|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process?
I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process.
Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods.
|
On September 22 2016 03:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated.
What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means.
If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? The majority of the bands also tend to do cover songs without paying licensing/public performance fees, so...
For live concerns. My understanding is that performing it live is transformative enough to not infringe on copyright law. Recording a cover without approval is different, but I know there are cover bands out there that sell music. But I believe that is with the approval of the record label/band.
A lot of the value of music is the band members performing the music, rather than the makeup of the song.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 22 2016 03:52 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place.
I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Don't delude yourself. When there are competing models to fill a new technological niche standardization is incredibly important. What Elon Musk is doing is comparable to a manufacturer of VHS machines telling anyone that they can record stuff on VHS. Elon Musk is a businessman, he knows the patents have value only if they take off and become the standard model in the market. Come on man, if it was a business move, he'd be better off selling the rights to the patents. Having other established car manufacturers use the same technology as Tesla cars isn't going to help his business in any significant way. I don't think its comparable to VHS in that way at all. How do you imagine the base technology being used in other cars enriching his future business empire? Are you suggesting that the technology will only work with the batteries that he's making for which he won't release the patents?
Right now electric cars aren't even really a thing outside of some pet projects. You can't drive from coast to coast in one, the self driving freight trucks probably won't be electric when they roll out in 5 years, the infrastructure just isn't there and won't be unless either the government (they're the only ones big enough and interested enough to take the loss on it) either sink a shitton of money into laying out the infrastructure or all the competing companies collectively use the same technology enough to represent a sufficient market for charge stations to open. And that's just one barrier to entry.
The main business threat to Tesla isn't other electric car manufacturers. It's there just not being electric cars due to either biofuels, sustainable gas, hydrogen cells, whatever. Step 1 in any business plan for Tesla is "make electric cars a thing people want" with step 2 being "sell our electric cars". Step 2 can't happen unless step 1 does. Through cooperation and standardization he's trying to address step 1, not out of altruism but instead out of recognition that the issues with electric cars are far bigger than the differences between rival manufacturers.
Sorry to ruin one of your heroes but no business acts against its own self interests. To do so would be a betrayal of the responsibility to the shareholders.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-12/why-elon-musk-just-opened-teslas-patents-to-his-biggest-rivals
|
On September 22 2016 04:00 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process. Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods.
You aren't differentiating between the patent examiners performing the patent examining process and the juridical system that determines those processes. zlefin seems to be arguing that the laws are pretty clear and that the courts are constantly having to overrule the patent office by invalidating shitty patents that are being allowed by "hacks" there. this is just 1) demonstrably false and 2) a historically contingent path that is both political and juridical.
How much does it cost a band to produce an album?
|
On September 22 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace.
2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents
3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP
it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge
The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? The majority of the bands also tend to do cover songs without paying licensing/public performance fees, so... For live concerns. My understanding is that performing it live is transformative enough to not infringe on copyright law. Recording a cover without approval is different, but I know there are cover bands out there that sell music. But I believe that is with the approval of the record label/band. A lot of the value of music is the band members performing the music, rather than the makeup of the song.
Yeah Pop Goes Punk gets permission from all the original artists. No shame.
|
On September 22 2016 03:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it.
The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor
Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it. So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval? Yes. If you aren't aware of the multiple ways that artists get compensated for their work besides restricting access to digital copies you are only hurting your own income stream. You yourself said that they play shows. You do know that most people who go to shows have heard the music before right?
You are basically telling them you don’t value their creative efforts, believe you should be able own it without compensating them and they can figure out how to make money without you. Not only that, but you think everyone else should be able to take their work and not compensate them for it. That it is up to the artist to figure out how to make money on their efforts without the ability to control their art. All to “encourage” creativity by making it harder for the creators to survive and make a living.
And you are really showing how little you know about music if you think bands can make a living off of shows alone without a label.
|
On September 22 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace.
2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents
3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP
it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge
The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? The majority of the bands also tend to do cover songs without paying licensing/public performance fees, so... For live concerns. My understanding is that performing it live is transformative enough to not infringe on copyright law. Recording a cover without approval is different, but I know there are cover bands out there that sell music. But I believe that is with the approval of the record label/band. A lot of the value of music is the band members performing the music, rather than the makeup of the song.
No, performing it live is 100% infringement. That's why there are public performance licenses, which cover both live music and recorded music.
In many cases the venue has a public performance license, which will cover bands playing for them, but really musicians are some of the worst commercial infringers on other bands' copyrights.
|
On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process?
enough.
how much do you know?
and what's wrong with simply disagreeing about the matter on an internet forum?
|
On September 22 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace.
2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents
3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP
it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge
The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? The majority of the bands also tend to do cover songs without paying licensing/public performance fees, so... For live concerns. My understanding is that performing it live is transformative enough to not infringe on copyright law. Recording a cover without approval is different, but I know there are cover bands out there that sell music. But I believe that is with the approval of the record label/band. A lot of the value of music is the band members performing the music, rather than the makeup of the song.
in most cases you technically need a compulsory license. copyright covers performances. in most cases unless you are making a ton of money or getting a ton of attention no one cares.
|
On September 22 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? enough. how much do you know? and what's wrong with simply disagreeing about the matter on an internet forum?
well i'm an IP attorney. i think you are wrong and since you fetishize expertise and scientific governance i was trying to figure out what you actually know.
|
On September 22 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:52 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods.
If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Don't delude yourself. When there are competing models to fill a new technological niche standardization is incredibly important. What Elon Musk is doing is comparable to a manufacturer of VHS machines telling anyone that they can record stuff on VHS. Elon Musk is a businessman, he knows the patents have value only if they take off and become the standard model in the market. Come on man, if it was a business move, he'd be better off selling the rights to the patents. Having other established car manufacturers use the same technology as Tesla cars isn't going to help his business in any significant way. I don't think its comparable to VHS in that way at all. How do you imagine the base technology being used in other cars enriching his future business empire? Are you suggesting that the technology will only work with the batteries that he's making for which he won't release the patents? Right now electric cars aren't even really a thing outside of some pet projects. You can't drive from coast to coast in one, the self driving freight trucks probably won't be electric when they roll out in 5 years, the infrastructure just isn't there and won't be unless either the government (they're the only ones big enough and interested enough to take the loss on it) either sink a shitton of money into laying out the infrastructure or all the competing companies collectively use the same technology enough to represent a sufficient market for charge stations to open. And that's just one barrier to entry. The main business threat to Tesla isn't other electric car manufacturers. It's there just not being electric cars due to either biofuels, sustainable gas, hydrogen cells, whatever. Step 1 in any business plan for Tesla is "make electric cars a thing people want" with step 2 being "sell our electric cars". Step 2 can't happen unless step 1 does. Through cooperation and standardization he's trying to address step 1, not out of altruism but instead out of recognition that the issues with electric cars are far bigger than the differences between rival manufacturers. Sorry to ruin one of your heroes but no business acts against its own self interests. To do so would be a betrayal of the responsibility to the shareholders. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-12/why-elon-musk-just-opened-teslas-patents-to-his-biggest-rivals
You can easily drive coast to coast in the United States in an electric vehicle. Thanks to Tesla, who invested a shitton of money in laying out the infrastructure. And allows electric cars from other manufacturers to use the chargers without even talking to them about it, since the patents are open source. I suppose he might think he can earn the money back by charging the consumer for the electricity generated at these stations, which is largely solar powered and thus relatively free to be produced, of course.
And don't you worry, Musk isn't a hero of mine. I do think he is an overall force of good in the world, but I learned a long time ago not to worship people as heroes. I do agree with him that electric cars are the obvious way to go, though, and I don't think biofuels, hydrogen cells or anything else really offers the same amount of flexibility that electricity does. Solar energy is so easily and readily available at huge quantities as long as we capture it...
|
On September 22 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:58 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability.
And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid.
The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it. So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval? Yes. If you aren't aware of the multiple ways that artists get compensated for their work besides restricting access to digital copies you are only hurting your own income stream. You yourself said that they play shows. You do know that most people who go to shows have heard the music before right? You are basically telling them you don’t value their creative efforts, believe you should be able own it without compensating them and they can figure out how to make money without you. Not only that, but you think everyone else should be able to take their work and not compensate them for it. That it is up to the artist to figure out how to make money on their efforts without the ability to control their art. All to “encourage” creativity by making it harder for the creators to survive and make a living. And you are really showing how little you know about music if you think bands can make a living off of shows alone without a label.
you are showing how little you know about music if you think most bands can make a living on their music, period.
i do value their creative efforts. if i really enjoyed it i might donate or i would go see a show of theirs. i value them so much that i want to encourage future bands to take the best stuff around today and continue to innovate for the love of innovating.
how much does it cost to make a copy of an album? how much did it cost to produce the master copy? how much do you think artists are entitled to recoup?
|
On September 22 2016 04:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? enough. how much do you know? and what's wrong with simply disagreeing about the matter on an internet forum? well i'm an IP attorney. i think you are wrong and since you fetishize expertise and scientific governance i was trying to figure out what you actually know.
well, i'll moderately upgrade the value I place in your comments then.
but I don't want to go into the detail required to actually fully assess the matter, because it's an internet forum, and i'm not a gov't official.
|
On September 22 2016 04:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:58 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it. So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval? Yes. If you aren't aware of the multiple ways that artists get compensated for their work besides restricting access to digital copies you are only hurting your own income stream. You yourself said that they play shows. You do know that most people who go to shows have heard the music before right? You are basically telling them you don’t value their creative efforts, believe you should be able own it without compensating them and they can figure out how to make money without you. Not only that, but you think everyone else should be able to take their work and not compensate them for it. That it is up to the artist to figure out how to make money on their efforts without the ability to control their art. All to “encourage” creativity by making it harder for the creators to survive and make a living. And you are really showing how little you know about music if you think bands can make a living off of shows alone without a label. you are showing how little you know about music if you think most bands can make a living on their music, period. i do value their creative efforts. if i really enjoyed it i might donate or i would go see a show of theirs. i value them so much that i want to encourage future bands to take the best stuff around today and continue to innovate for the love of innovating. how much does it cost to make a copy of an album? how much did it cost to produce the master copy? how much do you think artists are entitled to recoup?
They should be able to set the price for their creative efforts for a period of time. End of story. If they create something, they should have the right to own that creation.
And I never said most bands can make a living on their music. But they should have the ability to do so. And that includes being able to control who reproduces copies of their recordings.
|
On September 22 2016 04:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:00 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process. Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods. You aren't differentiating between the patent examiners performing the patent examining process and the juridical system that determines those processes. zlefin seems to be arguing that the laws are pretty clear and that the courts are constantly having to overrule the patent office by invalidating shitty patents that are being allowed by "hacks" there. this is just 1) demonstrably false and 2) a historically contingent path that is both political and juridical.
Why does the difference matter? The fact of the matter is that there are many patents (and I'm specifically talking about software patents) that are absolute bullshit and based on nothing more than existing ideas being made into software. That's almost literally the same as taking an existing idea (hero meets girl), writing a book about it in a digital format (which is separate from the story in the book itself) and then claiming nobody else can use that same idea (hero meets girl) in said digital format because you did it first. You say you are an IP lawyer, but have you ever dealt specifically with software patents? There is some really wonky shit out there when it comes to software patents.
I've also seen some ridiculous patents when it comes to the shape of phones, as if that requires anything more than math to calculate whether or not the parts will fit in. Maybe you can patent the miniaturization of said parts, but not simply the shape of the phone, please... They draw some really basic graph in the patent that says where the parts will go, as if that constitutes "an idea" rather than simple logic. I also read about some patent for configuring the position of satellites in space to cover the earth properly with a minimal amount of satellites. How is that an idea rather than simple mathematics based on orbital mechanics?
Edit: Something needs to be done to curb the stupidity of obvious patents and the mess of "we won't sue you if you don't sue us", that excludes newcomers from getting anywhere on the scene. If there's a juridical system that determines the process, then the juridical system needs to review and potentially correct the process. If the patent approval agency can't execute the process, then they need to work on actually being able to execute the process. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter where the problem lies. Its not like we're going to solve this issue on a forum, word just needs to get out there how messed up the situation is.
|
On September 22 2016 04:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:12 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:58 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
"Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it. So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval? Yes. If you aren't aware of the multiple ways that artists get compensated for their work besides restricting access to digital copies you are only hurting your own income stream. You yourself said that they play shows. You do know that most people who go to shows have heard the music before right? You are basically telling them you don’t value their creative efforts, believe you should be able own it without compensating them and they can figure out how to make money without you. Not only that, but you think everyone else should be able to take their work and not compensate them for it. That it is up to the artist to figure out how to make money on their efforts without the ability to control their art. All to “encourage” creativity by making it harder for the creators to survive and make a living. And you are really showing how little you know about music if you think bands can make a living off of shows alone without a label. you are showing how little you know about music if you think most bands can make a living on their music, period. i do value their creative efforts. if i really enjoyed it i might donate or i would go see a show of theirs. i value them so much that i want to encourage future bands to take the best stuff around today and continue to innovate for the love of innovating. how much does it cost to make a copy of an album? how much did it cost to produce the master copy? how much do you think artists are entitled to recoup? They should be able to set the price for their creative efforts for a period of time. End of story. If they create something, they should have the right to own that creation. And I never said most bands can make a living on their music. But they should have the ability to do so. And that includes being able to control who reproduces copies of their recordings.
This is honestly a pipe-dream scenario, because bootleg, mixtape, sharing, etc. is a pretty big part of the indie band culture and has been for as long as people could make copies.
And really, no small-time band has the resources to stop anyone from making copies, and has no monetary gain from suing someone making a CD copy.
(plus most indie bands would probably love to have a million copies of their song downloaded, even if they don't see immediate money from it)
|
On September 22 2016 04:33 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:03 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:00 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process. Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods. You aren't differentiating between the patent examiners performing the patent examining process and the juridical system that determines those processes. zlefin seems to be arguing that the laws are pretty clear and that the courts are constantly having to overrule the patent office by invalidating shitty patents that are being allowed by "hacks" there. this is just 1) demonstrably false and 2) a historically contingent path that is both political and juridical. Why does the difference matter? The fact of the matter is that there are many patents (and I'm specifically talking about software patents) that are absolute bullshit and based on nothing more than existing ideas being made into software. That's almost literally the same as taking an existing idea (hero meets girl), writing a book about it in a digital format (which is separate from the story in the book itself) and then claiming nobody else can use that same idea (hero meets girl) in said digital format because you did it first. You say you are an IP lawyer, but have you ever dealt specifically with software patents? There is some really wonky shit out there when it comes to software patents. I've also seen some ridiculous patents when it comes to the shape of phones, as if that requires anything more than math to calculate whether or not the parts will fit in. Maybe you can patent the miniaturization of said parts, but not simply the shape of the phone, please... They draw some really basic graph in the patent that says where the parts will go, as if that constitutes "an idea" rather than simple logic. I also read about some patent for configuring the position of satellites in space to cover the earth properly with a minimal amount of satellites. How is that an idea rather than simple mathematics based on orbital mechanics?
Alice vs. CLS
The Court held that Mayo explained how to address the problem of determining whether a patent claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea or instead a potentially patentable practical implementation of an idea. This requires using a "two-step" analysis.
In the first Mayo step, the court must determine whether the patent claim under examination contains an abstract idea, such as an algorithm, method of computation, or other general principle. If not, the claim is potentially patentable, subject to the other requirements of the patent code. If the answer is affirmative, the court must proceed to the next step.
In the second step of analysis, the court must determine whether the patent adds to the idea "something extra" that embodies an "inventive concept."
If there is no addition of an inventive element to the underlying abstract idea, the court should find the patent invalid under § 101. This means that the implementation of the idea must not be generic, conventional, or obvious, if it is to qualify for a patent. Ordinary and customary use of a general-purpose digital computer is insufficient, the Court said—"merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
The ruling continued with these points:
A mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer "cannot impart patent eligibility."
"[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
"Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words "apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility."
"Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment."
|
On September 22 2016 00:35 KwarK wrote:On an unrelated note, my favourite quote regarding racism against blacks in the black community is Jesse Jackson reflecting upon his own internalized racism and how he struggles with it. Show nested quote +There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. It makes perfect sense to me. There is absolutely no reason to think black people would be immune from the societal imprinting of stereotypes about race. They're part of society, they read the same newspapers, watch the same television shows, have the same basic human desire to put people into neat boxes using stereotypes. GH will interject and say that racism isn't raycism and I'm talking about stereotyping but whatever, the point remains.
I've mentioned this every time someone mentions something that idiot Clark or when other black people say the racist stuff their white peers like, as some way to show it's not racist. It's called internalized racism. But to your other point, it's actually raycism too, because it's a part of the white power structure, stems from and gains it's power from white supremacy.
Don King says a lot of colossally stupid things, but that little bit from the tweet is pretty standard fare for black people. It's more of a people born before the 80's thing, but up until then many black parents believed they had to teach their kids they were "still a n****r" no matter what they accomplish as to protect them from people who wouldn't respect their success (and try to soften the associated blow). Professor Gates would be an example of why they believed that.
We shine because they hate us, floss cause they degrade us
We trying to buy back our 40 acres
And for that paper, look how low we a stoop
Even if you in a Benz, you still a nigga in a coupe
Also shout out to all those people who say they care about the constitution and fear a tyrannical government ignoring the government murdering innocent Americans.
|
On September 22 2016 04:33 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:03 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:00 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process. Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods. You aren't differentiating between the patent examiners performing the patent examining process and the juridical system that determines those processes. zlefin seems to be arguing that the laws are pretty clear and that the courts are constantly having to overrule the patent office by invalidating shitty patents that are being allowed by "hacks" there. this is just 1) demonstrably false and 2) a historically contingent path that is both political and juridical. Why does the difference matter? The fact of the matter is that there are many patents (and I'm specifically talking about software patents) that are absolute bullshit and based on nothing more than existing ideas being made into software. That's almost literally the same as taking an existing idea (hero meets girl), writing a book about it in a digital format (which is separate from the story in the book itself) and then claiming nobody else can use that same idea (hero meets girl) in said digital format because you did it first. You say you are an IP lawyer, but have you ever dealt specifically with software patents? There is some really wonky shit out there when it comes to software patents. I've also seen some ridiculous patents when it comes to the shape of phones, as if that requires anything more than math to calculate whether or not the parts will fit in. Maybe you can patent the miniaturization of said parts, but not simply the shape of the phone, please... They draw some really basic graph in the patent that says where the parts will go, as if that constitutes "an idea" rather than simple logic. I also read about some patent for configuring the position of satellites in space to cover the earth properly with a minimal amount of satellites. How is that an idea rather than simple mathematics based on orbital mechanics?
Yeah there are wonky patents. I was in a conversation with zlefin about the ultimate cause of the wonkiness, not whether there was any wonkiness. I am in almost total agreement with you about the shitty state of patent law and think the whole thing needs to be abolished and rebuilt with fundamentally different principles.
On September 22 2016 04:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:12 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:58 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
"Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it. So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval? Yes. If you aren't aware of the multiple ways that artists get compensated for their work besides restricting access to digital copies you are only hurting your own income stream. You yourself said that they play shows. You do know that most people who go to shows have heard the music before right? You are basically telling them you don’t value their creative efforts, believe you should be able own it without compensating them and they can figure out how to make money without you. Not only that, but you think everyone else should be able to take their work and not compensate them for it. That it is up to the artist to figure out how to make money on their efforts without the ability to control their art. All to “encourage” creativity by making it harder for the creators to survive and make a living. And you are really showing how little you know about music if you think bands can make a living off of shows alone without a label. you are showing how little you know about music if you think most bands can make a living on their music, period. i do value their creative efforts. if i really enjoyed it i might donate or i would go see a show of theirs. i value them so much that i want to encourage future bands to take the best stuff around today and continue to innovate for the love of innovating. how much does it cost to make a copy of an album? how much did it cost to produce the master copy? how much do you think artists are entitled to recoup? They should be able to set the price for their creative efforts for a period of time. End of story. If they create something, they should have the right to own that creation. And I never said most bands can make a living on their music. But they should have the ability to do so. And that includes being able to control who reproduces copies of their recordings.
That doesn't follow. Presumably you mean most bands should have the ability to make a living on their music if the market decides they are good enough to pay for. Bands that are good enough will be able to make a living off of live performances, donations, merchandising, etc. For everyone else it's a creative hobby that creates value unrecognized by the market. I am for increasing the total value in this world, and that happens through maximizing knowledge production through knowledge. Artificial barriers for goods that are essentially free to reproduce and frictionless to transfer only impede the pollination of living global knowledge. I know you feel personally invested in your fiancee's creative output, but that's simply not a good argument. Honestly if they charge for their music they are only restricting their publicity. The music business is moving on past copyright, even if other sectors (notably software and other forms of entertainment) are still fighting tooth and nail.
|
On September 22 2016 04:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:33 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 04:03 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:00 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process. Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods. You aren't differentiating between the patent examiners performing the patent examining process and the juridical system that determines those processes. zlefin seems to be arguing that the laws are pretty clear and that the courts are constantly having to overrule the patent office by invalidating shitty patents that are being allowed by "hacks" there. this is just 1) demonstrably false and 2) a historically contingent path that is both political and juridical. Why does the difference matter? The fact of the matter is that there are many patents (and I'm specifically talking about software patents) that are absolute bullshit and based on nothing more than existing ideas being made into software. That's almost literally the same as taking an existing idea (hero meets girl), writing a book about it in a digital format (which is separate from the story in the book itself) and then claiming nobody else can use that same idea (hero meets girl) in said digital format because you did it first. You say you are an IP lawyer, but have you ever dealt specifically with software patents? There is some really wonky shit out there when it comes to software patents. I've also seen some ridiculous patents when it comes to the shape of phones, as if that requires anything more than math to calculate whether or not the parts will fit in. Maybe you can patent the miniaturization of said parts, but not simply the shape of the phone, please... They draw some really basic graph in the patent that says where the parts will go, as if that constitutes "an idea" rather than simple logic. I also read about some patent for configuring the position of satellites in space to cover the earth properly with a minimal amount of satellites. How is that an idea rather than simple mathematics based on orbital mechanics? Alice vs. CLSShow nested quote +The Court held that Mayo explained how to address the problem of determining whether a patent claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea or instead a potentially patentable practical implementation of an idea. This requires using a "two-step" analysis.
In the first Mayo step, the court must determine whether the patent claim under examination contains an abstract idea, such as an algorithm, method of computation, or other general principle. If not, the claim is potentially patentable, subject to the other requirements of the patent code. If the answer is affirmative, the court must proceed to the next step.
In the second step of analysis, the court must determine whether the patent adds to the idea "something extra" that embodies an "inventive concept."
If there is no addition of an inventive element to the underlying abstract idea, the court should find the patent invalid under § 101. This means that the implementation of the idea must not be generic, conventional, or obvious, if it is to qualify for a patent. Ordinary and customary use of a general-purpose digital computer is insufficient, the Court said—"merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
The ruling continued with these points:
A mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer "cannot impart patent eligibility."
"[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
"Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words "apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility."
"Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment."
If anyone is interested, many patent lawyers are now complaining about what they view as exceptionally low rates of allowance in certain business methods art units, because the USPTO has changed their allowance guidelines in response to Alice. That is why I said the problem mainly resides in the juridical structure outside of the patent office rather than with the "hacks" inside it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
