"it will scare off folks involved in these attacks" I'm really glad you brought this up. The act of "making an example" of someone in an attempt to dissuade others from following in their footsteps, is mutually exclusive to justice. In fact, it is a human rights violation, as well as a violation of public trust. Criminal justice *has to be* uniform, systemic and above all indiscriminate. When the system is used as a weapon of terror, it becomes an oppressive device that hearkens back to the iron fisted brutality of the British empire in the 1800's.
This was an enjoyable read. Not because it reiterates the obvious but because the distinct point of view between the people that practice law, and the people that actually do the research that results in patents, has been growing rapidly. It's always refreshing to see that someone who is steeped in the system can still see the forest for the trees. I almost always hear "you would have to be a patent attorney to understand the issues" and I remind them that, as system for attorneys by attorneys, was never the intent of the system in the first place. Also the term of a patent should be related to the barrier to entry of a given market. The seemingly whimsical nature of the USPTO's willingness to introduce monopolies into a free market, is extremely troubling to most people who are observing from outside the legal prospective... especially, to those of us who actually develop new technologies.
I think it goes the other way man. They get the patent they get a hungry lawyer, they get to controll their industry, blocking startups from disrupting their racket, and they collect on work they had nothing to do with. That's pretty much the same story with deep pockets in all industry process patents.
"That's the problem people have with your ignorant ideals of magic business models. Even with the most innovative music business models, no one is exactly raking in the dough, unless you are a huge act that already has a crapload of devout followers (NIN comes to mind)."
ummm yeah that IS the point. You don't make dedicated fans by suing the freckles off of every fresh faced kid. So, here ya go, the music industry is going through the same metamorphosis that the News Papers, Books, TV, Movies and even software is going through. Net revenue (budump ching) may drop initially, but the merchandising, live shows, Bah Mitzvahs or what have you, will have fewer greedy creeps, taking more than they deserve. By trimming the (mostly) fat. Artists will prosper, and manage their own celebrity directly with their fans. Basically an army of lawyers, performance rights "societies", record labels, managers A-X ... will have to pound sand... they make terrible backup singers anyway.
"I challenge you to state actual dollar amounts artists are making with your praised innovative business models. Put up or shut up..."
Well, whats say you put up a reasonable comparator first so we're not comparing apples to oranges. I'm going to need you to scan their tax forms and driver license photos. Please provide us with, the name of act, if not evident by the above documents.
I look forward to your next post Mr. Coward. If that is indeed your real name.
I did know that. I also know that it worked in favor of ONLY the big dogs. The little guy had no venue. So, it wasn't even an issue with the powers that be. Today, EVERYONE is creating constantly and sharing, extending and (unfortunately) protecting, their works in ways that are as innovative as the works themselves. So, the only way I see this working out, is expressly declaring public domain on your work. The free software movement (gpl and other copyleft licenses), would be over. Presuming that it turns out to be a matter of money... which you can BET it will be, regardless of the initial legislation. Then, it's patents all over again. Believe me, they wouldn't be supporting it, if it were not good for them, and bad for us. They think it has to be that way.
Good to know that invention is safely in the hands of it's inventor. Who I'm sure spent billions on research. Picture teams of people in lab coats, standing around a person sitting in front of a computer, with all sorts of sensors hooked up to him. They're watching... waiting patiently, then the flash of genius, he USES the mouse. Not clicking twice like every other un-inventive stodge... but ... ONCE~!
Boom! Do you have any idea how many clicks are saved everyday because Amazon shared this with the world through this patent. Do you? Well, I asked an expert and he said 23462664763245627.001 clicks are saved every day. That's enough energy to power the entire sun for 10,000 years. So, next time you enjoy a sunny day, remember.. you have Amazon to thank.
wait..."opt-in would be much, much better"... How would that even work? As in, would you have to file some sort of application like patents? Would all works be released into the public domain until the approval or what not? Wouldn't opt out make more sense? Where in you have the option to surrender your work, rather than not owning it until the government says so? I mean, to say, "from this moment on it's PD", that should be a fundamental right, but I cant imagine having everything automatically in PD. It there's money involved, opt-in is a horrible idea, IMO. Sounds like a giveaway to those that would lockup culture that they had nothing to do with creating. I suppose, I'd have to see a context of implementation... But I'm admittedly skeptical.
Wow, ok.. you're misrepresenting a number of facts here.
1. the GPL v2 has an implied patent grant, the GPL v3 has an explicit grant. Meaning that your software cant be tainted if using the GPL as your license.
2. Sigh,no, RedHat does not "get it" as you imply "support software patents". They were sued by this NPE and took em' to task. Then the company simply offered to end the dispute if they'd call it a "settlement" and Acacia could move on to the next chump who would just pay up without a lengthy trial that could very well end up like the first Redhat trial, where they lost the junk patent. See how that works? Acacia wants fast settlement money, not hard fought risky litigation.
3. How old are you? You argue like a teenage kid who's just learning to belong to something and runs around writing "TEAM JACOB RUULEZ!!" on every bathroom wall.
He's talking about software patents. Like the ones you read about here. Granted by some examiner who's "skilled in the art" because he has a background using Excel macros.
He's absolutely right BTW, there is no way these entitlements can be sustained. More people are starting to realize what a mistake we've made in creating a system where imagination alone is worth ridiculous mountains of cash. The big things that were pushing for in reform now is a safe harbor, much shorter duration, reduced liability and grace in the event that theres no other option but to infringe while the patent is working its way out of the court system.
Re: Re: So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
Exactly! See, one copies, because reinventing the wheel would leave us with nothing but wheels. So, just consider this, "Microsoft - Apple - HP - Cisco - Micron - IBM - Intel" all copied others, and they make up a significant portion of the Global Economy. In fact, you could say, they prove that copying is the key to success... actually that's exactly what you did say...just now...
If every tech startup took the time to search the USPTO's database of potentially infringed algorithmic patents, then they seek to pay the patent holder before they do anything... Well, that means that only those with lot's of capitol to burn would ever start a business. Truly innovative startups don't really get capitol like that, Because their business is unproven. Given the current burdens imposed upon todays US based entrepreneur, I find it hard to expect any business to go out and hire a patent attorney to search for the hundred or so "inventors" that demand a pound of flesh from every dupe who believes he invented burping.
By the way, how much did the patent licenses cost you for your sites? I see several well known patents that you make use of. Just out of curiosity, are you paying IBM's quarterly or annual rate? You should share your story of happily paying the fees that those mega corps charge, and how it makes you feel like a real American?
The Microsoft thicket is a real problem, actually the whole idea patent thing is a real problem... but, oddly enough, to add more WTF to the situation, you can't patent a recipe. You might be able to patent the act of pouring the ingredients into a container though.
I'm sure it can be done, if you used a VM or some other insulated package. The point here is, for 3xA security, the System call is should never be a first tier solution. Especially to such a common task. Using libs (o/dll) to invoke or expose the desired functionality without commitment is always preferred over nixing security domains all together.
I hate to be this guy, on a forum that's topically legal in nature, but this is so old school, I cant stand it.
I'm astounded that any security minded architect would use the command line interface for anything at all. Even the disk written to has a viable interface wrapper in any language take your pick. I'm not saying there aren't vulnerabilities mind you. What I *am* saying is that upload of anything must be reproduced by the applications software in a DMZ before entering the data handler. That's 101 since forever. I'm really surprised at this level, given the sensitivity of the data, and the obvious vector for attack, that these methods would be employed at all? Call HP or someone that does a security audit of source code design before handing over tax payer money. This would have been identified in the initial sweep.
On the other hand, I recon we just aint gonna trust them fangled computers to make Democracy. We just aint got the technology. Oh well, suppose electing them politicians/lobbyists is the best we gonna get.