"scarce hardware" is in the difference between "scarcity" (i.e., limited resources) which hardware definitely is. No one said it wasn't commodity parts, but those are still scarce items.
The "betting against Apple" line was part of an explanation for why I thought Apple *wouldn't* succeed in the long term, not why it would as your comment implied. I was explaining that, yes, Apple has gotten a lot right in the last few years, but that doesn't mean it will continue, which I thought was clear if you listened to the overall podcast.
The reason the medallion system exists is to limit the amount of cars in Manhattan during business hours.
That's the official reason given. But studies for years have shown that it's bullshit and that you could increase the number of cabs in the city, which would decrease costs and increase the ability to get around and the city never budged. It became clear that the medallion system was about keeping competition limited.
The city cannot handle the traffic a bunch of Uber drivers cruising for fares will generate.
And yet... it has. After years of no increase in medallions, with current medallion owners claiming any increase would kill traffic flow in NYC, Uber showed up, added thousands of cars... and there was no serious issue.
Don't see how this will help when your Uber driver is stuck in traffic for an hour trying to pick you up when the UN General Assembly is in town.
One of our biggest critics once won most insightful, though I'm having trouble finding the exact post where it happened... I forget the exact context as well, but I believe people basically asked him for a legitimate critique, rather than his usual trolling and he provided one and people voted for it. And then he went back to trolling.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VCs might not like patent trolls, but they use them
Heh. Just came back to check on this thread. I find it rather amusing that when someone called out antidirt's total misreading of the article, he disappeared. Of course, if *I* did that, he'd attack me left right center and upside down for "running away."
There is no way the Dems are beholden to corporate 'Merica. They are the party of the people. Or are they? Let's examine that.
1. They bow down to Hollywood 2. They are pushing this particular trade bill 3. They claim to be for the little people and want to raise min-wage, yet they allow millions of illegals in to both take jobs from 'Mericans and to keep the labor rate low through the supply outstripping the demand.
But yea, they are for the little guy.
We didn't say anything about political parties as that's really neither here nor there. So not sure who this comment is directed at. But, for what it's worth, the majority of Dems in Congress do appear to be opposed to this bill. There are some for it and the administration is for it, but it's a bit bizarre to make this a partisan attack on Dems.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VCs might not like patent trolls, but they use them
Can't wait for your substantive answers on the merits.
I'd be happy to engage in someone who indicated that they were serious in engaging. However, the snide tone you are using, the intentional misrepresentations of my statements, followed by the ever-present digs at the idea that I won't respond makes it clear that you are trolling.
I am assuming that, given that one commenter on this site in particular tends to employ the same trollish tactics, that you are likely the same person, who is well aware of why there is no point in engaging with you. You will move the goalposts. You will flat out lie. You will misrepresent what I say... and when all that fails and you look foolish, you will throw a tantrum. Been there, done that, and have real work to do.
I'm not skeptical of RPX's *data*. I'm skeptical of RPX *as a business*.
And the research was not by RPX but by James Bessen and Michael Meurer, two of the most respected voices in the space, whose work has been proven accurate time and time again. It is, of course, no surprise that some patent trolls have tried to attack it, but the overall methodology was indeed quite sound in demonstrating the extent of the problem.
Significant venture capital investment is based on the existence of patents to protect an emerging company’s innovative idea and deter competitors from stealing their idea. If this investment is not protected through a strong patent system that acts as a deterrent on infringement, further investment in patent-reliant technology will decline.
That statement is just laughable and wrong, and goes against what top VCs have said for well over a decade, including in the study that NVCA itself participated in.
Re: VCs might not like patent trolls, but they use them
One odd thing that was hinted at during the Ellen Pao trial was she was involved in setting up a patent licensing company. It appeared that company was established in order to acquire and license patents to their portfolio companies.
That's not entirely true or accurate. She was involved in sourcing RPX's investment to KPCB, but RPX is not really a patent troll. RPX was actually set up to *combat* the patent troll problem, by allowing companies to pool resources to buy up patents and share them *for defensive purposes only*.
It simpler terms, it was a way for KPMG to extract money from firms they controlled, cutting out regular shareholder and other investors.
KPMG is a big consulting firm. You mean KPCB which is entirely unrelated from KPMG. And while I'm in the more skeptical camp about RPX and think it would be better if it was not even needed, to argue that it's in the trolling business would be inaccurate. It's an anti-trolling operation.
So...let's play Name That Party! Anyone care to guess what political party membership the slimy Mr. Hood (what an apt name he has, to be sure) holds? Yup, he's a Democrat - a fact that isn't mentioned a single time in this article, nor seemingly in any previous articles on this case. How strange. Especially since party identification always seems to occur in the very first line of any article about a Republican's misdeeds.
As noted by others that's not true. Unless there is a story-specific reason for naming the party, we do not name parties as a matter of policy. Because, when we do, idiots show up with partisan screaming points, rather than actual discussion.
Our policy has always been unless there's a relevant reason to name the party (no matter which party) we leave it out.