Evidence that Patents hold back research? Alright.
What about Myriad using patents to hold back breast cancer research?
What about the Patents on Oil Eating Bacteria, holding back research on ways to utilize them?
What about the company StemCells using patents to stop a Children's Hospital from researching Brain Cancer for 3 years?
How about the concerns about Craig Vetner's pantent for sythetic biology, and the delays it will cause for research?
Or take a look at MPEG-LA's use of patents to hold back an open standard for Video?
Take a look at the Smartphone patent thicket, and see how fast research can be done for improving that industry?
It talked about how there is no such thing as an unbiased algorithm, and about Microsoft saying Google was anti-competitive, and about competition in the search engine space.
But what the article didn't cover was what the supporters of Search Neutrality were actually trying to achieve. He didn't talk about whether their goals had any actual merit.
Personally, I don't think Mike's previous article was very good. I would have liked to see more about why the actual goals of Search Neutrality supporters are not worth putting time and effort into, or what the best way to achieve those goals are.
I think Mike got close to taking some of the wind out of Search Neutrality supporters' sails when he talked about competition in the search industry. But rather than pointing out how greater competition would allow customers to support the search engine that is achieving those goals without regulation, he instead throws out some statistic comparing search engine competition with operating system competition which does nothing to help point out how corruption in search engine results can be dealt with outside of legislation.
Another very good point. Unless I made a horrible typo in my GPS, I doubt I'd be looking for Harrods in the same location as Hollands.
By the way, welcome to TechDirt, Nick. If you want to reply to a specific comment, you will see a link labeled 'reply to this comment' under each one. That will save you from having to type out re: (topic name) yourself.
I've asked an actual Moron in a Hurry (myself) if I would be confused. The answer is that if I were driving down the road, looking for a sign that says Harrods, had no idea what a Harrods store looked like, and I saw the Hollands sign, I might be confused, and slow down to get a better look. But that would only be because they have a similar length name, and a matching first letter and last 2 letters. But I would realize the mistake before I even parked or got out of the car, and leave to find my proper destination.
You may be confusing hypocrisy for legality? Let me see if I can explain myself better.
His work is based off of previous work.
Someone else's work is based off of his work.
He's not happy that someone else is building off of his work, even though he did the same thing.
I think that's hypocritical.
Yes, what he did was legal. Yes, what the self-help guru did was illegal. So he does have the legal right to file suit. I just think he's being hypocritical for doing so.
Maybe it is working, but I'd want to ask if it's working well. Is it possible for the label and Ms. Gaga to be generating even more revenue, if they had pursued an alternate business model, rather than the old-school model?
1) So, the difference between downloading and recording is that one takes more effort? And that the extra effort must be put up by your fans?
2) What about Fair Use? Doesn't that limit what control you have?
3) Say I bought a CD with your music. For the sake of simplicity, lets say I bought it in the normal fashion, and without any special 'limited time', or 'right to withdraw' clauses in the contract of sale. Say the CD Broke, got scratched, or was somehow otherwise damaged. To rectify this, I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?