Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free
from the they-said-it-couldn't-be-done dept
Here on Techdirt, we write a lot about patents. Mostly, it’s about their huge downsides — the stupid patents that should never have been awarded, or the parasitic patent trolls that feed off companies doing innovative work. The obvious solution is to get rid of patents, but the idea is always met with howls of derision, as if the entire system of today’s research and development would collapse, and a new dark age would be upon us. It’s hard to refute that claim with evidence to the contrary because most people — other than a few brave souls like Elon Musk — are reluctant to find out what happens if they don’t cling to patents. Against that background, it’s great to see Aarhus University in Denmark announce a new open science initiative that will eschew patents on researchers’ work completely:
The platform has been established with funds from the Danish Industry Foundation and it combines basic research with industrial innovation in a completely new way, ensuring that industry and the universities get greater benefit from each other’s knowledge and technology.
University researchers and companies collaborate across the board to create fundamental new knowledge that is constantly made available to everyone — and which nobody may patent. On the contrary, everyone is subsequently freely able to use the knowledge to develop and patent their own unique products.
According to Aarhus University, Danish industry loves it:
The idea of collaborating in such a patent-free zone has aroused enormous interest in industry and among companies that otherwise use considerable resources on protecting their intellectual property rights.
The attraction seems to be that an open platform will make it easier for companies — particularly smaller ones — to gain access to innovative technologies at an early stage, without needing to worry about patents and licensing. Aarhus University hopes that the approach will also allow researchers to take greater risks with their work, rather than sticking with safer, less ambitious projects, as has happened in the past. The first example is already up and running. It is called SPOMAN (Smart Polymer Materials and Nano-Composites), and has a project page hosted on the Open Science Framework site:
In this project, you will find minutes from the Open Science meetings, current status of the initiative, general presentations etc. More importantly, this project has links to the individual activities and research projects under Open Science. In these projects, the research progress, lab journals and more are found.
Combined with the no-patent promise, you don’t get much more open than that.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Filed Under: denmark, open access, open science, patent free, research
Companies: aarhus university, danish industry foundation
Comments on “Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free”
No patents, but where? How to stop other countries?
While they make a no patent promise, how will they actually stop someone else from applying for a patent? What other countries will honor this promise?
Given the recent history of the USPTO granting patents to things will lots of obviousness and plenty of prior art, do the Dane’s actually think their no patent pledge can stop them? Then the ‘prior art’ comes out and ten years later, and possibly lots of lawsuits, someone tries to invalidated the patents and lots of lawyers are richer.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea, I just don’t see it as enforceable, without international agreements. I can just imagine the USTR’s response when asked.
Re: No patents, but where? How to stop other countries?
Well, in the US, it does not matter whether or not that you hold a patent, or can point to prior publication, but rather that you can afford the odd million dollars to defend your rights in court.
American History
Well, let’s see, how many major inventions have originated with the Danes? You can count the Ostomy bag and the Lego brick. Well, that’s something.
And how many major inventions are American? That’s what I just can’t fathom about this site – the reason America leads the world and has lead the world since nearly it’s inception in inventions is the patent system. Don’t you get that? That’s why inventors come to the US. It’s not a good thing, it’s a GREAT thing that we all benefit from.
Wasn’t it Google who used their influence to appoint the last Patent commissioner that did her level best to weaken patent protection? Didn’t the whole “Patent Troll” thing get promoted by Google? The argument just seems moronic to me. For example, let’s get rid of protection against battery because some people fake battery. So, let’s all beat each other into oblivion because there are a few fakers. Let’s get rid of criminal penalties for rape because some people fake being raped. What?
Patents are one of the most American things about America, and a great deal of American Wealth is created by American Inventors and American Patents. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You multiply wealth by incentivizing wealth creators. That’s the point. Your view would cripple America.
Re: American History
Oh, spare us.
Patents have been around since ancient Greece. The English patent system, evolving from early medieval times, was the legal foundation for the Industrial Revolution.
One more time: NO-ONE HERE IS OPPOSING PATENTS. THEY’RE OPPOSING PATENT ABUSE.
THAT is what America leads the world in. THAT is what’s driving efforts for an open platform. Any good thing implemented in bloody awful way is going to lead to opposition.
It’s not like you – as an inventor – can invent something and reap the rewards any more. Trolls will patent every conceivable use of your invention – ESPECIALLY the obvious ones – and then charge YOU to use it. There are tens of thousands of patents on image compression alone. Create something truly new in the camera or smartphone or web browsing field, and image compression is just one of the things you’ll be sued over.
And so patents are trading cards for large corporations. You need a massive portfolio of patents to play. When Samsung tosses BS patent claims at Apple, Apple has wealth of BS patent claims that they can toss at Samsung products.
That doesn’t even cover the endless overbroad patents, where someone obtains a patent on something very specific, and declares it to be a patent on ALL internet commerce.
THAT is why America has so many patents. And now China has been taught how to play the game.
The folks boarding the Titanic’s lifeboats weren’t anti-ship. They weren’t making a statement about row boats being better than ocean liners. But then no-one was standing up on the deck screaming straw-man arguments that this was the case.
Re: Re: American History
1) You have never patented anything, right?
2) You know absolutely nothing about patent law, right?
3) You are not American, right?
1) I have patented a lot of things
2) I have made money from my patents and my products
3) I am a provably American American
Re: Re: Re: American History
“1) I have patented a lot of things”
Citation needed
“2) I have made money from my patents and my products”
Citation needed
“3) I am a provably American American”
Meh, your American heritage doesn’t go as far back as some of the Danish inventions you had to pretend don’t exist. Your country hasn’t been around as long as my Mum’s house, FFS. Who cares?
Re: Re: Re: American History
Wait, I thought you were a failed musician? Which one is it? Because you can’t have failed at two major careers already.
Re: Re: Re: American History
And yet you have never shown any evidence, Hamilton. Aside from your Massachusetts heritage of magical forests and tiger chimeras. Neither has the long list of thousands of inventors harmed and destroyed which you claim exists.
For someone who claims provable things you seem to go out of your way, as much as possible, to avoid proving them. It’s almost like you can’t prove them.
Re: American History
“Well, let’s see, how many major inventions have originated with the Danes? You can count the Ostomy bag and the Lego brick. Well, that’s something.”
You can also count the first commercially sold typewriter (Rasmus Malling-Hansen) and the dry cell battery (Wilhelm Hellesen), among a few I found during some quick research. I’m sure there’s a lot more if you carried on looking.
But, such honesty about what you’re referring to would undermine your mindless nationalism, wouldn’t it?
It’s amazing what lies you’ll tell yourself to support the corporations who are screwing you, nay, demand that they screw you harder.
Re: Re: American History
You are so misguided that it’s noteworthy. I see you defending invention in Denmark, but not invention in the US. OK, that’s fine. So invention is good, right? And Denmark is lucky to have inventors, right? And their inventions are great and people benefitted from them, right? And they patented them, right? Everything good, right?
Who is screwing who? You have a foreigner ready to defend inventions and patents outside the US. I am a US Citizen defending inventions and patents inside the US. I make money with them, actually, and I think I do a lot of good in the world. In think inventors in general do a lot of good, and the patent system helps them. And, I would guess no know nothing at all about the US patent system, or actual US history, you just have your foreigner agenda that you are promoting, right? Just tell the truth, for once.
Re: Re: American History
“I see you defending invention in Denmark, but not invention in the US.”
Since the subject is Denmark, and the only country whose inventors is being attacked is Denmark… yes?
“I make money with them, actually”
I call bullshit. No way a mental case like you can have made anything useful.
It is amusing how you’re doing your usual rambling attacks on “foreigners”, on an article about Denmark. This conversation didn’t involve the US at all until you started getting defensive.
“Just tell the truth, for once.”
Every word I’ve typed is verifiably true. What is your lunatic mind telling you isn’t?
Re: Re: Re: American History
You can call whatever you want, who really cares? Truth is it’s own defense. Truth: You’ve never patented anything, and don’t know the first thing about it, or US patent law. Truth: I have. Truth: The American patent system is of tremendous benefit to American inventors, and other Americans, and everyone else. Truth. Not truth: “the stupid patents that should never have been awarded, or the parasitic patent trolls that feed off companies doing innovative work. The obvious solution is to get rid of patents” I call bullshit, total and complete bullshit. That’s the truth, historically verifiable, despite what you foreigners publish here in the US.
Re: Re: Re:2 American History
“Truth: I have”
Still waiting for that citation.
Re: Re: Re:3 American History
And did I give you any indication that I care at all about what you are waiting for? I imagine you are waiting for a lot of things.
Re: Re: Re:4 American History
Is he waiting for Godot? Magic? Guffman? Love? The 1989 Denver Broncos?
Re: Re: Re:4 American History
Well, you keep trying to argue from authority. That’s already a logical fallacy, but it’s especially meaningless when you provide no evidence of your claimed authority. Since you keep responding to me, I presume you wish me to take your xenophobic argument seriously, so I presume you care. If note, why do you keep replying?
I’m just waiting for you to justify your own rambling words and why they matter, while everyone else dismisses them as the ravings of a lunatic.
Re: Re: Re:5 American History
I don’t have to justify anything to you, sir.
Please return to your village, they miss you.
Re: Re: Re:6 American History
Strange, the only person I asked to justify themselves was the random AC who’s been playacting as a mental patient this whole thread. That’s who my comment was in response to. Yet, you are the one who responded to me saying that you don’t have to justify yourself.
It seems you are a more pathetic troll that I realised.
Re: Re: Re:7 American History
No, actually it’s ME! I am him. I am you, too. Want me to prove it? Knock Knock Alice.
Re: Re: Re:7 American History
A collection of people are apparently all screwing with you. I am laughing.
Next you are going to suggest that I am every anonymous person on here.
I merely answered a standard, rhetorical question from you generally aimed at me. Nice to see you have the same high standard of discourse with others. Gotta wonder why you aren’t banned.
Re: Re: Re:8 American History
“I merely answered a standard, rhetorical question from you generally aimed at me.”
Sorry, your ego is distorting your view of reality again.
I did not ask anything of your pathetic ass, I specifically directed a direct question to the AC I was conversing with (in reply to 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:50am). Which you then answered, despite me not having posed any question to you.
At least you admit that you don’t read these threads closely enough to follow the conversation before diving in with your inanity. It is interesting that the same AC answered my actual comment to you earlier and that you answered my comment to the AC. But, that might just be a consequence of your arrogant need to respond to facts with distortion and lies than you deliberately trying to hide your identity in order to derail threads.
“Gotta wonder why you aren’t banned.”
Because a) this site doesn’t ban people and b) even if they did I don’t get reported enough to justify such a thing. You, on the other hand…
Re: Re: Re:9 American History
Cool, more personal attacks. Hope you get flagged!
Re: Re: Re:10 American History
Eat shit blue.
Re: American History
Do you have the patent on bad arguments or something?
Re: Re:
Pretty sure that one goes to our current POTUS.
Re: Re: American History
That’s open source, free to use and widely abused. Sadly it’s one example of open source that I despise.
How is this not impossible?
How can anyone guarantee that something is not already patented, short of filing a patent themselves? No way to do it, right? The premise of the article is fundamentally flawed, and speaking to something not possible to perform. Declaring something “patent free” means nothing, unless you have a patent to back it up.
Re: How is this not impossible?
How can anyone guarantee that something is not already patented, short of filing a patent themselves?
All patents and applications (whether approved or not) are publicly available. In principle, it is straightforward to simply search the database to determine whether your invention is already included, and then search relevant literature to determine if it is novel and non-obvious, or covered by other prior art. This is actually exactly what the patent office does when it receives an application.
In practice, of course, it’s more complicated than this, because patents are written by humans, read by humans, and approved by humans, and so everything tends to be variable. Some things which probably should be patentable are rejected, and inevitably some things which should not be are approved. But in general, patent lawyers exist who are very well trained (often having worked in the patent office themselves), and will be able to tell you if your invention can be patented. They are almost always right, and the rest of the process is just a matter of fine-tuning the claims in your application.
Declaring something "patent free" means nothing, unless you have a patent to back it up.
Receiving a patent requires that the invention be novel and non-obvious. This collaboration intends to publish their inventions openly without applying for a patent, so that anyone who later attempts to receive a patent will be rejected based on the existence of prior art (the publication), or alternatively that the patent can be challenged later and rendered invalid based on such. In theory, this works fine. How well it works in practice will depend on the patent office, and the legal system in each respective country. In particular, how much effort the patent office puts into looking for prior art outside of existing patents, and how easy it is to challenge a patent’s validity in court, which obviously vary by both country and individual patent examiners.
Socialism is the answer!
What was the question again?
Re: Re:
In the best of all worlds, not socialism. I think the “free software” companies are great, it’s just important (IMHO) to understand what they are and what they are not. The charm of free software is the price, not the innovation. The innovation is the price. So, cool, big bundles of code for free, or free plus paid support, of free if not sold commercially, whatever the variant is. All cool.
But never mistake that’s all you get – just the price, and it probably has strings you aren’t aware of. And it moves at a snail’s space. Like, a millionth of a millionth the pace of stuff that is not free. Linux version xx.xx.xx that has, like, nothing new, again, ever. That kind of thing. So great, old, worn out stuff for free, and someone will actually make it work for money. All good.
But never believe this crap about the patent system being bad. This is just the “free software” companies being lazy, and try to to sell what they have, because they can’t innovate anything. They want to cripple the real innovators so they can sell what they have. LIke any big business.
But in America, we still have the patent system. If you open source weenies want to play with the big boys, invent something, write it down, patent it, and have it. Cut the crap with these foreigner idiots spouting off about something they (and you) know nothing about. Not gonna happen. MAGA
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing makes me giggle more than some asshole using a free browser to access a server built from a free database and web server via free protocols and post through free markup and scripting languages to whine about how nothing useful or worthwhile is free. All the above being free both as in beer and as in speech.
The wilful ignorance is always amusing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you’re reaching pretty far to think you could comprehend my thoughts, you ignorant foreigner. I see you need to use profanity, that’s what you usually do when you have nothing to say, which is most of the time. My point was that everything you pointed out is old and trivial, like all the ideas on this site. Nothing new in the open source world forever. Can you name something new of any actual consequence?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“you’re reaching pretty far to think you could comprehend my thoughts”
This, I suppose is true. I hope you’re getting the help you need and you remember to take your meds soon.
“everything you pointed out is old and trivial”
So, something has to be new to count now? That goalpost moving must be tiring, have a sit down and relax.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
If this site was based on bleeding edge open source and free tech he’d find another non-issue to cling on. I kind of feel sorry for the guy, it must be quite the burden the hatred he is carrying.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
To be fair, we all need fifty-foot poles to reach down far enough into the black pit that is your mind so that we can even understand what the hell you are trying to say.
I wonder: Does anyone has a patent on that?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Where do you see any profanity in his post?
All I see is one mild instance of vulgarity; I don’t see any terms relating to contempt for sacred things.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You would be correct Paul, if it wasn’t for some slight misunderstandings.
The browser? Not free. It’s “without payment up front” but it’s never free. If you use IE or the Apple equivalent on a PC, you paid for it when you bought the OS. If you use Chrome or Firefox, they don’t charge you but they profit from you in other ways. Firefox profits off your searches (they get paid per search) and Chrome, well, let’s just say Google never does anything for free that doesn’t contribute in the long run to their data mining and ad click business models.
The only things truly “free” is on the server side, where things like Apache and mysql are pretty much actually free (and without hooks).
Protocols? Well, every time you buy a device you pay a little for the time it took to create and maintain them. Most protocols are created by industry groups, and they never work for free – just without apparent cost. When you buy a device, a little bit of that cost is written into it.
So yeah, free. Sort of.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“The browser? Not free. It’s “without payment up front” but it’s never free.”
So, like I said “free as in beer”. If I get a free beer, the beer is never free, either someone else has gifted to me or someone’s making money on the back end. But, it doesn’t matter how much you whine about those other things, it’s still free for me to drink. The AC is whining that nothing useful has been provided to him for free, but he clearly uses such things to make his comment. Your nitpicking doesn’t change that.
You also forget the “free as in speech” part, where people literally give things away in order for others to reuse. Idiot boy above was whining that open source doesn’t allow this without a profit motive, which is clearly untrue.
For what it’s worth, I use none of the browsers you named as my primary browser. That’s one of the great things about FOSS, competitors always exist and the next big innovation may come from these browsers instead of the big names.
“The only things truly “free” is on the server side, where things like Apache and mysql are pretty much actually free (and without hooks).”
I’d look into the business models of those companies too, and the costs of hosting them. If you’re going to claim that browsers aren’t really free because some of the people providing them dare to recoup their costs, why are you pretending that the Apache Foundation and Oracle don’t make money and hosting providers/websites don’t have costs of their own when they provide things for free? Seems deliberately dishonest to me, as usual.
So, you pretend you’re right but as ever you’re either just rewording the facts I’ve already referred to or twisting in a vain attempt to pretend you’re somehow better than everyone else – and failing miserably, as usual.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You used the word “innovation”, but I don’t think you understand what it means. Innovation pretty much only happens outside of open source, which is my point. Open source, on it’s best day, just implements some someone else has spelled out pretty clearly before. Everybody knows that. Even you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Wait a minute—wasn’t email basically a giant open source project?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
He says using innovations that exist purely because of open source…
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Not. If they use something that’s patented they’ll get sued for it. If it’s Open Source it’s not developed anywhere else. There are plenty of examples of projects that were nuked due to patents. And plenty of patented stuff that got green light to be used and developed at will as if it was open source (which invalidates your point about patents quite nicely). Elon Musk and Tesla mean something to you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“So, like I said “free as in beer”. If I get a free beer, the beer is never free, either someone else has gifted to me or someone’s making money on the back end. But, it doesn’t matter how much you whine about those other things, it’s still free for me to drink. The AC is whining that nothing useful has been provided to him for free, but he clearly uses such things to make his comment. Your nitpicking doesn’t change that.”
Sure does.
Every time you use Chrome, you are “paying” for it. Like it or not, you are being tracked, noted, and packages for resale. Like a cow in the pasture, you seem to think the lunch is free – until you are slaughters and sold for weight.
“You also forget the “free as in speech” part, where people literally give things away in order for others to reuse. Idiot boy above was whining that open source doesn’t allow this without a profit motive, which is clearly untrue.”
There are always those who give things away for free. That is their choice. Those who choose to put effort into truly open source stuff are special people.
“I’d look into the business models of those companies too, and the costs of hosting them. If you’re going to claim that browsers aren’t really free because some of the people providing them dare to recoup their costs, why are you pretending that the Apache Foundation and Oracle don’t make money and hosting providers/websites don’t have costs of their own when they provide things for free? Seems deliberately dishonest to me, as usual.”
I think you are trying to intentionally misunderstand. Apache and MySQL are both absolutely free without hindrance or hidden costs. You don’t receive a diminished product, it is not ad supported. It’s free. You can fire up your home compute, put *nix, apache, mysql, and serve webpages to your hearts content without any cost (aside from the computer, which you already have, clearly).
Apache Foundation runs entirely on grants and donations. There is no hidden “costs” being pulled back by hosting companies after the fact.
Oracle is a big company, but mysql is free and without charge. Is it a marketing choice? Perhaps. But it is absolutely free without charge, cost, or “future considerations” – the perfect example of your free beer.
Hosting companies are a profit model business. They are not paying for mysql or apache (or most of the OS options they generally have).
“So, you pretend you’re right but as ever you’re either just rewording the facts I’ve already referred to or twisting in a vain attempt to pretend you’re somehow better than everyone else – and failing miserably, as usual.”
Hey, I didn’t spend 20 minutes trying to twist someone’s valid points into a pretzel because I can’t allow them to be right. Back to your village!
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Are we seriously back to the whole “but I can’t run away from google, a bloo bloo bloo” spiel again?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Apparently. Chrome has magically stopped being free and open source because Google still make money. IIRC, he had some similar point about YouTube, as if it wasn’t free and it was somehow immoral for them to take a cut from ad revenue for providing their service.
He apparently has to invent his own reality to cope with the world, it’s very sad.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Every time you use Chrome, you are “paying” for it.”
…and if I don’t use Chrome, as I’ve already stated?
Your usual attempt to ignore the actual words people are saying don’t change the facts. Nor does it change the fact that Chromium and its derivative and all other FOSS is free in both sense of the word, even if the companies in charge of the projects have dared to make some money for their efforts.
“There are always those who give things away for free.”
Yes there are, Google being one of them. But they suddenly don’t give it away for free if they dare make some money back in other ways. I’m sure it makes sense in that strange mind of your, but in the real world, you’re full of it.
“Apache Foundation runs entirely on grants and donations. There is no hidden “costs” being pulled back by hosting companies after the fact.”
Wait… so making money on the product is OK as long as they do it before and not after release?
“Oracle is a big company, but mysql is free and without charge”
So are all the other projects you’re attacking.
“Is it a marketing choice? Perhaps.”
So, again, you’re OK with oracle making money on the product, and that makes the project free. But Google make money on their product and it’s suddenly not free.
This appears to be Schrodinger’s Business Model – software is either free or not free depending on whether some random asshole on the internet approves of the way a company uses it to make money.
“Hosting companies are a profit model business. They are not paying for mysql or apache (or most of the OS options they generally have).”
Nor are end users paying money for the browsers they use. But, that doesn’t count because someone has to randomly twist reality to pretend not to be a contrarian dickhead.
“Hey, I didn’t spend 20 minutes trying to twist someone’s valid points into a pretzel because I can’t allow them to be right.”
No, from the rambling nonsense you’ve created here, you spent a lot longer than 20 minutes. What a sad life you lead.
We’re talking about patents and their role in innovation in the US. Yes, I am trying to point out that you open source weenies are either too lazy or too stupid to invent anything, so instead you make up stories spread by foreigners about the US system that are completely false and misleading. So yes, we are talking about innovation, and patents, and the US. Remember? DId you even read the article? Glynn Moody was saying something completely ignorant about a “patent free” zone, of which there is none, and could be none. He’s a another patent-ignorant foreigner, right, giving his uneducated opinion about how bad patents are. And you are his Echo Chamber co-hort, right?
Re: Re:
This is still a story about the Aarhus University in Denmark. I’m sorry if you’re incapable of looking at the way other people work in case that offends your tiny insular self.
But, fortunately or unfortunately, you are able to see this article and we are able to see and reply to your insane ramblings due directly to international collaboration between open source and free software developers – all without demanding a penny from you that is better spent on your mental health care.
You’re welcome.
Re: Re: Re:
“Here on Techdirt, we write a lot about patents. Mostly, it’s about their huge downsides”
This is standard Techdirt/Google bullshit, written by a foreigner, defended by a foreigner, and without any merit at all. MAGA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is Techdirt, not Stormfront. Please stop trying to spread an irrational and unfounded hatred for anyone outside of the United States.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you notice that it said “patents” and not “American patents”? Start from there.
How does what you complain about change the fact that this is a story about Denmark?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Maybe a long history of one sided horseshit published by Techdirt and promoted by Google to the effect that the patent system needs to be abandoned, exactly as this article begins.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please offer proof that Google promotes Techdirt. A link to a Techdirt article sitting at the top of a given set of search results from Google does not count—unless you can prove direct collusion between Google and Techdirt to make Techdirt sit atop said search results.
Show your work or piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You offer no explanation for the inexplicable (Techdirt’s high ranking on Google), why is that? You don’t have any idea how it happens? Neither do we. Doesn’t seem at all plausible. It’s a big mystery. And you want me to stop asking questions about it, right? Don’t ask about the big mystery of why the Techdirt Pirate message is so widely spread by Google. That’s bad if I ask the question, right? And then I have to “piss off”? Because I asked the question that you can’t answer and I can’t answer except for the obvious answer? I mean, the obvious answer is that the Techdirt Pirate messaging is actually Google messaging, in a deniable form. That’s not possible, right? Oh wait, can I even say that here? Is it allowed?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Asking a whole bunch of questions in that way does nothing but obfuscate your lack of evidence. I need not answer any or all of them when you cannot and will not answer one.
Show me direct evidence of any kind of collusion between Google and Techdirt or piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Gosh, this is getting to be a ritual, you tell me to piss off, and eventually I do. Kind of feels familiar now.
Lack of evidence? What better evidence than search results? Say, for example, someone transplanted Techdirt’s content somewhere else, and it never showed up on a Google search. How to explain that? How did the actual Techdirt.com site get so “special” from Google’s point of view?
What would you consider evidence, could you spell out what you mean, please? I mean, other than the MOST OBVIOUS evidence – search results – what else would satisfy you?
Oh, wait, questions are bad, right? And you told me to piss off twice, right? I’m about done here, right?
Re: Re: Re:7 Oi.
A search engine returns relevant results based on a number of different algorithms—one of which is a person’s given search history, including which results they click on.
Unless you can prove direct collusion between Google and Techdirt to cheat those algorithms and put the site, your claim is inaccurate at best, an outright and knowing lie at worst. Prove the collusion or piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Wait… you’re saying that a Google search ranking is evidence of collusion between Google and the target website?
“Say, for example, someone transplanted Techdirt’s content somewhere else, and it never showed up on a Google search. How to explain that?”
Google’s software hasn’t indexed the new location yet. That’s evidence of a conspiracy?
Wow.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I find the whole question confusing. First, Google is an independent business on the public market, with a legal obligation to maximumize the value of their shares, right? And, they can do anything they want to, right, it’s a free country, after all. So, they actually provably will do everything they can to serve their agenda, which includes slanting searches any way they like, right? Their agenda is clear (open source etc.) their abilities are clear (no regulations in this area) so peso facto they ARE doing exactly what they want to maximimize their value and carry out their agenda. Hard to see another way, right. And they promote Techdirt in a really amazing way, the statistics are staggering, we’ve been studying them for some time. So, what about collusion? Collusion with themselves and their own agenda? What are you saying, actually? The evidence is pretty compelling.
Re: Re: Re:9 LOLwut.
Provide the supposed evidence of collusion between Google and Techdirt or piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
The we’ve part is rather telling It’s like a seance with you. Is it mynamehere I am speaking with? Is this the voice of Hamilton you speak with? Are you the ghost of out of the blue? I sense the presence of horse with no name etc etc etc.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Science 101: Correlation does not imply causation.
Techdirt is a popular site. The more popular the site, the higher it will list in Google’s results. I am also on Reddit a lot and occasionally I see them on the front page of Reddit. Are they now colluding with Reddit? Or could it be that a lot of people go to Techdirt and that is causing them to have a high ranking.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
OK, it’s time to let the nice men in white coats take you back to the padded room and give you the little happy pills again. There’s no shame in admitting that you’ve lost grip on reality again and need a break from the mean old Internet. Must be all those foreign inventions that let you use it playing with your mind, huh?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I refuse to honor your shameful attack on my sanity with a reply. Oh wait.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s not inexplicable at all.
First off, Techdirt was here before Google even existed.
Second, Techdirt doesn’t "disappear" old articles, so everyday new content is added to their huge repository, which in and of itself, will increase the odds of being relevant to what people are searching for.
Third, (and I am guessing here), is that a lot of people click through to Techdirt because it actually discusses the issues they happen to be searching for. Being relevant to what is being searched goes a long way to increasing rankings, I’m sure.
There are probably many more perfectly reasonable reasons for Techdirt’s rankings too. You do realize that Techdirt is pretty popular don’t you? They get somewhere between 1.5 million to 2 million page hits a month and somewhere around 15% of those are from Google searches.
This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Just so I’m not accused pulling numbers out of my ass:
The 15% of traffic originating from Google comes from here:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/techdirt.com
And the total traffic numbers are from here:
https://www.similarweb.com/website/techdirt.com
I have no idea how accurate these numbers may be, but it certainly will give you a rough idea of Techdirt’s popularity and amount of traffic coming from Google.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Ouch. No mercy!
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Hamilton hasn’t been keeping up with the troll rhetoric. According to MyNameHere Techdirt is not only insignificant, but to use a popular trope he’s been bandying around, the website’s Alexa rankings have been dropping.
So what we have here is Shiva’s lap/attack dog claiming that Google is funding a website that is dying, which somehow poses enough of a threat that Shiva absolutely has to salvage his reputation – from a website that, according to anti-piracy supporters that regularly denigrate the website, has no effective political, social or online presence, clout or influence.
So either the website is more significant than the trolls are making it out to be, or Shiva is throwing lots of money to swat a mosquito. At least one group of trolls is bullshitting. (Of course, it’s could very easily be both.)
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
The left sockpuppet doesn’t know what the right sockpuppet is doing.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Hey, Gwiz, thanks for that, interesting, and backed up by facts. You tend to be a pretty straight shooter, and you write good code.
These other guys, not so much. You remember when I asked the rhetorical question “Who are the giants behind the thumbs that are squeezing this pimple?”. That was a real question, posed to make people think. Obviously the Techdirt pimple is just an irritation to polite society, so why invest resources at the Trump level to burst such an insignificant and unsightly blemish? Because it’s not Techdirt, this is law and order (the elected Trumps) against lawlessness, mob rule and anarchy (Techdirt and Google).
I think that has become more publicly exposed recently over the last few days, just look at the articles about Doxxing and “Free Speech”. I’m sure you read them, Gwiz, what did you think of the actual Americans posting on this site?
Free Speech absolutely DOES mean free from consequences, except within the framework of the law, that’s an important point. About doxxing, Techdirt is ready to out ANYONE but itself for it’s hateful and public rhetoric. Pretty clear, right? One standard for the goofballs here, another for “white supremacists” or anyone standing anywhere near them. Mob rule is un-American, don’t you think?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“this is law and order (the elected Trumps)”
I’d look at their history if I were you. Start with them being prosecuted for illegal racial discrimination on property rental, maybe end with ongoing lawsuits against them for not paying the small suppliers they hired for their businesses (including the bankrupted ones). There’s plenty of lawbreaking in the Trump family. Not justice for their crimes necessarily, since the US never truly prosecutes its rich, but plenty of lawbreaking,.
“Free Speech absolutely DOES mean free from consequences”
No, it really doesn’t. There’s literally laws in the US that state that. Perhaps instead of your mindless jingoism, you should start looking at how your country works in the real world.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
MAGA = Make Anonymous cowards Go Away! I could get on board for that.
I hope it succeeds and dwarves the other traditional patents. Maybe then politicians will fix the system by creating a patent pool that has clear rules and cost to use and make the process of granting some patent much stricter.
The current system is irreversibly broken.
Re: Re:
Spoken like the ignorant hate monger you are. Where do you live, I have some Thai friends that want to meet you. A lot.
Ninja outed as Techdirt Supremacist
Admit you are a Supremacist, Ninja, or apologize for your disgusting remarks about the Thai king. Admit that you and your kind at Techdirt will publish your hate speech worldwide while simultaneously censoring others who are blameless. Admit being what you are, admit you are a Supremacist, or apologize for making a mistake. Apologize publicly and sincerely to the people of Thailand.
Re: Ninja outed as Techdirt Supremacist
Wow, this troll’s so stupidly hateful he can’t even manage to contain his harrassment of commenters contained to the thread or even article he started.
Chucklefuck here started the “Ninja’s hyperbolic mocking of the Thai king to protest laughably stupid Thai laws is wrong because the voices in my ass said so” screed a couple stories after this one, the @YesYoureRacist story.