-
The Patent Thing
-
[Mitch Ives] “As for stifling competition, look at any country that has no patent or copyright protections… zero innovation. After all, what’s the point… it’ll only get stolen and you’ll be saddled with all the R&D costs.
“Mitch, I don’t think anyone is arguing that there shouldn’t be patents. I think everyone is simply aghast at how out of hand the system has become.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Careful, now. You need to grasp–however difficult it might be–that Bill has a patent pending on the “condescending “Uh,…” and that he’s not afraid to use it.”
LOL, thanks for the reminder 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “When I was at Lucasfilm in the late 1980’s, my team and I were doing interactive software design research for Apple. I’ve been part of and have watched the software industry evolve for decades. Trust me, I know what I’m talking about and it has not changed for the better. Quite the opposite.”
You’re actually saying that the software industry is not healthier and generating more income today than it ever has in history?
I’d LOVE to hear any statistics or facts to back that up.
Seems to me (and I’m just an uneducated observer in this area) that most people in most industrialized societies across the world are gladly exchanging more of their wealth for software solutions today then humans have at other time in history.
Seems to me to be just about the MOST healthy economic playground on the planet.
So please explain to me how the patent system over the past couple of decades has led to “change for the worse” – which is what you’re arguing here.
I look around and see more people spending more for software today than ever before. There are tens of thousands of healthy companies out there based on that reality.
And more people have more access to quality hardware at good prices as well.
So is the contention that it would be “a bit better” without these patents?
Or would we just be wading through vast numbers of cheap crappy clones of the same ideas over and over? Which sounds to me a bit like the Japanese electronics industry back in the 60s to the 80s before IP protections evolved to address the ability of one country with a low wage structure taking the designs of another and running with them.
Maybe it’s because I remember seeing so many crappy Behringer mixers that were total clones of Greg Mackie’s designs – but cheaper and without the build quality.
Seems to me that the phones in this suit were pretty much the same damn thing writ modern.
BTW, my son just got a new Samsung Rugby. It’s NOT an iPhone clone – and as a ruggedized choice, it looks pretty decent. So it’s not like they can’t compete with their own designs – they can. So what’s the deal with needing to go the Behringer route if it’s NOT to take advantage of the IP good will Apple earned?
Set me straight if you think I’m wrong.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Chris Harlan] “Careful, now. You need to grasp–however difficult it might be–that Bill has a patent pending on the “condescending “Uh,…” and that he’s not afraid to use it.”
Oh my god Chris. Didn’t we go over this?
Go ahead read the quote again. This time without your interior snark. Like a regular person might say this in a regular conversation.
Here are the words…
“Uh,
In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.
In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.
Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?”
Now notice that in the first line, I used “uh” (not “DUH” or “you dolt” but merely “uh” like someone’s trying to make a polite point in a conversation which is precisely where most people use similar expressions.
The middle two graphs are merely an letter accurate reflection of the words used in the OP.
Finally, try to read the last question, not with some pre-conception about my snakiness – but as a simple declarative sentence – which is precisely what it is.
A declarative sentence. Without a single word that implies any negative tone whatsoever.
You just can’t read anything I write without imbuing it with tone and intent that is simply not there.
I’m actually sorry that you didn’t make it to Vegas. If you had, you might have learned that I’m NOT someone who tends to actually use snark and dismissal of others. Yes, I can get annoyed and get snippy. Just like you. But it’s NOT my default state – as others here who HAVE met me can easily attest.. So please try not to read every thing I write with a tone that’s simply not there.
Thanks for the consideration.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
For heaven’s sake Chris. Didn’t we go over this?
Go ahead read the quote again. This time without your interior snark. Like a regular person might say this in a regular conversation.
Here are the words…
“Uh,
In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.
In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.
Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?”
Now notice that in the first line, I used “uh” (not “DUH” or “you dolt” but merely “uh” like someone’s trying to make a polite point in a conversation which is precisely where most people use similar expressions.
The middle two graphs are merely an letter accurate reflection of the words used in the OP.
Finally, try to read the last question, not with some pre-conception about my snakiness – but as a simple declarative sentence – which is precisely what it is.
A declarative sentence. Without a single word that implies any negative tone whatsoever.
You just can’t read anything I write without imbuing it with tone and intent that is simply not there.
I’m actually sorry that you didn’t make it to Vegas. If you had, you might have learned that I’m NOT someone who tends to actually use snark and dismissal of others. Yes, I can get annoyed and get snippy. Just like you. But it’s NOT my default state – as others here who HAVE met me can easily attest.. So please try not to read every thing I write with a tone that’s simply not there.
Thanks for the consideration.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] “You just can’t read anything I write without imbuing it with tone and intent that is simply not there.
“Uh huh.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Careful, now. You need to grasp–however difficult it might be–that Bill has a patent pending on the “condescending “Uh,…” and that he’s not afraid to use it.
“Wow, a patent on a thing that provably doesn’t exist!
That HAS to be a first and I’m almost kinda proud to almost have been part of such groundbreaking rhetoric here!
But a quick google search dashed my dreams.
Seems the ONLY mention of the phrase in the entire Google ovure – is Chris post right here!
So he’s managed to invent his reading of my intent out of whole cloth – then convince at least one other that it’s a fact.
Brilliant.
To argue that your opponent is beating one up with something that doesn’t actually EXIST – and then get others to agree – Wow.
Spin-reading. I love it. Much more convenient than traditional “spinning” as practiced in politics – since it’s requires nothing more than the ability to filter everything you read through an internal personal “tone” that you get to unilaterally apply.
Call the big political parties immediately. (doesn’t matter which)
Your fortune awaits…
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] “You’re actually saying that the software industry is not healthier and generating more income today than it ever has in history?”
Yup. I don’t equate software patent monopoly profits with a healthy software ecosystem.
[Bill Davis] “I’d LOVE to hear any statistics or facts to back that up. “
Well, for starters, here’s a report you can read from the EFF that estimates that over 11 billion dollars a year is wasted in software patent lawsuits. Guess who pays that bill? Maybe you can explain how this waste is good for innovation and consumers.
The fact is if you’re a small company starting out in the garage, your innovative product can be crushed before it even hits the market if another company wants to go after it. All they have to do is hold a patent. They don’t even need to make a competing product. This happens all the time. Here’s just one example.
No one’s arguing that companies should be able to steal source code and sell copies of other’s work as their own. The problem is that the US system grants overly broad patents to foundational computing processes and uses. This creates software monopolies. Monopolies are bad for choice and for innovation.
The system is broken. Software patents are bogus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Listen to this:
While reading this:
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
Awesome. Thank you.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up