Industry appears to want to railroad this through regardless of what the public wants or needs. And of course the problem is that we can't even comment sensibly about it, since they won't let us see the drafts.
But what if Patents are unconstitutional, as I believe they are? The U.S. Constitution reads:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
If patents do not do this, then their legality under the Constitution is questionable.
As an aside let me make you aware that you and Eugene are using "innovation" differently. He uses "innovation" to mean "inventions" generally. You use "innovation" to meant bringing products to market in useful ways and with useful features (so far as I can tell, or something close to that).
Now here is where you run into big problems. Gene doesn't understand technology, and argues that even the smallest change is patentable (for an example, propane has been used to fuel forklifts for years, from Gene's point of view a propane fueled go-kart would be patentable, where as I consider it obvious). Gene's idea of an invention is so broad that it's ridiculous. I was rather amused to find that his opinions on this are close to those of Ronald J. Riley of the Professional Inventors Alliance.
Still, obviously the monopoly is bad for the market as a whole, but that doesn't mean that disclosed inventions weren't advanced. And in manufacturing arts, those disclosures (enabling copying) do actually have significant value in and of themselves, not just because you set up a monopoly rent.
It doesn't mean that they "disclosed inventions" were advanced either, and that is the whole point of the Patent System.
As to the value of the disclosures, what value do they have, and to who? In the United States the monopoly granted by an issued patent, is granted solely for the benefit of the citizens of the United States. If they are not getting any benefit from the patent, then the patent system is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
And that is Mike's point. Either the patent system delivers a value to the citizens of the United States, or its unconstitutional.
What if the builder of the "Pipe" holds a monopoly on delivery in a geographic area? In that case, they have no incentive to improve their network.
And since most providers don't like to compete, they try to arrange it so that they do have a Monopoly and don't have to. The cable internet situation in Canada is a good example.
If there's a problem with your business model, fighting to retain a business model that doesn't work indicates that you are divorced from reality, and rather than firing you, you should be placed on medical leave, and ordered to get psychiatric help. I'm saying this, because I would expect that to reach a leadership position like that, a certain amount of intelligence is required, so these people can't be stupid.
It's too bad. If they had the cuts to design a new business model, they'd be heros. Instead they will look like incompetents.
Anyone who uses the word "Innovation" 3 times in four bullet points is an idiot. The word "Innovation" has been so devalued by constant usage, that it no longer has any real meaning.
RSS
Twitter
Cynicism seems called for in this instance (as The Mad Hatter)
Industry appears to want to railroad this through regardless of what the public wants or needs. And of course the problem is that we can't even comment sensibly about it, since they won't let us see the drafts.
The GPL is my preference (as The Mad Hatter)
If you want to use my code fine. If you modify it, the cost is you contributing the code back. I think that this is reasonable payback for my work.
Yawn (as The Mad Hatter)
OK WSJ - get it over already. Place all your content behind a pay wall, and prove you deliver the value that you claim you do, by surviving.
But what if... (as The Mad Hatter)
But what if Patents are unconstitutional, as I believe they are? The U.S. Constitution reads:
If patents do not do this, then their legality under the Constitution is questionable.Innovation (as The Mad Hatter)
And that is Mike's point. Either the patent system delivers a value to the citizens of the United States, or its unconstitutional.
Arrant Stupidity Probably (as The Mad Hatter)
Oh, and the CBS link above won't play the Letterman bit, but it's happy to play everything else. Wonder why?
You missed one point (as The Mad Hatter)
What if the builder of the "Pipe" holds a monopoly on delivery in a geographic area? In that case, they have no incentive to improve their network.
And since most providers don't like to compete, they try to arrange it so that they do have a Monopoly and don't have to. The cable internet situation in Canada is a good example.
Yep, suicide (as The Mad Hatter)
If there's a problem with your business model, fighting to retain a business model that doesn't work indicates that you are divorced from reality, and rather than firing you, you should be placed on medical leave, and ordered to get psychiatric help. I'm saying this, because I would expect that to reach a leadership position like that, a certain amount of intelligence is required, so these people can't be stupid.
It's too bad. If they had the cuts to design a new business model, they'd be heros. Instead they will look like incompetents.
The Man is an Idiot (as The Mad Hatter)
Anyone who uses the word "Innovation" 3 times in four bullet points is an idiot. The word "Innovation" has been so devalued by constant usage, that it no longer has any real meaning.
I was hoping for better than this.