You can deny that patent protection stimulates innovation and promotes the creation of new products all you want. You have the right to be wrong.
I see. So now all you're left with arguing is "nyah, nyah, nyah"?
The evidence is on my side. I pointed to studies showing most tech transfer is an economic loss. There is evidence showing that patents are rarely an incentive for building products.
And when we're talking about publicly funded technology, the "businesses" you name have mostly been patent trolls, rather than useful services. Yes, there are some exceptions, but few and far between. And none of them required the patents.
The fact that businesses have been built based on university patents is not an argument in your favor. It just means that someone's figured out a way to skim money off the inefficiencies in the system, not that it's created overall economic benefit.
Inventions aren't used. Products are used. Why would a private company spend its resources to turn an invention into a product if any other could freely do so as well? None will.
This is ridiculously ignorant. History has shown time and time again that there is massive innovation and product development with a LACK of patents. It's when patents enter the space that the pace of product development slows down, because it limits competition.
The reason people make products -- even when they can be copied -- is to sell them or to serve their own needs. The idea that no one will invest in making products because others will copy makes no sense. You have tremendous advantages in making actual products, especially if you're first to market, can build a brand and can better serve customers.
The idea that you can't compete against a knockoff product suggests only a company that doesn't belong in business.
Your knowledge of how business works is severely lacking.
The University of California collected $118M in patent licensing fees in 2014 alone. And spun off 86 startups [all who will employ people and pay taxes]. University technology transfer throughout the country -- from public schools alone -- is very lucrative and beneficial to the economics of our society. Those benefits are just rewards from taxpayer investment in public universities.
This is wrong. Yes, Cal made a ton of money being a patent troll, but the "benefits" to the public are unproven. And the VAST majority of tech transfer offices have lost money. A very small number (Stanford, MIT, Cal) make money, but most do not.
And unfortunately, of the few that do make money, like Cal, they've mostly focused purely on trolling -- using broad patents to shake down actual innovators, rather than actually transfering inventions into the commercial sector.
You know what? In a big organization, it sometimes takes days or even weeks before HR gets around to actually spreading the news. OFten enough, they never spread the news and users get removed when you do a username audit (not often enough, apparently).
I don't know any medium to big organization that does not have a fairly complete and comprehensive termination procedure set up that shuts down all such access. The idea that the Tribune Company would not have that is corporate malpractice. That's stunning.
Seriously. Why do you promote a Java language course? It is a security nightmare and being in the IT business for more than 30 years, I can't think of a single company that utilizes java except for some old Cisco apps.
Java applets in webpages are a security nightmare. But java is still widely used in developing software. I just did a quick search for job openings in a 30 mile radius around here and there are over 2000 java developer positions open:
Brian, thanks for responding. I can let Tim respond himself, but on a few points I think your argument is unfair as well:
No one is blaming Apple for a wrongful arrest. It is quite the opposite. As the story explains, Apple's help was essential in finding the actual killer. The point of my piece is to show how Apple has typically been part of the investigative procedure, and ask what will be lost as Apple reduces that help, not only by being unable to unlock phones but perhaps by also cutting off access to data in the cloud.
You're basically saying "if Apple doesn't help there will be wrongful arrests." It seems perfectly bizarre to suggest that bad police work is somehow Apple's fault.
All I'm asking is, what will the effects on the criminal justice system be? Shouldn't we at least hear the cops and prosecutors out rather than merely dismissing them out of hand?
That suggests that no one is taking the concerns seriously or going through them. But that's not true. Every time the police or others in law enforcement have raised concerns, people HAVE looked closely at them, and basically every time they've been massively exaggerated.
The idea that "going dark" is a real problem doesn't seem supported by reality. Giving it credence based purely on anecdotes seems like a weak response, which is why Tim wrote his article.
So far a very small percentage of cases have been held up by the inability to carry out search warrants on phones. But isn't it possible that at some point some threshold will be crossed where we look up and find that has changed quickly--especially if the cloud access is cut off?
That seems far fetched based on the simple fact that most of the information from mobile phones that is now available WASN'T available just a few years ago... and police did just fine using other detective and investigation work. To argue that this will magically create some dark crime wave doesn't make much sense.
Every day I read computer security people blowing off the idea that the cops are affected very much in their ability to pursue serious crimes. All I'm doing is showing you the argument for the costs. It's not surprising that you think the benefits outweigh them. But don't get into high dudgeon under preposterous headlines just because someone is reminding you that we should always revisit the trade-offs.
To be fair here, you can blame me for the headline. Cushing had a different one that I scrapped in favor of this headline.
We absolutely recognize the tradeoffs. Hell, I did a whole video discussing the tradeoffs (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160321/16175933972/mike-masnick-explains-apple-versus-fbi.shtml ). But our basic concern here is that if you're going to discuss the trade offs you should present them accurately, which I felt that article did not fairly do.
I gotta hand it to you, Whatever. As you've done for years, through all your different identities, the one thing you do better than any other troll is state with absolute confidence things that are absolute bullshit. It's a skill. You should be proud of it.
Not at all. DMCA was created in no small part to handle the concept of accidental or unintentional copyright violation, so that a violation didn't lead directly to a lawsuit, which was previously the only way to deal with the issue.
This is not even remotely close to true. DMCA 512 had nothing to do with that at all, but was solely about dealing with the intermediaries and their responsibilities. And, it shows an astounding lack of understanding of the history of copyright law prior to the DMCA to claim that the only way to deal with it prior to that was a lawsuit. Because that's not true. Under earlier court rulings, liability had been placed on intermediaries, meaning that those intermediaries were actually incentivized to proactively remove content. The DMCA set up a much more reasonable process to prevent overaggressive removals from continuing.
Imagine for a second that rather than a DMCA notice about your Youtube video with Michael Jackson music in it, you instead got served for a million dollar lawsuit. Imagine the costs related (for both parties) in having to take this step. If you want to talk about "chilling effects", you should consider what the lack of the current DMCA law would do.
You are conflating the intermediary with the actual infringer. It suggests someone who knows nothing of the DMCA or what it actually says.
Bullshit. Under the DMCA, you are not liable for massive statutory damages unless you ALSO ignore the DMCA and leave the offending content up. It cuts both ways, DMCA is actually so lenient for offenders that it has encouraged and created entire online business models predicated on "okay until we get a notice" rather than "okay because I have the rights". DMCA is a law that is very heavily biased towards protecting offenders, and not rights holders.
Again, you confuse intermediaries and infringers. And you say it so confidently. Actual infringers are not protected by the DMCA. Yes, they are subject to massive statutory damages no matter what the DMCA says because they're not protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Only intermediaries are.
And saying it was biased towards offenders is laughable. The law was written by the RIAA.
Show me an instance of a takedown using a hash that has led to a tremendous amount of censorship.
You do realize that this article is about the false positives from automated takedowns and how widely they apply? Or did you just think that if you skipped reading the details and focused on the insults everyone would forget the ACTUAL DATA AND STORY ABOVE?
There are so few true abuses of DMCA that rise to the levels prescribed in the law (knowingly issuing a false claim). It's a sufficiently high hurdle that few have even approached that level. Even some of what Techdirt would consider abuses are more people misinformed about the uses of DMCA, and not people intentionally misusing or making false claims.
So at the very least you admit that there's a massive double standard here: you can only be found to have abused the DMCA if you do so "knowingly" (and you leave out that the standard used by the court here requires a ridiculously high bar), but for infringement, accidental or unintentional infringement still subjects you to MASSIVE statutory damages.
Masnick is already well aware that hashes could be used effectively for this issue, but due to his pathological dishonesty, you won't see that discussed.
It's discussed every time ContentID fucks up yet again. Using automated takedown systems involving hashes aren't an effective solution and lead to a tremendous amount of censorship. Which was the point of this very article that you ridiculously claim doesn't mention that hashes work. Because they don't.