Yet again.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Apr 10, 2012 4:10 PM EDT |
This would be a good place to suggest "Against Intellectual Monopoly" and "Against Intellectual Property", if I hadn't done so several times before. Microsoft didn't invent patent trolling, but they're poised to take it to new heights of lowness. |
| tuxchick Apr 10, 2012 7:16 PM EDT |
New heights of lowness :D |
| BernardSwiss Apr 10, 2012 7:23 PM EDT |
But it's the kind of thing worth doing over and over (at least till LXer establishes a "Recommended Reading" list) Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm (original, free digital version) http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-... (opaque cellulose technology) I wasn't sure which "Against Intellectual Property" you were referring to (probably Kinsella?) as there were at least two or three that appear worth the trouble. |
| henke54 Apr 11, 2012 4:43 AM EDT |
Preston Gralla wrote:Those patents are among what Microsoft just bought. Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols writes that included in the patents purchased by Microsoft are intellectual property related to Secure Socket Layers (SSL), cookies, and JavaScript.http://blogs.computerworld.com/20009/microsofts_aol_deal_a_b... |
| dinotrac Apr 11, 2012 7:35 AM EDT |
I expect this to be a very good thing. First, congrats to AOL for being able to shake Microsoft down for more than $1,000,000 a patent. That, my friends, is some nice work. Given recent US Supreme Court decisions, it's getting harder and harder to know what the value of a software patent is any more. It's quite possible that, should angry push come to nasty shove, those patents will be worth approximately the price of the frames around ceremonial copies hanging on the inventors' wall. Trouble is, nothing moves forward until people litigate them, so...somebody being forced to act on a big scale instead of sitting back and making loud threats is precisely what we need to happen. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 11, 2012 9:40 AM EDT |
TC, and here we thought submarine patents were as low as they could go. :^) Dino, agreed, this could work out as a positive given time, and pain, and trusting in the govt courts to Do The Right Thing, but since I wouldn't trust the Supreme Court any further than I could carry their Royal Rotunditudes, much less throw them, I expect the consumer will continue to receive their bureaucratic services good and hard. There are many in the "Liberty" movement who philosophize that "If it's going to get worse before it gets better, let it get worse fast and deep so people will wake up." The problem is that history shows nothing more clearly than the ratchet effect of ever more arbitrary authority to try to "solve" the problems caused by arbitrary authority, until the system comes crashing down from its own bloated weight. A small victory would be nice, the repeal of software "patents". I just don't expect it. |
| dinotrac Apr 11, 2012 10:11 AM EDT |
@BR -- I am with you on the fast and deep. I weep for all the people who have languished out-of-work because we "avoided a depression". |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 11, 2012 10:34 AM EDT |
Dino, I'll make an Austrian economist out of you yet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI A wonderful talk on the depression of 1920. What? You never heard of the depression of 1920? I wonder why that might be.... :^) But seriously for a moment, the whole "patent troll" thing is crazy. Why does every Android phone sale mean money for Microsoft, who did none of the work? Insane. The world is getting crazier and crazier, war is spreading, when hyperinflation hits people are going to starve in the US, where productivity used to be the envy of the world. Just like Argentina. |
| caitlyn Apr 11, 2012 4:52 PM EDT |
Do I need to start complaining about LXer being used to push political agendas contrary to the TOS again? *SIGH* |
| Khamul Apr 11, 2012 9:42 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: I think it's a little extreme to call comments about the Supreme Court, economic schools, patents, and Argentina "pushing political agendas". If you're going to go that far, then any article that even mentions patents should be banned from LXer (plus any comments about patents), as patents are a political issue. In addition, any article that mentions copyrights should also be banned, as those are also a political issue. Of course, it's kinda hard to talk openly about Free Software if you never discuss copyrights, since the GPL license is based on copyright law, but if you're going to restrict speech about any topic involving politics, then that's what you need to do. In my mind, "pushing political agendas" usually means something far more specific, namely pushing a particular political party or candidate; not predicting economic collapse or complaining about the patent system. I don't see anyone here bashing or promoting any party/candidate. |
| dinotrac Apr 11, 2012 11:26 PM EDT |
@khamul -- Stop it! How dare you make me agree with you! |
| jdixon Apr 11, 2012 11:52 PM EDT |
Caitlyn's not particularly fond of libertarian positions, Khamul. Thus Bob and I tend to push her buttons the wrong way, even if we're not trying to do so. :( Dino is more of a classic liberal, if I'm remembering correctly (as distinct from the modern day liberal), |
| caitlyn Apr 12, 2012 12:50 AM EDT |
@Khamul: There is a lot of history here which you are not aware of. I'm going to leave it at that. |
| henke54 Apr 12, 2012 5:37 AM EDT |
@Khamul and dinotrac ... +1 because : http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253629/us_judg... |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2012 7:56 AM EDT |
@jdixon -- I call myself a conservative, but that word also gets used really badly these days, so classic liberal is fine when you remember that a classic liberal is in juxtaposition to a monarchist and not a believer in small government. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 12, 2012 10:26 AM EDT |
Caitlyn, You and I agree on several details, and disagree on several other details. That seems just fine. I'm very curious why you become so upset when I put those details in a broader context. The expansion of copyright/patent enforcement in destructive ways is not an isolated incident. It only makes sense when coupled with the other developments that are going on all around us. Dino, I don't think "classical liberal" works either, since the context of the term is to contrast the small-government "liberals" of the 19th century, with the big-government "liberals" of the 20th century. It's the use of the word "liberal" which has changed, sad to say, just as "conservative" and "libertarian", and even "regulate", have been changed. Too bad we can't hyperlink the uses of the words to the historic record of the O.E.D., "liberal as meant in 1890", "capitalist as meant in 1850", "regulate as meant in 1789", etc. Ah well, I guess that's why there are multiple versions of even the GPL. Human language is a dynamic process, not an end-product. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2012 11:00 AM EDT |
@BR.... Hmmmm. liberal 1.3 as opposed to liberal 28.4.7 If only there weren't a forced "upgrade" cycle. I still find it a hoot that Democrats "own" JFK. He'd be considered a radical right-wing reactionary by today's crowd. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 12, 2012 11:47 AM EDT |
Dino, It seems that it has evolved to the point that "Liberal" means whatever the Democratic Party wants it to mean, "Conservative" whatever the Republican Party wants it to mean. For that matter, "Libertarian" has been abused by the Cato/Reason people to mean something other than what it used to mean, too. However, _this_ is an excellent example of going to the edge of the EULA as Caitlyn (why do I always type caitlin first? argh) addressed above. On JFK, very interesting article I read today on yet another murder related-to-the-JFK-assassination that I hadn't heard of before... http://lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger189.html ...addressing some of his changes-of-heart that occurred after the Missiles Of October. |
| Fettoosh Apr 12, 2012 1:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:It seems that it has evolved to the point that "Liberal" means whatever the Democratic Party wants it to mean, "Conservative" whatever the Republican Party wants it to mean. I agree. Democratic, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, etc... I see them as hollow meaningless labels of baloney (foolish talk; nonsense, not the food) that I don't give a hoot about. I support those who do the things I care about and don't do things I am against no matter who they are. Free & Independent. I also agree with what @Khamul said. So lets keep discussing the issues, all issues that are relevant to FOSS. |
| Khamul Apr 12, 2012 3:24 PM EDT |
The word "liberal" really doesn't mean anything at all these days, unless you provide context, and even then you'll just end up with a lot of arguing over it. The meaning has changed greatly over time as Bob notes, and even right now varies hugely depending on what country you're talking about (USA liberals != European liberals, etc.). Don't get me started on modern-day USA liberals, since that doesn't mean much either, unless you define exactly which people you're talking about, since there's a lot of people who call themselves that but all have absolutely conflicting ideals and positions. Same goes for those calling themselves "conservative". The whole thing is a big mess and there's far, far more than two sides, and IMO absolutely no way to distill anything down to only two sides. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2012 8:17 PM EDT |
@khamul -- Especially when you consider how many issues have nothing to do with other aspects of "liberal" or "conservative". Caring about the environment, for example. There is nothing conservative/liberal small gov/big gov, etc about caring whether your kids and grandkids have a planet worth living on. |
| Khamul Apr 12, 2012 8:37 PM EDT |
@dino: There's a problem with caring about the environment: it reduces the profits of certain big companies. So anyone who values corporate profitability (particularly ones which donate a lot of money to "campaign contributions") will naturally oppose any kind of environmental laws. Also, anyone who opposes government regulation will oppose such laws out of principle. But then both of these factors don't really fit into "liberal" or "conservative", and can be argued both ways. At the heart of it, "liberal" is supposed to mean "wanting change", and "conservative" is supposed to mean "opposed to change", but again, that's not really what we actually see from people claiming these labels for themselves. Anyway, I think this is headed pretty far off-topic now, unless you want to talk about how such things affect FOSS licensing and such, if you want to give the mods fits about the rules in the TOS (on one hand, if a discussion is political, it should be against the TOS, but on the other hand, if it's also about FOSS licensing, that goes to the very heart of what this forum is about: this yields a paradox; the mods are going to have a terrible time if some political candidate adopts public stance on FOSS!). |
| BernardSwiss Apr 12, 2012 9:07 PM EDT |
My favourite American pundit, Molly Ivins (from Texas, would you believe it -- no longer with us, alas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ivins argued that the terms (and defined spectrum) of "left' vs 'right' had become meaningless and outdated. She proposed that these days, the more accurate and useful terms "screwer" vs "screwee" define a much more politically relevant spectrum. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2012 10:48 PM EDT |
@khamul -- You make a fundamental error -- presuming that all corporations have the same interests beyond making money. Companies who make "green" things, or perform "green" services have a profitability interest in the environment. The trick is getting both people and providers on board, and there are millions of tiny little things that work that way. For example -- my family likes carbonated beverages. Used to go through cases of the stuff. Now we make it. We drink less, but the real win is that syrup and carbon bottles take up a lot less space and use a lot less packaging than the stuff we used to buy. Cheaper for us, easier for us, and better for the environment. A million little things like that will make somebody a bundle --- AND help leave a better place for the grandkids. Hard to go wrong that way...AND...it doesn't matter what you call your politics. Making money while making the world a better place? Who can hate that? |
| Khamul Apr 13, 2012 2:03 AM EDT |
@dino: Yes, there are corporations that make profit with "green" things, but there's other corporations that are older, more established, and with bigger pockets to give "campaign donations", which are the opposite, and anything "green" hurts their profitability. Do you make your beverages with cane sugar, or that HFCS junk? I won't even drink the latter any more; the former is harder to find, but actually tastes like soda used to taste decades ago. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2012 5:11 AM EDT |
@khamul - Old and established corporations always fight the new ones, and yet we have Microsoft and Apple in spite of IBM and Amazon in spite of Barnes & Noble and the now-defunct Borders. And even reigning giants can ride the wabe :the Prius is now a whole family of cars while the Hummer is extinct and General Electric is a major supplier of wind turbines. When all is said and done, supply meets demand, not the other way around. Just ask the folks at Eastman Kodak. Oh ... cane sugar. |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2012 9:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:supply meets demand, not the other way around. What a nice campaign slogan that would make, it has a nice ring to it and gets the message through some thick heads. May be it might help to sink in. Good one @Dino. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2012 10:15 AM EDT |
Dino, I agree that supply and demand always meet, or in the economics parlance, "Markets Clear". Oh, a T-shirt already exists with that on it: https://mises.org/store/Say-T-Shirt-White-P315C43.aspx One change I would make, maybe it's just a change in "order of operations", is that in order to be "consumed" something must first be "produced". No one could install Linux until Linus wrote it, for example. Price also tempers demand. Everyone wants a Ferrari, not everyone can afford it, or afford the cost of maintaining it, etc. So while people will dive in to make more of something, thus increasing the supply when they perceive a demand that is not being met, the famous "profit motive", there is no certainty (except if you're Apple) that if you come out with something new anyone will want it at all. On "Classical Liberal", since the subject came up, an article posted today which goes into it: http://lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon96.1.html Cane sugar! Good on you! Tastes better, too. (I will not go into a diatribe about sugar quotas, tariffs, corn subsidies, etc) |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2012 10:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:...is that in order to be "consumed" something must first be "produced" @Rob, Let's not forget that demand for the basic essential necessities is always there. Food, energy, medicine, booze/moonshine, etc. will always be produced because of the constant demand that will not cease to exist as long as there are human beings on the surface of the Earth or unless robots take over after. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 13, 2012 10:48 AM EDT |
Now for a very uncharacteristic message and forking the thread back to the topic title: [serious (I think)] http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ICringely/~3/l_cfRSovx2U/?utm... This link gives a very different interpretation to the sales of these patents. However, I cannot see MS foregoing the opportunity to spread unease and effectively monetizing (despite having other reasons to make the purchase). [/serious] So unlike me to hew to the topic. YBT |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2012 10:52 AM EDT |
Fettoosh, "Let's not forget that demand for the basic essential necessities is always there." Indeed, but what constitutes "basic essential necessities" is not static, nor the same for any two people. I'm certain that my demand for alcohol is very different from Caitlyn's or Dino's, and is even very different from the demand of most everyone I know due to my dislike of beer. Energy? Prior to electricity there was no demand for electricity. Before John D. Rockefeller cut the price of petroleum to consumers, Whale Oil was was in such huge demand that whales were in danger of being exterminated. The Flemish painters of the early 1600s were painting images like the "Fruit Stall" and "Meat seller" because the new abundance of food created by relatively free trade was overturning what had been established eating patterns. http://mises.org/daily/5980/Plenty-by-Competition I'm not saying you're wrong that there will always be demand. Only that what constitutes a product that is +in+demand+ constantly changes due to what is available to be demanded. Something cannot be consumed until it is produced. Production of a thing must precede its consumption. One cannot eat an apple until the apple exists to be eaten. |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2012 11:44 AM EDT |
@Rob, And I am not disagreeing with your point that something has to exist before it can be consumed. That is a Duh, even for Homer Simpson. :-) Like the saying goes, "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". i.e. demand is what triggers and drives manufacturing a lot more so than manufacturing and existence does. What I was trying to say is, Dino put it in a better and more accurate form than the usual popular "Supply & Demand". |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2012 11:52 AM EDT |
@CB and @Fet -- Such a lovefest, that I hate to add one teensy little point that should have been obvious, especially to a free-market type like @CB: In a free market, demand creates opportunity, and entrepreneurs (eventually) tend to take advantage of opportunity, leading to production that, ahem, meets demand. So -- even if everybody would like a Ferrari, but lack the means, they can still get a pretty darned sweet Corvette/Mustang Boss/370Z/Miata/Mini Cooper/Fiat Abarth, etc. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2012 11:54 AM EDT |
Fettoosh, "What I was trying to say is, Dino put it in a better and more accurate form than the usual popular "Supply & Demand"." Yet his addition, "not the other way around" is not accurate. Sometimes it is the other way around. In this case it was one way, in other cases it is the other way. Markets clear. |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2012 12:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:Apple, Google and Microsoft might enter into a huge legal battle now but I don’t see it happening. That sums it up pretty well, but doesn't say anything about the little guys, who will be suffering the most from this unwritten détente and hidden cartel. This scenario is most likely to happen and will assure the continuation of the current corrupt patent system. |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2012 12:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:Markets clear According to Wikipedia Edited: Corrected link to go strait to Wikipedia. Quoting: In economics, market clearing refers to either To me, that sounds like demand not only the driver of supply, but also pricing, not the other way around. :-) Besides, when a product is made available without any preexisting demand, it is actually an attempt at creating demand for a supply, which might or might not be successful. My point is, demand exist with or without supply, while supply won't or continue to exist without demand. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2012 12:53 PM EDT |
Fetoosh, I'm fascinated by the "or" in your Wikipedia quote. It's an interesting twist, making it seem like adjusting prices is independent of supply/demand. Yet raise the price of something, demand goes down. Lower the price, demand goes up. HP demonstrated that last fall. The dropped their tablet price and they sure did clear! Arguing simple semantics, which is all I see remaining, is not beneficial for anyone. Be well. |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2012 2:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:Arguing simple semantics, @Bob, I am not really arguing your point, I am just trying to get to the point that, Supply & Demand principles these days work beautifully with luxury items, but fail miserably in the case of necessities. Oil, health care/medicine, food are good examples (booze was just a throw-in before). The issue we have now is that, cartels found a way, and governments (I know you dislike them) allowed them, to game the free market system. So people/consumers/customer are no longer in control as used to when Supply & Demand were being balanced by competition. Cartels gotten rid of the beautiful competition that is needed and necessary for S&D curves to intersect. They live in high havens these days reaping high profits because of what we are unable to live without any more. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2012 3:01 PM EDT |
Fettoosh, "but fail miserably in the case of necessities." I couldn't disagree more. The "failures" you perceive are because markets in those necessities are actively intruded upon and interfered with. That's why the "cartels" are able to flourish, they leverage the regulatory system to their own advantage. Competition is being crushed BY the very regulatory regime that is telling you they regulate "for your own good", or to "promote competition". The problems you see are real. On that you and I agree. I was distracted by your comment about S&D curves, since they always meet somewhere. Thus, "markets clear", Say's Law. It's not like they can ever "not" cross, save if there is no supply, or no demand. Forgive me for not getting what you meant quickly enough. |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2012 4:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:I was distracted by your comment about S&D curves, since they always meet somewhere OK, they do meet, but only where the producers/distributors of the products and services want them to be. Take for instance oil, and byproducts o, healthcare, and such, they can set and raise the prices as they wish and no one can do anything about it but the consumers taking a very drastic action. That, in my opinion, most likely is not going to happen. About the government and regulations, I believe government does have a role to play. But corrupt government/regulation is even worse than government without a role. It is up to the people to make sure to elect good officials, and if the people can't even do that, they deserve what they get. I believe good government should have a role in keeping S&D working. they can do that by having agencies to act as corporations to make supply and services sufficient and enough to keep prices reasonable and fair. I know this is going raise havoc, but I will leave it at that. |
| caitlyn Apr 13, 2012 5:24 PM EDT |
@Bob_Robertson: You're wrong when you say I agree with you about anything at all, and we are 180 degree polar opposites on basic principles and issues. At best your political views induce extreme nausea. To me this thread is a giant TOS violation. I have three choices: argue in kind and make this a political debating board (which it is again as of now anyway), two, leave, this time for good, or three, complain to management and hope for a repeat of last time when the TOS was enforced. I choose option three. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!