What else is new? (same old story): Microsoft Delivers Strong Growth;Quarterly Profit Up 79% on Vista Sales - Linux

This is a discussion on What else is new? (same old story): Microsoft Delivers Strong Growth;Quarterly Profit Up 79% on Vista Sales - Linux ; On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:52:44 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote: > Patents are a bad system. The excuse is to allow people to recoup > benefit from developement. The result is to stifle developement. More so > with software patents ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 81 to 86 of 86

Thread: What else is new? (same old story): Microsoft Delivers Strong Growth;Quarterly Profit Up 79% on Vista Sales

  1. Re: raylopez99 amazes us all with his analysis of economic theory..

    On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:52:44 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:


    > Patents are a bad system. The excuse is to allow people to recoup
    > benefit from developement. The result is to stifle developement. More so
    > with software patents than other, but with other as well.


    Oh, I totally disagree with the conclusion. Absolutely, the epitome of
    whom *should* be protected would be the lone inventor who creates cold
    fusion.

    -Thufir

  2. Re: raylopez99 amazes us all with his analysis of economic theory ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:02:19 +0000,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:57:30 +0000,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:31:55 -0800 (PST),
    >>>> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>>> On Jan 30, 4:10*pm, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> >> > unless somebody owns a technology, it will be misused if given away for free. *This is known in economics as the "tragedy of the commons".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> >> What a twisted representation of "tragedy of the commons" but we'll
    >>>>>> >> get to that later ..
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> > You never did get to it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> >> You mean like TCP/IP, the GUI and Ethernet, where would Microsoft be
    >>>>>> >> if these had been patented? And FM stereo radio stagnated for years
    >>>>>> >> because of the high cost of a 'license' ..
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> > All of these were in fact patented. *
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> False.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> OK, whatever. You say False and I say True. We both have opinions on
    >>>>> the matter. Use Google Patent and find the first patent and prove me
    >>>>> right. Pass.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> What patent covers TCP/IP itself? what patent covers GUI itself? what
    >>>> patent covers Ethernet itself?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> FM radio is an interesting example, though, because it was invented by a
    >>> very talented engineer Armstrong, but patented (in the US) by RCA. RCA
    >>> manipulated both the patent system and the FCC in all kinds of ways in
    >>> order to ensure that the FM system was not adopted in the US, in order
    >>> to protect their dominance of the AM spectrum and the upcoming
    >>> television services.
    >>>
    >>> Armstrong eventually committed suicide as a result of this, and also his
    >>> work on regenerative radios (positive feedback into the detector stage
    >>> used to obtain very high gain from a single amplifier/detector stage),
    >>> which was patented by someone called De Forest.
    >>>
    >>> If this perhaps sounds familiar when compared with the current
    >>> environment regarding software patents, well, it should. It's quite
    >>> clear that the patent system has been used to disadvantage small
    >>> inventors for scores of decades. The first example I know of where its
    >>> use merely resulted in halting progress was in the patenting of steam
    >>> condensing systems for steam engines in the UK during the industrial
    >>> revolution.
    >>>
    >>> The whole system should be scrapped.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> all very interesting of course, but not realy relevant to reylopez99's
    >> running away from the thread. He made a bold claim, I asked him to offer
    >> evidence to back it up, he vanished. Figures.
    >>

    >
    > It was a side issue, but Armstrong has always fascinated me as an
    > excellent engineer who was outpoliticked, whereas you can compare him
    > with Edison, who was very good a patenting things others had invented
    > , or at least co-invented, like Swan's light-bulb. In the end, they
    > reached a deal in the UK where Swan sold "EdiSwan" light-bulbs!
    >
    > The "first past the post" approach to patenting is even sillier than the
    > system itself, to my mind.
    >



    There have been some notable instances, Bell's telephone patent for
    instance where only hours seperated two patent submissions for
    essentially the same idea.

    Patents as a concept and execution, are badly flawed.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHq1bBd90bcYOAWPYRApF+AJ0RY/6y5/rQFc1RAl0sBwbgDp7lGQCgsGjl
    5M0Y/2gtx1SOp5ch3uLnrUI=
    =oCNy
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I came; I saw; I ****ed up

  3. Re: raylopez99 amazes us all with his analysis of economic theory ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:18:02 GMT,
    Thufir wrote:
    > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:57:30 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> If this perhaps sounds familiar when compared with the current
    >> environment regarding software patents, well, it should. It's quite
    >> clear that the patent system has been used to disadvantage small
    >> inventors for scores of decades.

    >
    > Of course, the intent of the patent system is to protect the smaller from
    > being exploited. Sigh.
    >
    >



    Actually, no. The intent of the patent system was to encourage new
    developements by granting a limited monopoly to "new" ideas in exchange
    for them being freely available to all after that *short* artificial
    monopoly ended. It's been pushed in some ways since then as a "protect
    the little guy" idea, but that was never the intent, and certainly isn't
    the result.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHq1dBd90bcYOAWPYRAugEAKC02fN1pNYsIZ30HwSZvb wPx+x37QCfU/J2
    FiM2iUxwAA21rW2AvDERKnQ=
    =/X5m
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Dash Dash Space

  4. Re: raylopez99 amazes us all with his analysis of economic theory ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:21:02 GMT,
    Thufir wrote:
    > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:52:44 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Patents are a bad system. The excuse is to allow people to recoup
    >> benefit from developement. The result is to stifle developement. More so
    >> with software patents than other, but with other as well.

    >
    > Oh, I totally disagree with the conclusion. Absolutely, the epitome of
    > whom *should* be protected would be the lone inventor who creates cold
    > fusion.
    >




    But they aren't. It fails to do this, while also failing to ensure that
    new ideas get into circulation in a short time.


    The intent of the patent system is exactly what I stated, to encourage
    developent by limited grants of monopoly in exchange for putting the new
    idea in the public domain after that monopoly had expired.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHq1fJd90bcYOAWPYRAnRZAJwICNYHuZdea1ldSyQNgC yRMfI+twCfQG9E
    Nb9Y7TF53ZD9kdL6ejeMpBU=
    =jTGW
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?"

  5. Re: raylopez99 amazes us all with his analysis of economic theory ..

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:18:02 GMT,
    > Thufir wrote:
    >> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:57:30 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>> If this perhaps sounds familiar when compared with the current
    >>> environment regarding software patents, well, it should. It's quite
    >>> clear that the patent system has been used to disadvantage small
    >>> inventors for scores of decades.

    >>
    >> Of course, the intent of the patent system is to protect the smaller from
    >> being exploited. Sigh.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Actually, no. The intent of the patent system was to encourage new
    > developements by granting a limited monopoly to "new" ideas in exchange
    > for them being freely available to all after that *short* artificial
    > monopoly ended. It's been pushed in some ways since then as a "protect
    > the little guy" idea, but that was never the intent, and certainly isn't
    > the result.
    >


    If you go back far enough, it was to give the guilds a monopoly in their
    work... and that is precisely what it's being used for now.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  6. Re: raylopez99 amazes us all with his analysis of economic theory ..

    On Feb 8, 3:12 am, Mark Kent wrote:
    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    > > Thufir wrote:


    > > Actually, no. The intent of the patent system was to encourage new
    > > developements by granting a limited monopoly to "new" ideas in exchange
    > > for them being freely available to all after that *short* artificial
    > > monopoly ended. It's been pushed in some ways since then as a "protect
    > > the little guy" idea, but that was never the intent, and certainly isn't
    > > the result.


    More accurately, the intent of the patent system was to promote the
    DISCLOSURE of new developments, by allowing the person who made the
    disclosure to either ramp up, manufacture, and market his new
    contraption, or license his patent to others who could do so.

    Many civilizations experienced a "rise and fall" in which a priesthood
    of wizards and sorcerers made breakthroughs in what we call chemistry,
    medicine, and physics, but carefully protected these ideas, often
    swearing an oath to die a horrible death if they were to make such a
    disclosure. In many cases, such a death was a very real possibility
    if such a disclosure was made. But, if the priests abused their
    power, it was not uncommon for people or rivals to revolt, kill all of
    the priests, and with it their secrets of technology.

    Similar things happened with the software industry. Many companies,
    unable to secure patent rights for software, required their employees
    to sign comprehensive nondisclosure agreements, often with some
    clearly stated penalties such as termination, if they were to make
    such disclosures.

    Another group made disclosures a part of their policies, even
    mandatory. The open source movement started when people found that
    they could not get support for their software when the provide went
    bankrupt. The department of defense would solve the problem by
    publishing the source code, and taking bids on contracts to support
    that "orphaned" source code.

    > If you go back far enough, it was to give the guilds a monopoly in their
    > work... and that is precisely what it's being used for now.


    Ironically, the guilds were a form of exchange between priest-hoods.
    Rather than having each group work in isolation, they shared ideas
    with each other (but not the general public), and used this shared
    information to help their benefactors. As the number of guilds and
    guild members increased and spread prosperity to more people, the
    guilds became what we now know as the "middle class", providing
    services and enhanced products to those who previously couldn't afford
    them, and becoming less and less dependent on the lords and military
    rulers who no longer had to rule by force and terror.

    In effect, the guilds promoted competition through mutual cooperation
    and sharing of ideas. Much the way the open source community shared
    ideas today.

    > | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    > | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    > | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    > | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |



+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5