Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: Could Google's Motorola Buy To Fend Off Microsoft… Actually Drive More Business To Microsoft?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I know a few people who have it. However, only one of them doesn't work for Microsoft, the rest got theirs subsidized.

  • On the post: Need More Public Domain Material?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: what free curture ?

    USA as a Country, does not really have much of it's own 'culture' to attach too, and it's the American way to think
    So the USA has no culture, but then you go on to say that it's the American way to think a certain way? So part of our culture is to have no culture?
    I can never be A PART of that culture
    You can, but not because you've bought stuff. You could go out and live with the aborigines, like the aborigines, doing the things that the aborigines do, talking like them, using their idioms, etc. Then you can be a part of their culture. Acquiring items from their culture, however, is what you do when you really like a culture. In fact, acquiring stuff from other cultures is a big part of many people's culture.
    I find it odd to think that there are people who believe they can buy and sell 'culture', or that somehow you have a 'right' to take the culture of another group to call your own !!!!
    I know right. It's ridiculous that Warner Brothers can think that they own the Looney Tunes when that's part of my culture. They can't take that away from me. That's why copyright is such a sham. No one but me can own my culture. No one can sell it, it can't be bought, and they can't take it away from me. I can, however, share it with others. Why do we allow copyright when it is trying to lock up my culture and declare that someone else owns it? It's ridiculous.

  • On the post: Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey As Prior Art For Tablet Design

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 02:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, but?

    I just did the analysis. Apple slavishly copied the Kindle. See my comment above.

  • On the post: Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey As Prior Art For Tablet Design

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 02:06pm

    Re:

    I took your suggestion to it's logical conclusion. Let's compare the images.

    iPad
    Kindle DX
    Xoom

    I kept aspect ratios the same (unlike Apple) and I tried to match the top-to-bottom sizes as best I could (I'm not a graphics guy).

    Now size comparisons:
    Xoom - 249.1 x 168.9 x 12.9
    Kindle DX - 264.2 x 182.9 x 9.7
    iPad - 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8

    The iPad is both the shortest and the widest of the three. The Xoom and the Kindle almost exactly match.

    From this comparison, I think Amazon has prior art on Apple. Thus I conclude that if any are infringing, the Xoom and the iPad are both infringing on the Kindle. If the Xoom is similar enough to infringe on the iPad, then the iPad is similar enough to infringe on the Kindle DX. If Samsung loses, Amazon could go after both of them using the same arguments Apple used. In either case, Amazon definitely has prior art.

  • On the post: MP3Tunes Ruling Protects DMCA Safe Harbors

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 08:50am

    Re:

    If the music industry wants music lockers to police the music being uploaded to said music lockers how about they come up with their own music locker service that is better than all the others. They've got all that music that people want and you're telling me they can't provide a more compelling service? If they did, they could not only easily monitor for infringing songs, but then they'd also have personally identifying information (hello credit cards) of the infringers. Sounds like an extreme win to me. They cut out any middle men (except for themselves of course), they can easily stop infringing music being stored, and they'll have easy access to know who infringers are that they can then sue. So why don't they do that?

  • On the post: As Expected, Backpage Is Not Liable For Prostitution Ads

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Aug, 2011 @ 04:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Think about it in the real world for a second.

    I don't think it's so much a matter of percentage of total, but specific knowledge.

    I'm sure every hotel owner knows that some prostitution is going on in their rooms and every chemical manufacturer/seller knows that some of their chemicals are going to be used for illegal purposes. None of that matters. On the other hand, some hotel owners know which of their customers are prostitutes or johns, and some chemical manufacturers/sellers know which of their customers use their products for illicit purposes. Those who know but do business with those customers anyway can be liable (certainly in addition to those who are actually committing the crime, not instead of).

  • On the post: Court Ruling Opens The Door To Rejecting Many Software Patents As Being Mere 'Mental Processes'

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Aug, 2011 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And then what happens with people who want to progress beyond your idea? They either have to wait ~20 years to do so or they have to license that patent from you. It's possible that the cost of the patent license(s) for their product/service prices that product/service out of the market. So in either case, the result is that progress is held back until the patent(s) expire. Patents, by definition, hold back progress.

    The only other case to look at is the one where the patent license(s) don't price the product/service out of the market. However, the license(s) will still increase the cost of the product/service. This price hike ensures that progress is held back. Remember that progress isn't solely a better product/service/technology, but also an increase in efficiency, which includes lower costs. So the patent license(s) in even that case do indeed hold back progress.

    My argument isn't that patents kill progress, but that it holds it back. Your argument is that patents provide an incentive to create. However, nearly every study I have seen (some of which include before-and-after-patent-law scenarios) show that patents are not needed as an incentive. Some have even shown that patent law decreases the incentive. So we know that patents, by definition, hold back progress, and that patents, by empirical data, has been shown to hold back progress.

    We need to abolish patent law entirely.

  • On the post: Can PROTECT IP Be Fixed?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Aug, 2011 @ 09:34am

    Re: PROTECT IP is moot before it's legislation

    more and more of the boomers will be replaced by tech-savvy kids finding ways around any limitation thrown at them.
    Not to rain on your parade, but consider the number of people back in the 60s who might have said something similar about the then current leaders and drug laws. In reality, drug laws have only become even more strict once the hippie generation got into power. I'd love to see a tech-savvy congress, but after reading recently that 90% of people don't know how to use ctrl-f or otherwise search a document, I hold out little hope.

  • On the post: Court Ruling Opens The Door To Rejecting Many Software Patents As Being Mere 'Mental Processes'

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2011 @ 01:42pm

    Re:

    software patents do not promote progress and actually hold it back more often than not.
    All patents hold back progress by definition. Their existence ensures that progress is hindered. Each patent license only increases the costs of subsequent products/services. Do it enough times, and the product/service is priced out of existence, until patents start to expire.

    All patents by design hinder progress. This happens whether the hindering was intended or not.

  • On the post: Restaurant Owner Ordered To Pay BMI $30,450 For 'Illegally Playing' Four Unlicensed Songs

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2011 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Yay, Job Stimulus in progress!

    While this is true, you are leaving out the other side of the story, which is that democrats did the same. Unfortunately, copyright expansion has very much been a bipartisan affair.

  • On the post: Righthaven CEO Explains Losses: 'We've Blazed Some Trails; There Are Differences Of Opinion'

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Re: Normally I agree

    If Righthaven is as successful with Congress as they have been recently in court, I hope they take over all the copyright maximalist lobbying efforts.

  • On the post: How Getting A Patent Can Actually Be Detrimental To A Startup's Long Term Success

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2011 @ 03:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So what you are trying to say is that the IP they created was worth more than the company was going forward
    No, what he is trying to say is that the current value of the patents is greater than the current value of the company, not necessarily the future value of said company. That might be because the company couldn't possibly be worth anything ever, it might be because the likelihood of success is low, or it might be the usual short term current valuation alone.

    As an example, say Larry Page and Sergey Brin had patented the Pagerank algorithm. There was a time where that patent would have been worth more than Google. However, Google is now worth way more than the pagerank patent would have been.

  • On the post: UK Prime Minister Wants To Ban Suspected Rioters From Facebook & Twitter

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2011 @ 03:51pm

    Re: Calm them down

    I was thinking somewhat on the same lines. Cutting off lines of communication is exactly what you do in battle. So it's obvious that the UK government views the rioters as an enemy, rather than upset citizens. Once you realize how the government views its people, then understanding why they think using war-like tactics is a good idea.

  • On the post: Defendant Uses Glengarry Glen Ross To Try To Teach Righthaven About Truth

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2011 @ 03:04pm

    Re:

    Wait, this is the fascist front for patent-hating-nazis website? Crap dang man! I thought I was on the fascist patent-hating-nazis front website all this time.

  • On the post: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2011 @ 04:26pm

    Re: Not really

    Second, as any holder of patents knows, if patents are not defended then they are effectively valueless.
    You are getting trademarks and patents mixed up. In fact, submarine patent holders used this very method, waiting until their patents are in use everywhere, and then suing everyone they possible can.
    Apple took an enormous risk in bringing the iPad to market, investing large R&D costs. Samsung is not innovating by bringing the Galaxy Tab to market, it is copying ? essentially attempting to clean up based on risks taken by Apple.
    So does any business whether or not they have a patent. Risks are part and parcel of business. What you are saying is that all startups should have a monopoly in their market because they took a risk. I don't see why having invented something new should grant you that monopoly anymore than coming up with something new that isn't patentable. Why should we allow Settlers of Cataan to be copied, but not the iPad? Why should we allow AirBnB to be copied, but not the iPad?

    And to make matters even worse, we're not even talking about patents. If you read the linked article, you'll find that this is really about community designs. So Apple is blocking the Galaxy Tab merely because they think it looks similar to an iPad. This is rich considering Apple sued Microsoft and lost in a very similar case.

  • On the post: TSA Confiscates Pregnant Woman's Insulin, Ice Packs

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    She also claims to have smuggled stuff on board. She sounds like a truly credible, law abiding citizen, right?


    TSA agents have stolen a lot of stuff, molested children and the elderly, broke colostomy and urostomy bags, forced a woman to remove her prosthetic breast, lied about the amount of radiation the scanners use, lied about whether the machines can even store pictures, etc. I don't consider them credible at all. I don't have any reason to consider this lady less credible just because she didn't want to have the TSA go through her stuff.

  • On the post: TSA Confiscates Pregnant Woman's Insulin, Ice Packs

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re:

    I've been hit in the face with a water balloon and with a chunk of ice. Unless it's coming out of a fire hose, I'd prefer the melted ice any day.

  • On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 10:58am

    Re: Re:

    I want to bring more attention to this comment. Anyone who has kids who haven't gone to kindergarten yet knows that kids can play with other kids that are different ages easily.

    I have a daughter going into kindergarten soon and another daughter that is just barely two years old. They both play well together. Sure they have their moments, but for the most part, they not just get along, but play together. However, I'm worried that after a couple of years in school, they won't do this as well because school is designed in such a way that kids learn to segregate.

    Arguments can be made about whether or not segregation in school was intentional, but that it's there and that kids learn it is reality. Whether it was intentional or just an unintentional consequence, kids are learning about segregation. There was some headway made in breaking up the segregation of people based on skin color, but age based segregation is still there. I'm not totally even sold on the idea of segregating people based on skill level all the time. Humans learn well from seeing and mimicking. Having kids (whether older or younger) tutor other kids would be awesome.

  • On the post: Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2011 @ 03:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability

    That's one possibility, especially at first. But what if it becomes as automated as say a clothes dryer. No one I knows starts their dryer and then stands next to it until it's done, even though there is the potential for it to start a fire and burn an entire apartment down. I honestly don't know who would be at fault in such a situation, excepting the obvious (e.g., drying gasoline soaked clothes, manufacturer design flaws).

    The more I think about it, the more I think things probably wouldn't be any different than they are now. Insurance companies (and by extension, the insured) pay in most circumstances, and of the remaining cases, barring situations where a party is obviously at fault, the entity being sued will be the one with the most money. Of course that doesn't answer how a judge/jury will rule.

    Like I said, I'm all for automated driving, even while fully recognizing that it won't be perfect. I just wonder who will ultimately be held liable in cases where perfection is not only not achieved, but catastrophically avoided.

  • On the post: Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2011 @ 02:29pm

    Re: Re: Liability

    True enough. I don't think the car insurance racket is going away no matter who is driving. In most accidents only the insurance company is involved. But I'm thinking more along the lines of the few accidents that happen now with manual drivers where litigation arises. If those few cases instead involved automated cars, what would happen. Judging by trends, the companies with the most money are going to get sued.

Next >>