Well, that's another business idea that I couldn't get going before other people thought of the same thing and find traction. It's crazy, even the general layout of the web site is similar to what I was planning.. in 2009.
I'd say that the three biggest changes that could fix the patent system would be the introduction of: patent holder "weight", patent purpose, and periodic reviews of what effect the granted patents are having on their markets and innovation.
Weights - the more the patent holder "weighs" in their market in terms of holdings, influence, and domination then the less time and protection they'd get for their patents.
Purpose - what are they using the patent for: guiding the market, leveling the playing field, or sitting on it? Requiring the intended purpose to be stated and comparing that to the purpose that actually happens would identify patents being mis-used by patent trolls, innovation stiflers, and monopolizers for easy disqualification.
Reviews - What happens after the patents are granted? Do they have a good or bad effect on the world? Depending on the type of invention, the frequency of the review dates would be different but the results of identifying patents doing harm to innovation and fair competition should do the same.
Apart from those general practices, I'd suggest banning patents surrounding living organisms (particularly "found dna") and changing the pricing structure of filing such that the upfront cost is low but the continued price to retain the patent rises over time.
Perhaps the best way would be to deepen the lists a little: show not just the offenders but a summary timeline of circumstances, and waypoints of "rehabilitation" like lengths of time since offenses and achievements that mean a departure or exoneration from their previous behavior or ruling.
Well I guess that's the deal, you can't get all your advice from any one person - because everyone has at least one wacked out idea about how things should be.
Could be he was forced or paid to say that, too. Or even that he was misquoted/mistranslated.
All I can say is, it's a good thing people didn't listen to him on that little tidbit until the RIAA, otherwise we'd have no rich and varied world of music that the RIAA is working tirelessly to destroy.
What a sad end to such a once-brilliant company.
another idea
Well, that's another business idea that I couldn't get going before other people thought of the same thing and find traction. It's crazy, even the general layout of the web site is similar to what I was planning.. in 2009.
That's pretty disgusting.. a neglectful, spammish way of fleecing the population. It looks like legalized phishing to me.
weights, purpose, and periodic reviews
I'd say that the three biggest changes that could fix the patent system would be the introduction of: patent holder "weight", patent purpose, and periodic reviews of what effect the granted patents are having on their markets and innovation.
Weights - the more the patent holder "weighs" in their market in terms of holdings, influence, and domination then the less time and protection they'd get for their patents.
Purpose - what are they using the patent for: guiding the market, leveling the playing field, or sitting on it? Requiring the intended purpose to be stated and comparing that to the purpose that actually happens would identify patents being mis-used by patent trolls, innovation stiflers, and monopolizers for easy disqualification.
Reviews - What happens after the patents are granted? Do they have a good or bad effect on the world? Depending on the type of invention, the frequency of the review dates would be different but the results of identifying patents doing harm to innovation and fair competition should do the same.
Apart from those general practices, I'd suggest banning patents surrounding living organisms (particularly "found dna") and changing the pricing structure of filing such that the upfront cost is low but the continued price to retain the patent rises over time.
Re:
it's not quite that simple, especially since "correctional facilities" don't very often do as their name implies
Re: Re: Lists
Perhaps the best way would be to deepen the lists a little: show not just the offenders but a summary timeline of circumstances, and waypoints of "rehabilitation" like lengths of time since offenses and achievements that mean a departure or exoneration from their previous behavior or ruling.
Re: Do ya one better
That's not socialism, it's authoritarianism.
people are getting list crazy!
What is it with national lists that make it so authority figures want to keep adding people to them, whether they should or not?
Maybe they actually want to dilute the list, make it so no one cares because it's full of so many crap entries.
Like I said before it was adopted: Bad idea. No good will come of the DMCA. It doesn't make me feel good to be right about that prediction.
Well I guess that's the deal, you can't get all your advice from any one person - because everyone has at least one wacked out idea about how things should be.
Could be he was forced or paid to say that, too. Or even that he was misquoted/mistranslated.
All I can say is, it's a good thing people didn't listen to him on that little tidbit until the RIAA, otherwise we'd have no rich and varied world of music that the RIAA is working tirelessly to destroy.
awww yeah!
Hell yeah.. it's like I've said for a while: creativity + sharing = culture.
Remove one of the two and you ain't got diddly.