The respect these companies have for human creative potential is summed up by the fact that they're going hammer and tongs over a movie that was made ~73 years ago. It's like watching the only two people in Nebraska fight over a single acre of farmland because someone planted seeds there years ago and there might be a few volunteer plants come spring.
Agreed, thanks for the clarification. I'm optimistic that a lot of us have signed up for this game of whack-a-maximalist for the long haul. It's good exercise of the ol' democracy, and I think everyone has an eye on the fluffy public domain plush hanging over the counter when the machine starts spitting out tickets.
As everyone knows, jobs actually LOSE VALUE when people 'work' in them. Have you ever heard of 'used jobs' at all? Of course not--they're that worthless. What Morton is doing by stopping all of these legal, profitable businesses is in fact saving thousands, maybe millions, of brand-new American jobs--for later, when they will potentially exist. As Benjamin Franklin so nearly said, a job SAVED is a job EARNED.
Let's just pass an 'intellectual property tax' that makes non-practicing entities (and only NPEs) pay 90% of any revenue from licensing or litigating (and only licensing or litigating) their patents to a fund promoting innovation. Maybe put a threshold on it, like, 90% of revenue above $X.
That way patents are still valuable to NPEs--they can appreciate and be sold--but it's less tempting to use them to troll. Practicing entities can enforce their patents (and yes, that leaves some problems unsolved, but my feeling is that those are better addressed by antitrust law than patent law). Small inventors can get patents, license patents, and sell them. NPEs can make enough to cover the admin costs of licensing their portfolios, and by doing so respectfully can advertise to inventors who have patents to sell.
It spends a lot of time saying why the petition has to be denied, noting:
"The Judiciary Committee's fear in such instances was that, despite a weak government case, the property owner would "settle with the government and lose a certain amount of money in order to get the property back as quickly as possible."
Earlier it says:
"Shortly after the execution of the Seizure Warrant, attorneys for the Government engaged in varied and numerous discussions with counsel for Puerto 80 in an attempt to reach agreement. Those discussions included, among other things, the Government's offer to return the Rojadirecta Domain Names to Puerto 80 under an agreement in which the website would host chat forums and other non-infringing materials under the observation of a firm retained to monitor Puerto 80' s compliance."
Um. I look at that phrase "observation of a firm retained" and I wonder who exactly was going to pay for that. By my reading, it looks like Rojadirecta was given exactly the choice the Legislature wanted to prevent: either lose a certain amount of money to get the property back as quickly as possible, or face ongoing forfeiture.
So can someone explain what the bankruptcy court's role is here? I don't understand why it would consider an objection like that. Is it part of its job to worry about industry competition? Is there something related to the agreements Nortel entered into that the bankruptcy court is supposed to consider?
Can someone clarify what part of the U.S. government Microsoft is complaining to? Is it a bankruptcy court? a regulator? I think that piece of information is useful to my understanding of this situation.
I think this bill is [content filtered for national security reasons]. I also think that [content filtered for trademark reasons] is [content filtered for possible defamation reasons] and [content filtered for possible defamation reasons].
Basically, what I mean is that if we don't [content filtered for national security reasons] we'll end up [content filtered for national security reasons] unless we immediately start [content filtered for national security reasons] with the services provided by [content filtered for copyright reasons].
Reasons why you might be here trolling, in order of probability, and their outcomes:
1. Your band sucks.
OUTCOME: You console yourself briefly by picking fights with people on the internet while working a string of meaningless office jobs and bemoaning the 'poor taste' of record company scouts who refuse to sign you. You watch as a succession of your bandmates become marginally successful, failing to realize that the contracts get a little worse each time. Eventually, because [insert supreme being/natural process] has a sense of humor, one of your early songs gets stolen blatantly by a major label artist, but no one takes you seriously when you say it's yours.
2. You're a record company scout/agent/marketroid.
OUTCOME: You become increasingly convinced that your way of life is under threat by pirates and vow to prevent them from operating despite every other human on the planet telling you it's not possible. You cling for dear life to the particular configuration of shell companies and corporate governance structures that cuts your paycheck. Because of this, your job increasingly consists of explaining emerging technology to executives who still show the aftereffects of spending the entire 80s on coke. You end up playing Wormtongue to their disgraced Sauruman, feeding on the meager rents you can still collect for your 'property' from equally shell-shocked luddites. Eventually your bosses retire, leaving you with their entire portfolio and an odd sense of disorientation: It's music. It's good music. Why aren't people giving me money?
3. You're being paid to troll.
This seems unlikely, and I actually can't see an outcome. I just have questions: How much does it pay? Do they let you work from home? Do you have regular hours, or is it an on call situation? What do you tell your friends you do for a living? Do you download albums on Bittorrent? Do they ask that before they hire you? Who is 'they'? Do you have a quota? Do you ever write your own anticopyright articles to 'refute?' Do you enjoy it?