? Of course, the cluelessness seems directly linked to the nature of the decision. Let's face it, who decides doesn't really matter to you. How it's decided is all you care about. So stop pretending like you care about the process, you don't. It's all about outcomes.
As per usual, you are misrepresenting what has been said here (why must you always do that?). We call out clueless judges because they tend to be the exception to the rule. There are clueless judges, and that's a problem, which is why it's news. But regulators are much, much worse. You know that which is why you're setting up this false equivalency.
Holy misleading clipping, Batman! I mean, a normal person would read the whole sentence and recognize that it was the end of the sentence that was important, concerning what the market would actually do. And it DID NOT do that.
So the universities DID SELL their patents, and made "billions of dollars", (according to your words).
Um. Where did I say that? IV did not spend billions of dollars on patents. It bought trash at cut rate prices from desperate tech transfer offices. The universities lost money on the deal, but allowed IV to then turn around and use those worthless patents in bulk to shake down billions from companies, without doing a damn thing for actual innovation.
That's interesting if IV pays universities money for these patents, where is the mechanism for billions of dollars to go to myhrvold's account ?
As explained above and in the article: university gets patents, IV buys patents for pennies, but then bundles them all together and gets billions from companies to avoid getting sued over bogus claims.
Something is for sale, and there is a buyer willing to pay the sale price for that item, what is the issue with the sale taking place?
Are you being willfully obtuse? The article explains it very clearly.
Universities are education and research, not commercial companies.
First off, even if this claim was true (and it's not), part of the very point of this article (did you even read it?!?) is that this is HARMING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH. Keep up.
Second, many universities recognize that a big part of what they do is about having close connections with actual industry, and are working on applied research that is actual useful in the real world. I didn't explain that because I assumed anyone not willfully misrepresenting the situation already knew that.
How does taking the creative output of others and monetizing it for yourself get characterized as "innovation"? It is self-serving greed- not innovation
I think that question should be addressed to the RIAA and MPAA, no? That's been their MO from the beginning.
That's not what these other companies are doing. What they've done is improved *access* *distribution* *promotion* and *monetization* for anyone. Artists who embrace it find themselves better off. It's only troubling for the RIAA/MPAAs of the world who built their business model off of having a gatekeeper-level control over access, distribution, promotion and monetization. They're the ones profiting off of someone else's work.
Really: you need to stop blaming innovators for doing what your friends refuse to do themselves.
Because you don't blame the tool for how people use it. Kinda common sense.
Are you suggesting it's ok because eventually, maybe they might in the future not infringe?
No, I'm suggesting it's moronic, because when your buddies in the industry finally (after kicking and screaming) figure out how to actually use the technology properly, they always discover that there are more ways to make more money. That's why you don't blame the tool.
Your reasoning gets more and more desperate as the noose tightens around the necks of these infringement profiteers and the freeloaders they serve.
Yeah, just like you and your friends would have killed the VCR and the MP3 player, right? Seriously: you don't have a clue. Please stop killing innovation.
Ahem. Jokes apart, you could have replied that every bit of the site operation falls under American jurisdiction since TD has no operations in Germany and then proceeded to ask him if he would like to police thousands of comments daily looking for something that someone could subjectively think it's offensive to someone around Germany. You know, because everybody shares the same opinion.
I did point out the US jurisdiction. And further pointed out that if he believed that someone had made an incorrect statement that the great thing was that he and others could correct that ignorance.
Could this sort of behavior be due to knee jerk reactions to the Nazism?
The comment he was referring to was about Germany's Nazi past -- and, yes, I believe that some of this is a reaction to the country's history. They're (for very good reason!) quite sensitive over that subject, and have gone above and beyond in trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening again. That's a good thing, but it shouldn't lead to blaming third parties for comments, and it shouldn't lead to stifling free speech.