Reed 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (76) comment rss

  • On the post: The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed

    Reed ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2010 @ 09:20am

    Re: Re: Re: fraud tastes like cod

    "one a week and I was recognized by that MIT program. I do not think that MIT is a "small organization" and that it is more likely that the idiot who wrote it was smoking something."

    I never realized that your such an highly intelligent person. I really appreciate how you "add" something to the conversation. Your critical thinking skills show your highly educated background.

    Thanks for providing your affiliations, it really helps to bolster your argument about people "smoking stuff".

    You should title your posts the "J' Riley factor" and offer your incredible insight that is free from Mike's "Spin-ZONE".

    Alright, thanks again Ronald McDonald! I always appreciate a good clown.

  • On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation

    Reed ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2010 @ 01:40pm

    Re: I am waiting for a rational explanation.

    "All I am doing is trying to figure out why you take a stand on patents which is totally at odds with the facts."

    You are NOT entitled to your own facts dumb ass.

    Where is your proof? Mike has presented far more than anecdotal evidence at this point and the only thing you have proven is your a pompous ass.

    We have all heard you theory about Mike and it sounds good on paper, but Mike has denied it. Perhaps the truth is that Mike truly believes this while your the paid shill who thinks that he is right beyond a shadow of a doubt with a complete disregard to critical thinking. I think that is closer to the truth.

  • On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation

    Reed ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2010 @ 12:50pm

    Re: The Tam Jam

    "If a researcher is granted a patent in an area after spending time and money to get there, it is unlikely that they are just going to put something on the shelf and ignore it."

    You are confusing research with development. They do not go hand in hand for a number of obvious reason which I am not sure your are capable of understanding.

    Much of research is not applicable directly to any product that will enter the marketplace. The majority of this research is publicly or cooperatively funded.

    Science has always been and will continue to be socialistic in nature something else you seem incapable of wrapping your mind around.

    What you do seem to see is profit, but you do not understand the true cost in terms of externalities. Capitilism in its most modern form only exists in the realm of profitability due to massive externalities.

    What I think Mike as well as many other on this board are really arguing is the cost of the patent and copyright system goes far beyond those who they affect directly. For instance when a company patents obvious technology they prevent further innovation through litigation. Who knows how much more money could have been made by working off an existing concept. This is the true cost of the Intellectual Property system.

    So if one company controls a concept through IP and say makes 10 billion in a year, that is great for them. If they were not in control several companies could make a combined profit of over 100 billion. Which of these scenarios benefits the majority?

    Intellectual Property system will always be a tool or priviliedge that is designed around control. In the end you think your advocating for freedom, but in reality you have taken it away to benefit a minority.

  • On the post: This Has To Be A Joke: Music Duo Claims It Won't Sell CDs Again Until 'Piracy' Is Stopped

    Reed ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 07:27pm

    Re: C is silent in Rap

    Well I must admit that the song C is silent in Rap is pretty damned funny. No comment on the rest of the songs :)

    This guy kinda reminds of of Weird Al...

  • On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB

    Reed ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2010 @ 07:04pm

    Bruno Bashes

    "Agenda" journalism? I don't even know where to begin with this guy. Claiming that we need to deal with new technology and cultural changes through rationale examination "free" from ideology. Whose ideology?

    Mike and his followers....

    So now we are are a techie cult? Waaaiit I get it, since terrorists and criminals violate copyright to make their money and Mike has talked about copyright reform he must be a sympathizer of terrorist techies?

    The tone of Bruno's post was dismissive and outright rude considering the lengths Mike has gone to formulate his opinions. I don't think this was a productive criticism, rather an outright slam job. Perhaps Mike struck a cord with him and he felt like lashing back rather than joining the conversation.

    For the record I don't not believe that any form of Intellectual Property should exists. I find the concept repugnant and very anti-human at the core. So I am no "follower" of mike.

    I have always considered Mike more in in the middle of this debate about future business models. Which is why it puzzles me that Bruno would respond in such a way. If ever there was a bridge between the past and the future in regards to business models it would be Mike.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom

    Reed ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2010 @ 06:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out

    Look at the statistics for Prop 8 and you will see it is NOT people who are concerned about tax breaks or philosophical disagreement who voted for it. I don't mean to be rude, but the argument for procreation is plain ridiculous for several reasons. Why then allow people past child bearing years to get married? Or people that are infertile?

    Prop 8 also marks one of the few times a state's constitution has been amended to take people's rights away and to actively discriminate against a particular group of people.

    I have studied this stuff as a master level social worker so I am not just a punk kid blowing crap out my ass. I have also been married for 12 years and would never think of denying two people who are in love their right to the benefits provided by a civil union or marriage that I already enjoy.

    I may be a bit passionate about this subject and go overboard, but it is for good reason.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom

    Reed ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2010 @ 06:35pm

    Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out

    "So, you really do not care whether there are cameras in the courtroom."

    Re-read my post and try again. I am all for cameras in this trial because I believe it will show just how stupid it is to force your religious belief on others.

    There is nothing "clever" here, unless you think passing a amendment to the constitution that actively discriminates against fellow Americans citizens based on your religious beliefs is cool.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom

    Reed ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2010 @ 09:35am

    Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out

    "Congratulations! You're intolerant!"

    Really? I believe everyone has the right to their beliefs. I am intolerant for saying other cannot force their belief on me?


    No my friend, you are the intolerant one who does not want to here the truth.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom

    Reed ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2010 @ 09:27am

    Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out

    I can already tell you what is going to happen in this trial. They are going to get Prop 8 supporters and ask them why they believe there should not be gay marriage. Of course it has to do with their religious beliefs, but wait.... Are they allowed to force their religious beliefs on other people in the US?

    So supporters don't want to look like jackasses on camera and allow everyone to see just how stupid they really are. Regardless which way this case goes there is only one logical answer in my honest opinion.

    I for one am all for video taping these trials, maybe it would make rabid religious wack-jobs think twice before thrusting their beliefs on others if they knew that everyone in the US would be watching them after the shit went down.

    I think in the end they really are just cowards afraid they will be black balled for using their power to oppress fellow American citizens.

  • On the post: Well Respected VC Firm Comes Out In Favor Of Independent Invention Defense Against Patent Infringement Lawsuits

    Reed ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2010 @ 09:39am

    Re: truth about trolls

    Lets say your premise is true and big companies are pushing for patent reform to further consolidate their power. We already know the IP system is dominated by an extreme minority that continues to gain ground in their ability to litigate. According to you it is a no win situation because the claims makers in patent reform are the ones who are benefiting from it.

    I can definitely see where you are coming from, but after looking over your suggested web site I can not find one premise that would prove why the patent system should exist in the first place. Mike and others have done an excellent job disproving through actual historical examples that the reasoning behind the patent system has become moot in our modern world of 6 billion people.

    Rather than calling it the Intellectual Property system I think it needs to be called by its true name to reflect what it has actually become. It is now the Intellectual Slavery System. Maybe that is why I personally think the thought of reform is so repugnant. Why try to reform a blatant example of slavery?

  • On the post: Well Respected VC Firm Comes Out In Favor Of Independent Invention Defense Against Patent Infringement Lawsuits

    Reed ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2010 @ 01:17pm

    Reform is just another word for the status quo

    I don't think that reforms will ever solve the problems with the patent and copyright system. These artificial and farcical systems should not exist period.

    Mike has gone to great lengths to disprove the basis that most people believe necessitates an intellectual property system. Mike however has not nor has anyone else IMHO provided any plausible reason for these systems to exist in the first place.

    While Mike clearly would like to see an band-aid on a already broken system, I feel if it is beyond repair already. It is clear to me that IP law benefits a minority at the cost of the majority to such a degree it is beyond asinine already.

    These laws will continued to be strengthened because the best we can produce is a cry for "reform" as the system continues to travel fast and faster towards the edge of a cliff. I for one have already bailed and I feel sorry for those who still think there is something left to salvage in our imaginary intellectual property system.

  • On the post: Calculating The DRM Tax On A Kindle

    Reed ( profile ), 30 Dec, 2009 @ 06:08pm

    It is more than just DRM

    This is definitely a compelling argument of the inherit disadvantage of DRM. While I agree with it I would take it one step further and point out this is a problem with all digital works not just DRM'ed ones.

    Digital works are not a stand alone product. They requires several layers of software and hardware to even exist. I think just about everyone has had a computer crash or die on them at some point and they know what I am talking about.

    What is the real value of a product that can be deleted accidentally or lost due to a hard drive crash? Even if you could re-download it that still takes time, and depending on your connection a lot of time.

    I would argue that even non-DRM'ed products are worth far less than physical property. I would suggest a 1/10 or 1/20 pricing ratio for products that have been digitized.

    I think people are absolutely insane for placing such high values on things like software and digital works. Especially with software that tends to have a life cycle of just a few years. Could you imagine buying a tool set for $500 just to find out it is obsolete or won't work with new parts just a few years later?

    Placing such a high value on 1's and 0's is not only asinine, it borders on a complete lack of critical thinking IMHO.

  • On the post: If You're Looking For The Open Source Business Model, You're Looking For The Wrong Thing

    Reed ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2009 @ 07:06pm

    Re: Re: Axeman

    And the Axe grinds on.... lol

  • On the post: Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying

    Reed ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 07:36pm

    Re: I Was Confused

    That was hilarious. Thanks for that :)

  • On the post: Fox News Tries Selective DMCA Takedowns: If Liberal Bloggers Use It, Take It Down

    Reed ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 06:27pm

    DMCA abuse is inherint

    Of course this is an abuse of the DMCA. It is also an abuse against free speech. I must point out that this type of abuse is rather common in the Intellectual Property world in general.

    The DMCA is merely another tool that is given to oppress and control society. Control is not always a bad thing, but a tool that can be used for oppression will be used for it. It is just a bad idea to legislate new laws in general IMHO

    We could duke this out in a case by case basis. Slowly the DMCA would grow larger and more complex as exemptions and new laws are passed to make sure it is fair. Or we could just abolish an idea that was thrust upon us by an extreme minority.

    It is apparent to me as ever that IP law is in direct conflict with the type of discourse that should be taking place in the 21st century. Instead of moving forward as a race we continue to backpedal so we can appease wealthy claim makers.

  • On the post: Microsoft Patents Changing User Privileges Temporarily On The Fly

    Reed ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 08:41pm

    Re: Re: Why Me?

    Reed," an unknown number of anonymous cowards

    Wow, you lump me with anonymous because you don't agree with me. You are a real jackass! I guess this proves your point because I have called you a jackass. Or maybe you really are just a jackass. The world may never know :)

    Did I hurt your feelings because I dismissed your life's work? Honestly Doctor Strange you need to grow and get a real life outside of your imagined IP world. I am an accomplished researcher myself and I know the difference between someone advancing the conversation and whining. After this last post of yours I can definitely see you are the later.

  • On the post: Microsoft Patents Changing User Privileges Temporarily On The Fly

    Reed ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 08:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Dr. Strange

    "The prevailing theory around here seems to be that our IP laws are the result of a massive decades-long conspiracy between Big Content, Big Pharma, a bribed Congress AND Supreme Court AND President, the Trilateral Commission, and the cryo-preserved head of Walt Disney."

    Follow the money, I doubt you could seriously come up with another explanation. In my opinion the end result of IP law is really about oppression. Granted we are not living in a world completely controlled by corporations yet, but it is clear to at least me that IP law is a mechanism towards this.

    I hate to sound "conspiracy" only because it has garnered such a negative stereotype in the last decades. Anyone who studies history understands that conspiracies have motivated the majority of what we would consider prolific events. One example of this would be the American Revolution. If it was not for the terrorist conspiracy of the Sons of Liberty the United States may have never been formed.

    I am very concerned about human rights which I believe are coming into direct conflict with IP rights. It is clear that the majority of IP is tied up with the top 1% of our society. It is not a tool for the common man. It is a tool of the elitist that wishes to retain their power and wealth at the cost of perhaps humanity itself. To suddenly want to undue the way human culture has existed for thousands of years merely to make your bottom line look better is fantastically selfish IMHO.

    I appreciate the fact that you have studied this area of law and your input although pretentious seems to ad to the conversation considerably. Keep up the good work, just try and not be so abrasive.

  • On the post: Microsoft Patents Changing User Privileges Temporarily On The Fly

    Reed ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 01:16am

    Re: Dr. Strange

    "spinning the next utterly mundane situation into something worthy of getting really morally outraged about"

    Beyond pretentious don't you think?

    Really though it can be a lot simpler than spending countless hours studying laws that should never had existed in the first place. You simply stop believing in the artificial fantasy that is Intellectual Property.

    Free you mind Dr. Strange Love! Think about how easy it would be to just say no to IP....

    At any rate, rather than moral outrage that keeps me reading on this topic it is the insanity that is IP in general. It is like a Latin soap opera, next weeks episode is always crazier than the last.

  • On the post: YouTube Taking Down Public Domain Works?

    Reed ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 09:41am

    Copyrights are just plain copywrong

    "Fritz Lang's Metropolis - available in the public domain. Various re-edits and re-masters? Copyrighted."

    Simply bizarre. One of the main complaints copyrights holders have is that everyone wants to freeload. It seems that with this example freeloading is exactly what the copyright holder does.

    I think this is my general problem with copyrights in the first place. They cannot get were they are without "borrowing" from the culture around them, but no-one can borrow from them. Double standards abound.

    Re-masters!?? Ohh, I re-sampled the original soundtrack at a higher bitrate, now I can claim copyright. Pretty pathetic in my book.

  • On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation

    Reed ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2009 @ 11:52am

    A world without word

    I think this case is absolutely ridiculous. It highlights the stupidity that patents have gotten us into, but in a way it is very poetic. I mean honestly Microsoft has a history of bullying companies with their IP into becoming partners or subsidiaries (or just putting them out of business). Why can't it happen in reverse?

    Now that they have come full circle from dissing patents to embracing them it is ironic that this has happened. Their own greed and power grabbing has lead them down this road. They could have shaped the industry to be free and open, instead they get what they put into it - GIGO

    The funniest part of this debate is when major retailers "weighed" in saying there is no alternative to MS word and it would cut into their business if it was taken off the market. Last time I checked there were plenty of alternatives that could be used. Trying to bill Word as the beginning and end of word processing is just plain crazy IMHO.

Next >>