Re: The patent system as such isn't broken: corporatists use it.
OOTB, you are positively a terrible reader, with consistently lacking retention and comprehension.
You wrote that Mike criticized IV and the patent system "without quite admitting the possibility that AmEx too is a bad actor". You'd have to be an idiot to miss this:
"I'll note that AmEx's argument here is totally nonsensical... I'm sure AmEx also got a nice tax deduction for "donating" the patent to CMAF (CMAF's website plays up that there are tax benefits to donating patents to it). And then IV gets to still sue a bunch of AmEx competitors over the patent AmEx insisted it was donating for the good of the public... Nice trick."
And, PS, I recall that AmEx, at least years back, was a paying client of Techdirt expert insight, but Mike still criticizes them openly. It speaks to integrity. You could never spot integrity, because you can't get past the hurdle of understanding language.
Well, can't blame the consumer too much. I mean, where would you buy your phone if you didn't want to work with an aggressive patenter? You'd have a hard time choosing a phone, or any tech hardware at all.
The rules are set that create the perverse incentives, so companies respond. Don't hate the player, hate the rules.
"From right in the city park, where I left them. I figured why take them home every night, then back to the park the next day, so I just left them there. But when I came back, they were gone."
"Here's an idea. You should not leave your stuff in a public park where its free for anyone to access. People won't know whether it's public property, private, a freebie, and eventually some person will surely just take it. Next time, take your toys home, and put them inside your house. Then, lock your house."
"Wow. That's easy to do. Thanks for the great advice."
The LA Times reporter stated some truth, but you and many others misinterpret it because the reporter wasn't clear enough:
"But the Google equipment also gathered and stored data from unencrypted networks, including personal emails, usernames, passwords, videos and documents."
What that really means is:
But the Google equipment also captured the bits that happened to be transmitted in the few seconds as they were driving by. If those networks were not locked, that means Google would capture bits that represented parts of emails, web pages, or whatever content the WiFi network was broadcasting openly at the time.
You see, the way the reporter positioned it, and the way you read it, it makes it look like Google went poking around INSIDE the "victim's" LAN network, snooping into PCs and programs to take documents, emails, etc. They did not. They just stored what was being transmitted freely into the streets, as they briefly drove by.
You want security for your documents and emails (from Google), don't broadcast them, unencrypted into the street. Not when Google drives by...or not really ever. Easy to achieve.
Not a bad argument, but there is a serious difference between fields and emissions your body emanates involuntarily, and those that require a deliberate effort.
IR heat signatures are totally involuntary, and we have no option to stop transmitting. Wi-Fi is completely deliberate, and requires effort to openly broadcast a signal (since the defaults are secured).
Once again, my main counter-argument is: how do people who WANT to share do so, if courts consider the technological equivalent of broadcasting an invitation as NOT an invitation. My side of this debate has given a clear answer as how people can signal that they don't want to share, but the opposition has not shown a way we can signal a share, given that signaling "I am open for connections" means not that.
Secured WPA WiFi with encrypted data is like a vault in your home. The contents of the vault are expected to be invulnerable.
- It would be disastrous if someone got access.
Secured WiFi is like a locked home. The contents of your house are expected to be relatively safe.
- You wouldn't want anyone to break in, and have taken measures against it.
Unsecured WiFi is like offering a connection to anyone. It's like leaving the contents of your house in a park with a "Free, take me" sign.
- This is a useful tool for coffee shops, marketers, people hoping that users can easily get on the network.
Our problem with government agencies is hardly that they are snooping on our open WiFi networks. I would care as little about that as I do about Google's mapping war drives. This discussion is soooo far away from what the government does, it's hard to see how you connected them.
You don't *want* to broadcast your WiFi transmissions? Turn on security. Most routers have defaulted to this for almost 5 years. It should be considered a conscious choice if someone leaves their WiFi fully open.
In fact, the very "openness" of the WiFi signal is the only indication I have as to whether you want your signal to be open or not.
So, if you don't want people to snoop on your open WiFi...secure it. But that still won't stop the gov't from seeing your shit.
If you think Nokia wasn't in a tailspin when they brought Elop in, you're ill-informed.
"[MSFT is] buying a few pieces of Nokia that are still valuable"
Really? You think the handset business is more valuable than the Intellectual Property? Sadly, I think that's up for debate. But more importantly, you seem to think the handset business is more important than the cellular infrastructure business?
"[MSFT bought Nokia] much lower than what they were looking at buying Nokia for a few years ago"
Well, yeah. That's what happens when the stock goes down. In fact, generally, it's when a stock goes way down that a company becomes a M&A target, so, duh? Also, you seem to be suggesting that MSFT strategically wanted Nokia to fail so they could buy them. On the surface, today, that even seems plausible. But that implies that MSFT didn't want to sell lots of Windows Phone devices starting in 2011. Do you really think that? It's nonsense. Of course, MSFT would be better off if Nokia had succeeded - they would have some mobile market share, and the MSFT market cap would be substantially higher.
"Does this all seem just a little bit too convenient to anyone else?"
You are seeing patterns that are obvious, but are not actually correct.
On one hand, I could back out the argument by saying "Well, I did say it was crazy.", but instead, I'll take the bait...
Sure, baby eating is a bad use of babies. But similarly, the TIGER database could have been used to plan bombing missions against the USA, or optimal drug dealer escape routes. The fact is, the data could be used for beneficial or malevolent uses, why do you exclusively focus on the negative? If so, please stop using a knife and fork, because they are frequenly used in baby eating, and should thus be banned.
The publicly funded research that produces useful drugs can also be used, in some instances, to produce chemical and biological weapons, therefore, you would also advocate against releasing that research, I suppose?
You see, pointing out that something CAN be used for evil really does nothing to educate the discussion of whether it should be done. The fact is, we ALREADY have the NSA data, it pretty much IS already being used for evil, why not make it also useful for something good?
Your position is more akin to saying: "Knives and forks are already used to eat babies, therefore, we should not try to find beneficial uses for knives and forks.
Hey, Baby. I DIDN'T Cheat 710,000,000 More Times Than I Did
Honey, I know I cheated with 5 women. But, baby, think of how good I've been. The world has about 7.1 Billion people, half of them women. And I didn't cheat with 3.55 Billion of them. I couldn't even dream of it, because I was just thinking of you.
And if you add in Pomosexuality, I didn't cheat with 7,999,999,995 people.
Math don't lie, baby. I am almost totally straight with you, and insignificantly a cheater.
University publicly funded research is often published openly, and is frequently used by free market enterprises as a basis for their products, say, drugs.
The GPS you use every day has proprietary map data at it's core, probably from Google, NavTeq, or Telenav. However, all of those cartography companies started their geo data using the TIGER database provided by the federal government. TIGER is old, but it gave everyone a pretty high platform as a starting point.
Crazy as the idea is, the NSA data exists. It's ours. It could be useful. And as a tremendous starting point platform, it would create a more competitive environment for the technology/web/advertising industry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!
Apparently, going to the store and buying a case of water, carrying it to the car, carrying it out of the car into the home, opening the plastic, then carrying an individual bottle...is more convenient than getting a cup and turning a tap.
No, sir. I use the tap over bottle water, mostly for the additional convenience.
Are you physically unable to say anything correct?