You're the one who claimed "University technology transfer throughout the country -- from public schools alone -- is very lucrative and beneficial to the economics of our society." So, do you have evidence to back up the claim, or not?
I dream of a time when you'll get your phone clean and install whatever you want just like PCs.
I think the closest to that is the Google phones, like the Nexus 6. Pure stock Android, with nothing added. There are a bunch of apps preloaded of course, things like email, gmail, google maps, play store, clock, calculator, browser. But I would consider it just the basics of what a typical user would want to start with.
They had the two groups separated, with the people who actually knew what they were talking about going second so that the 'law enforcement' side could make up any claims they wanted with minimal ability for the tech side to point out how they were wrong.
Their oversight was in having the bullshit go first. If they had done it the other way around, the industry people wouldn't have had any opportunity to correct the lies (errors?).
The question is why do you think it's so obvious? You still have not provided any evidence that society or the economy is better off with these patent fees than without them. We're all aware of the theoretical justification for patents, which is all you've provided, but that doesn't mean it actually works that way in general, and certainly doesn't imply anything for any particular example.
It recoups those costs from companies [worldwide] who chose to license the patented technology to create products the public needs.
Those are the members of the public I was talking about. The only cases when there's even any possible net benefit to taxpayers as a whole is when the patent is licensed to a foreign company. That doesn't seem worth the cost to me, but the case should be made based on that single scenario, not by pretending that licensing fees are magical money that comes from nowhere to fund the government.
University technology transfer throughout the country -- from public schools alone -- is very lucrative and beneficial to the economics of our society.
You have not demonstrated that. You would have to provide some evidence that the net benefit to society of licensing fees to the university is greater than the net benefit of letting people use those inventions for free. It's possible that the university is better off, but that's a much smaller claim, and one also not supported by the evidence you provided since those documents detail only revenues and not expenses.
When read with his initial claim ("Authors don't hold the copyrights, publishers do via their contracts with authors") he seemed to be suggesting that without copyright, or at least some way of enforcing it, "the only sales to be lost here would be the rare occasion, where someone discovered that a certain book wasn't about what they thought it was".
No, he was saying that is the only way Google's book scanning project could result in lost book sales.
That said, how else are you going to protect copyright in a digital work?
Why is your focus on protecting the copyright? Are authors in the business of copyrighting things, or in writing? If you instead focus on building an audience and selling things, you won't need to worry about protection.
FYI, public domain works are FREE works. The author gets paid NOTHING.
As Paul mentioned, that is a non sequitur.
To be more specific, having unworkable DRM systems would merely encourage authors to keep their works out of the digital domain.
Stupid authors maybe. Smart ones know that's where the market is moving, regardless of what they might pine for.
Your inability to actually cite any examples suggests otherwise.
Not only would that eliminate the government's ability to recoup the creation expense by licensing or sell the program
Keep in mind that they would be recouping these expenses from members of the public, and that's who already funded the expenses with tax money. So there is no need to recoup anything; if it's worth doing then let the taxpayers fund it, and if it's not, then don't do it.
How do you figure that? If you abolished copyright on DIGITAL (as opposed to PRINTED) books, why would most people BUY a digital book at all when those SAME books would soon be available for free from the countless archives which would quickly populate the Net?
I don't see anyone saying we should abolish copyright on anything (in this discussion). Where did you get that?
That would require the use of DRM or some equivalent otherwise digitisation would NOT be for the benefit of authors. One person could buy a digitised book, then put it online for others to download for free.
You're joking right? Or satirizing what the guild's position would be?