Second point: Is joe's 'bashing' deserved?
He threw the word 'communist' out there. It was a great discussion...
and he deserves what he's getting. If he was a delicate wallflower I
would gladly admonish the forum to hush, but the tone is relatively
civil and Joe doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that'll wither away
from a few forum comments.
NB: Good lord, Joe, you're so wrong, it's staggering. The patent law
system, *THATS* communistic. It gives people monopolies, it uses laws
and government interference to interrupt the market. It only vibes
even a little bit with the entire notion of a capitalist western
system if you consider ideas property, but that obviously doesn't
work, as that amounts to thought crime. To put it a different way:
Guy A thinks of some barely novel idea, let's say one-click shopping,
and patents it. He's got a ton of dough to bankroll the lawyers and
sets up shop, but he's a patent troll and/or an operator of an obscure
website so its not all that well known.
3 years later, Guy B comes up with the same idea, entirely separate
from Guy A. He's not rich enough to front the multiple 10,000s of
dollars it takes for a thorough patent review*, so he just builds his
site. After 6 months and plenty of business, Guy A sues him for patent
infringement. He wins (what with the lawyers he's got) and manages to
hold Guy B accountable for lost profits, which bankrupt Guy B.
How is this not:
(A) thought crime,
(B) retarded,
(C) entirely possible with the current patent law, and
(D) Something that sniffs of Stalinese practices far more than what's
colloquially known as 'the free market'?
*) It costs that much because everything is patentable, even
completely obvious stuff that definitely isn't a mechanism, due to the
frivolous abuse of patent law, and the USPTO's position that they
grant just about every patent provided its written with the magic
words included ("A system and method"), and will then strike them back
down again when someone challenges them in court with prior art. It
costs a ton of money to search for prior art, and it's virtually
impossible to strike down a patent on the basis that it isn't novel or
isn't a mechanism. If it can be done at all you need an ace lawyer.
The end result is that reviewing for possible infringements in a
product costs more than $10,000 and challenging any resulting found
patents, even completely ridiculous ones, will easily run you over
$50,000. This is stifling in the extreme, and a freelancer like
yourself isn't served very well by such a system.
On Apr 8, 6:12 pm, Scott Melton <scott_rides_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a free and open society it is easy to find fault in complicated systems,
> just as it is easy to have a bias, pick sides and misrepresent the facts. One
> example in this thread, I may be wrong, but I think there is good reason for
> simplifying the patent granting process from who invented it first(which can
> be very difficult and costly to prove) to who filed first. Is the change a
> choice between the lesser of two weavels? Certainly. Infinitely more
> knowledgeable people than I made the decision. I will side with them until I
> become a patent lawyer or become so well informed that I can pass judgment on
> this complicated system.
>
> On to the Joe bashing or un-bashing if you will. Everyone has a bias. If you
> think you do not then you are biased toward the delusional. I enjoy the
> spirited discussions on the Java Posse podcast and think it is crucial to
> have them. If a bias surfaces from time to, (Apple, UNIX!, Windows) that is
> fine with me. I am lucky to know where they sit, before they tell me where
> they stand.
>
> The Posse members take extreme measures to inform people about where they
> sit. They do an exemplary job of presenting the issues in a well thought out,
> open, balanced and professional manner. Knowing their bias(or assuming I do)
> sometimes helps me understand their position more clearly.
>
> Having listened to over half of the podcasts, I have come to the conclusion
> that the format is an easy, open and professional one. It is easy to listen
> to, very informative and sometimes as fun as a barrel of monkeys. (That is a
> whole lot of fun!) For someone to personally criticize and insult a member
> for having a bias and not conforming to their way of thinking(right or wrong)
> is non-productive and unnecessary(unwanted?) in this format.
>
> That is my opinion. Take it or leave it. There is no reason to personally
> criticize or insult me for it.
>
> Apologies for high jacking this thread,
> Scott Melton
>
> Opinion sent from my ASS phone.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
