Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Update soon...

Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 131 to 138 of 138
  1. #131  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,166
    Wayne, you have a point. The patent system - as it was intended - is fine. For some reason we can't shake the cancer from it right now. I tell you, if I saw a fake factory and I worked for NEC, I would want that fake factory bombed, blown up, smashed into dust. You want to copy me? Okay, fine, whatever - lots of people try and copy Apple, and they all fail. But pretend to be me? Why, that means war.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #132  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,166
    BTW Jim I have a request. Just before you officially launch Hydrogen: tease us. Like, say, starting a thread titled, 'Remember Netscape?' and then go on some weird rant about reminiscing about Navigator 2.1.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #133  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    485
    The well known cinema product innovator and manufacturer mentioned to me recently that he will no longer invest in the patent process of property protection because it no longer makes economic sense. The cost of filing for patents in every country and the legal costs for litigation relating to patent infringement has become a major cost which ultimately drives the price up on his products. Patents may soon have value to only large corporations and the extremely wealthy who have the will and financial resources to litigate for patent enforcement. For small and midsize businesses patent protection appears to be no longer practical or effective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #134  
    Senior Member Zeb B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    In The Moment
    Posts
    4,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Vance Colvig View Post
    The well known cinema product innovator and manufacturer mentioned to me recently that he will no longer invest in the patent process of property protection because it no longer makes economic sense. The cost of filing for patents in every country and the legal costs for litigation relating to patent infringement has become a major cost which ultimately drives the price up on his products. Patents may soon have value to only large corporations and the extremely wealthy who have the will and financial resources to litigate for patent enforcement. For small and midsize businesses patent protection appears to be no longer practical or effective.
    Which is China's point exactly: having only the rich, politically connected companies able to enforce Patents creates a huge barrier of entry for new innovation. The China view of IP seems to be, ironically, more democratic in that anyone can jump in and have a go in the marketplace without the risk of getting sued to prevent them from being a threat.

    China seems to believe the USA legal system serves the rich and incumbents - not the common entrepreneur. Hard to disagree with that since a Patent only gives you a right to defend an idea. The cost of that defense starts at $250K and quickly escalates. Apple has full time $1000/hr lawyers who's entire job is to crush threats and / or weaken them to a point of being a bargain to purchase their valuable IP from.

    Since China is comprised of neither the rich or incumbents they will naturally want to play to their strength . . . which is the 300 million engineers they currently have wanting to create the next level of consumer goods. The Western form of IP protection prevents improvements to existing products since that would be infringing. It appears that China feels this is bullshit since the best product should win - not just who patented something remotely similar a dozen or so years ago. The Wired doc I reference above shows how there is a exploding class of Makers in China. They see the future is in Making stuff - not just assembling products for the West.

    Wayne, you are confusing straight brand / logo theft with the democratic use of basic technology. Certainly opening a fake Apple Store is not the same as using common components like, let's say, all the shit Steve Jobs lifted from Bell Labs and any number of small App / Plug-in developers he was "inspired by" to incorporate into an Apple App update.

    Seems that China's view might be: giving any company a 20 year exclusive on basic technology (because they got a vague Patent approved which allows them to sue an upstart into the Dark Ages) in no way creates innovation or better choices for the consumer. It creates silos of concentrated power and wealth which turn into State approved Monopolies instead of a wide variety of choices. They could point to what is happening with the USA Internet access for an example of this.

    The phones choices we have as the leading consumer nation is laughable. Go to Shanghai or Tokyo to see what techno goodies you are missing out on. The USA consumer has the illusion of choice within a very controlled field of options.

    Anyhoos, just killing time before the next update ;-)
    -Zeb
    FAA 333 Drone Jock
    Underwater Shooter
    Weapon 8K in Hawaii w/Operator
    www.Stock8K.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #135  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    Wayne, you have a point. The patent system - as it was intended - is fine. For some reason we can't shake the cancer from it right now. I tell you, if I saw a fake factory and I worked for NEC, I would want that fake factory bombed, blown up, smashed into dust. You want to copy me? Okay, fine, whatever - lots of people try and copy Apple, and they all fail. But pretend to be me? Why, that means war.
    Karim (and Vance) it has always been that way. At the introduction of the patent system, there was comment on how bad it was in the stuff you mentioned. It has got worse as trolls try to exploit it either by illegal patents which are treated like a civil process or by those trying to exploit legal patents. If people respected the system, there would be little legal issues or fees.

    But the problem is people would rather watch Shaun Micallef rather than get real.

    But in my case (and this whole thing of everything being discovered is a nonsense, I've proven that wrong thousands of times. People just say this self justifying sort of statement as a smoke screen). In my case, I had recorded some basic information in an email. My password ceased working. Many years latter best in the world 3D technology, "genius" accross the international press, from the place I lived. I thought that is pretty strange for two top people being from the same area at all, with similar sounding technology. I looked at the photo, and the guy looked like the kid who used to sit next to me and use the computer before I got picked out of my email. The right age, and right something else. He had been going around for years and years trying to figure out how to do it, and still was so far behind my research, and decades behind. But trying to challenge and overturn a patent is very expensive and time consuming. It should be an automatic free plapplication with proof and assessment by the patenting authority with automatic revocation, or reassignment of the effected parts of the patent around the world. The patent holder then can challenge in court if they believe there is no case and they have a case, with big penalties for them and their lawyers if it isn't so. There should be plenty of penalties easily for illegal patents which were proven to be intentional (and not by dubious/biased witnesses). Also, this all should come under criminal law. All that would get rid of much of the costs, as people would be more reluctant to do a lot to of behaviours which are to easy and cost effective, and makes challenging them authentically free. Nobody should need a lawyer to challenge these things, the department's should take up the slack.

    They could have a pre-registry of claims for free. The pre-registry forms prior art and prevents others from being able to make patents based on them. Companies can trawl the database looking for stuff to use. When they want to license something, the owner can register it as a patent, even the company pay for it as part of the licensed agreement with no ownership claims from this. After filing as a full patent the normal past process is started, and protection eventually starts (it's not known that the protection date can be obscure). Of course, anybody can use what is on the pre-registry as long as they can prove prior art, and be protected from pre-registry lister. Such disputes, or application, can result in parts of a listing being struck out. People can freely apply for parts of a listing to be struck out. Where there is proof the lister deliberately put in prior art there are penalties, and criminal penalty. Same for those trying to undermine a listing falsely. The number one problem in uncivil society is the lack of criminal penalties on crimes related to the rich and business, replaced by civil penalties. This allows a free for all attempt to get away with actions against their fellow man. When there is no moral attempt to do harm, or negligence, or other lack of responsibility, civil penalties are more appropriate.

    Now, it seems complex, but tying up lloose ends is complex, like in design. But that is a lot better than how things are going now. There is one further innovation from my even cheaper simpler alternative to patents, which would reduce costs even further.

    There was also another leading graphics technology that when I had applied for a research position, I revealed. A member of the institution applied for a patent. They did not have a right to apply on sections by me. It's a technology all of you likely use just about every day. So, so keep the other few leading graphics technology I have under wraps. I don't want to be put in the place again, of having to license my own technology ifbI wanted to use it.


    The well known cinema product innovator and manufacturer mentioned to me recently that he will no longer invest in the patent process of property protection because it no longer makes economic sense. The cost of filing for patents in every country and the legal costs for litigation relating to patent infringement has become a major cost which ultimately drives the price up on his products. Patents may soon have value to only large corporations and the extremely wealthy who have the will and financial resources to litigate for patent enforcement. For small and midsize businesses patent protection appears to be no longer practical or effective.
    Vance, see the reply with Karim above. It has been for a long time that it has been too expensive. Innovations might spend a million and loose their house and marriage just to get a deal fir an innovation. It has been tuned to suite big corporate interests.

    People ask, "Wayne..why didn't you.." do this or that. My embedded deterministic realtime virtual operating system design could likely have worked out to over a hundred patents. Now, how could I pay for it around the world, when the competition were putting a 100 man years of effort into their inferior product? Ask Red if in the spirit of good co-operation with Chinese inventors, if they would remove all their intellectual property protections, and see what response you could get. Without patents, we would be still stickmat the stage of only easy innovation because nobody could afford the hard stuff that underpins our societies.

    Now, you friend with the low volume cinema equipment production. He will find without patents he can get fleeced by over seas rip offs if his stuff is good enough. One thing patents enable you to do, is put an injection on import, use by users in a country, not just manufacture.

    However, because somebody can make money from innovation, innovation goes forwards. But if it had been different, innovation could be 10x more, but without it, we are back in the slow innovation of prior history. Supporting business helps keep innovations alive.l, that is a real expense to keep the design space in the design cultures mind, otherwise you loose it. There are a lot of innovations in history which have been lost due to continuation of the knowledge, the business that pays for that. Some things get rediscovered. Even though I believe there bare sufficient explanations of the technique used to make the pyramids in recent decades, is still controversial. I have a book with ancient technologies.l, with stuff that couldn't be done at time of writing. Look at the first computer or the first steam engine, or battery/electrolysis plater? in BC. The patent pool supports innovations in this way. Long after the patent period is finished, people can look in it to get solutions and make their own, solutions that otherwise could be obscured or lost.
    An explorer explores new ideas and things, but somebody stuck in mud, complains.
    - But the explorer complains about how much better the territory he has discovered is instead.

    -Since when has denying that the possible is possible been reason? Such is the life of some skepticism.
    -Normalcy involves what is realistically possible, not just what you say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #136  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeb B View Post
    Which is China's point exactly: having only the rich, politically connected companies able to enforce Patents creates a huge barrier of entry for new innovation. The China view of IP seems to be, ironically, more democratic in that anyone can jump in and have a go in the marketplace without the risk of getting sued to prevent them from being a threat.

    China seems to believe the USA legal system serves the rich and incumbents - not the common entrepreneur. Hard to disagree with that since a Patent only gives you a right to defend an idea. The cost of that defense starts at $250K and quickly escalates. Apple has full time $1000/hr lawyers who's entire job is to crush threats and / or weaken them to a point of being a bargain to purchase their valuable IP from.

    Since China is comprised of neither the rich or incumbents they will naturally want to play to their strength . . . which is the 300 million engineers they currently have wanting to create the next level of consumer goods. The Western form of IP protection prevents improvements to existing products since that would be infringing. It appears that China feels this is bullshit since the best product should win - not just who patented something remotely similar a dozen or so years ago. The Wired doc I reference above shows how there is a exploding class of Makers in China. They see the future is in Making stuff - not just assembling products for the West.

    Wayne, you are confusing straight brand / logo theft with the democratic use of basic technology. Certainly opening a fake Apple Store is not the same as using common components like, let's say, all the shit Steve Jobs lifted from Bell Labs and any number of small App / Plug-in developers he was "inspired by" to incorporate into an Apple App update.

    Seems that China's view might be: giving any company a 20 year exclusive on basic technology (because they got a vague Patent approved which allows them to sue an upstart into the Dark Ages) in no way creates innovation or better choices for the consumer. It creates silos of concentrated power and wealth which turn into State approved Monopolies instead of a wide variety of choices. They could point to what is happening with the USA Internet access for an example of this.

    The phones choices we have as the leading consumer nation is laughable. Go to Shanghai or Tokyo to see what techno goodies you are missing out on. The USA consumer has the illusion of choice within a very controlled field of options.

    Anyhoos, just killing time before the next update ;-)
    Zeb, see the above replies.

    China has been cracking down on intellectual property issues, because it interferes with international trade/business (and I can't remember, but local too I expect. You can't really get big and competitive without something). Over ten years ago there were over 20 million middle class people in China. Now there is probably 20 million millionaires. Their is plenty of potential there to do it the world's way.

    Now, Zeb, my point about the NEC example is just how far they are willing to go, and want you are seeing is along that vein of taking advantage of others.

    As far as other things go. Look, it's obviouse that a flat square is a basic uninovsted inevitable practically reductionist shape for a tablet (all those words show the magnitude of things against its protection) and curves in the sides or edges of it are likewise (even as a safety feature). But Apple was granted protection over Samsung. It was a shock. Patents also are not supposed to cover basic things and basic innovations, but people (being polite) apply for them and the patent system not doing there job to block that, grant them, so large legal battles have to be forght to defeat it. People also include prior art, same issue apply's. It is patent high costs and low government expenditure on running it in a way they couldn't get sued for, that is driving up costs. A lot of the objections are supposed to be covered, but it is who is running things and who you vote for, that is the issue.

    Looking at this issue of basic technology, and innovation steps. Patents are not supposed to be on obviouse improvements. So, they are supposed to be on that which is difficult for other people to get on their own. Problem is, once you show something to a patent examiner even, they become convinced it's obvious, even though they would never had thought of it themselves unaided (like with it already Infront of them). Even though what is unobviouse to most people would require somebody of some brilliance specifically working on it to realise the solution. Which is why many of these tthings had not been patented or used before. This is a unit of work/workmanship. So yes, some talentless numnucks of a wannabe engineer (nuckle draggers) might look at a patent and think, they could have thought of that, but they and maybe nobody else, did. This tells you everything. The disadvantage is in the mindset. They take value and contribute it to themselves. But, as I said, the issue with patents, is trying to apply them to stuff that shouldn't be covered. If we could get rid of that out of the system, that would be an improvement.

    While you might see it as American. Many countries have a patent system, with international agreements on how it's done. Certain countries pick on America because America is dominant and those people want to be dominant instead.

    If it wasn't for China I could have had my product lines up years ago. But the negative innovation impacts of China pretty much stopped that. Even one of my friends started a big battery company in China. The local criminal gang got involved through a political connection, and because he wouldn't pass faulty equipment, he was chuckee in jail and deported and he lost his company probably worth upto 700 million or so today on an estimate. These sorts of things are too common. If you hink the big bad America us bad, I can point to other far worse countries, and the common thing they have in common,is that unless they are exploiting somebody they do really poorly in business, society and innovation. It should the petty.mesn spirited dominating, exploiting, grafting and stealing culture which does it. Doing business with those people is extremely risky. You don't just meet any stranger and assume they are going treat you fairly. They use contacts and clan like systems for protection. When you see that, you know you have trouble.
    An explorer explores new ideas and things, but somebody stuck in mud, complains.
    - But the explorer complains about how much better the territory he has discovered is instead.

    -Since when has denying that the possible is possible been reason? Such is the life of some skepticism.
    -Normalcy involves what is realistically possible, not just what you say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #137  
    Senior Member Zeb B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    In The Moment
    Posts
    4,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini View Post
    Zeb, see the above replies.

    China has been cracking down on intellectual property issues, because it interferes with international trade/business (and I can't remember, but local too I expect. You can't really get big and competitive without something). Over ten years ago there were over 20 million middle class people in China. Now there is probably 20 million millionaires. Their is plenty of potential there to do it the world's way.

    Now, Zeb, my point about the NEC example is just how far they are willing to go, and want you are seeing is along that vein of taking advantage of others.

    As far as other things go. Look, it's obviouse that a flat square is a basic uninovsted inevitable practically reductionist shape for a tablet (all those words show the magnitude of things against its protection) and curves in the sides or edges of it are likewise (even as a safety feature). But Apple was granted protection over Samsung. It was a shock. Patents also are not supposed to cover basic things and basic innovations, but people (being polite) apply for them and the patent system not doing there job to block that, grant them, so large legal battles have to be forght to defeat it. People also include prior art, same issue apply's. It is patent high costs and low government expenditure on running it in a way they couldn't get sued for, that is driving up costs. A lot of the objections are supposed to be covered, but it is who is running things and who you vote for, that is the issue.

    Looking at this issue of basic technology, and innovation steps. Patents are not supposed to be on obviouse improvements. So, they are supposed to be on that which is difficult for other people to get on their own. Problem is, once you show something to a patent examiner even, they become convinced it's obvious, even though they would never had thought of it themselves unaided (like with it already Infront of them). Even though what is unobviouse to most people would require somebody of some brilliance specifically working on it to realise the solution. Which is why many of these tthings had not been patented or used before. This is a unit of work/workmanship. So yes, some talentless numnucks of a wannabe engineer (nuckle draggers) might look at a patent and think, they could have thought of that, but they and maybe nobody else, did. This tells you everything. The disadvantage is in the mindset. They take value and contribute it to themselves. But, as I said, the issue with patents, is trying to apply them to stuff that shouldn't be covered. If we could get rid of that out of the system, that would be an improvement.

    While you might see it as American. Many countries have a patent system, with international agreements on how it's done. Certain countries pick on America because America is dominant and those people want to be dominant instead.

    If it wasn't for China I could have had my product lines up years ago. But the negative innovation impacts of China pretty much stopped that. Even one of my friends started a big battery company in China. The local criminal gang got involved through a political connection, and because he wouldn't pass faulty equipment, he was chuckee in jail and deported and he lost his company probably worth upto 700 million or so today on an estimate. These sorts of things are too common. If you hink the big bad America us bad, I can point to other far worse countries, and the common thing they have in common,is that unless they are exploiting somebody they do really poorly in business, society and innovation. It should the petty.mesn spirited dominating, exploiting, grafting and stealing culture which does it. Doing business with those people is extremely risky. You don't just meet any stranger and assume they are going treat you fairly. They use contacts and clan like systems for protection. When you see that, you know you have trouble.
    Going to bed now - will read in the morning. Only got to say: Open Source is the Future and China is getting a real head start with competing at that level.
    -Zeb
    FAA 333 Drone Jock
    Underwater Shooter
    Weapon 8K in Hawaii w/Operator
    www.Stock8K.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #138  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,635
    Lol! Ok. I've probably been writung here for 4-5 hours anyway.

    You mean Europe and Australia, but look where that got them. No where much, despite IBM pumping a billion dollars in the old money, into open source, and other initiatives. Even Google basically moved various services out of the android is package to better control them. The commercial imperative gives descent results.

    But, the patent system is the ultimate artificial open source repository probably still. Once the patents run out it becomes an open design resource.
    An explorer explores new ideas and things, but somebody stuck in mud, complains.
    - But the explorer complains about how much better the territory he has discovered is instead.

    -Since when has denying that the possible is possible been reason? Such is the life of some skepticism.
    -Normalcy involves what is realistically possible, not just what you say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts