Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Photography Newsgroups > Photography Archive > Digital SLR > Evil Apple steals from Kodak

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Evil Apple steals from Kodak

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-15-2011, 12:49 AM
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:53:41 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:39:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:16:03 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:22:00 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>We had a situation where there was just one web broser, called
>>Internet Explorer (formerly Spyglass), and again, little innovation
>>followed. Only after some competition on the same zero price
>>point and with e.g. tabbed browsing went ahead, IE was improved
>>and finally is catching up to the state of the art.


> Umm - Spyglass had a license from Mosaic. Notice that: they had a
> license for which they paid $2,000,000.


Note: That was no patent license. That was a copyright license.

> As for there being little innovation, the bulk of the Mosaic team went
> on to write Netscape.


And MS couldn't get Netscape, so they took Spyglass. Bundled it
for free with Windows to squeeze out competition - monopoly
in action. Illegal. During the browser wars there was rapid
innovation, both with Netscape and with IE, even though it led
to proprietary expansions instead of obeying standards (but the
more useful ones were copied and became at least quasi-standards).

After Netscape was beaten and IE the only one left standing,
MS innovated IE practically not any more. That was what I
was referring to, as you well knew.


>>As such I don't see copyright as a weak reed, I see software
>>patents as nuclear tipped ICBMs in a fistfight.


> And they are meant to be.


Ah, yes, arming companies and individuals with nuclear tipped ICBMs
is good for society. At least we'll all be dead and glowing.
Let's give a couple to terrorists as well, shall we?

>>>>>>In fact, most stories are just retellings of other stories
>>>>>>with the serial numbers filed off.


>>> And that's accepted as long as they are not literal copies.


>>And why shouldn't programs --- that are not literal copies,
>>but independently written reinterpretations --- not be accepted?


> They can be - under copyright law - but I suspect you have now
> switched back to patents.


I haven't. Cut out the smoke screens and tell me why you
think that there should be only one web browser, only one
database and only one OS etc.

>>>>>>> It is difficult to show that a
>>>>>>> method implimented in C++ is a copy of something originaly implimented
>>>>>>> in (say) Cobol. Thats why arguments based on 'look and feel' have
>>>>>>> entered the arena.


>>>>>>Just imagine someone patentet the 'look and feel' of spy
>>>>>>stories. Tons of movies would suddenly be offending, tons of
>>>>>>spy novels --- not just James Bond and those stories modelled
>>>>>>after him.


>>>>> See - changing the subject again.


>>>>You can patent anything, why not book story types?


>>> Because most of them are already in the public domain.


>>So you basically say "There are almost no new book story
>>types".


> It is held by some that there are only five types of stories.


Shouldn't these 5 story types be protected, so that authors
are forced to innovate and invent new story types? And
aren't the original inventors not being ripped off for their
hard work creating these story types?

>>>>But you think it and not OK
>>>>to patent the idea "spy novel"? How comes?


>>> You are twisting my words. I never said it was 'OK to patent the idea
>>> "Webshop"'. Your complaint is that all the best ideas of how to build
>>> a webshop are already patented


>>Wrong.
>>Even the idea "Webshop" is patented. Thrice, btw. Not just
>>webshops that show images of the stuff or that allow searches or
>>that have a shopping cart or that take credit cards etc.


> Aren't you confirming what I wrote?


No. Please reread.


>>> and I said thats fine by me.


>>So it is OK to patent the idea "Webshop"? Even if that means
>>that there will be a single webshop in all of the internet?


> Patents expire.


Sure. You'll be willing to live with a single webshop in the
world for 20 years. That'll sure improve the innovation rate
in webshops.


>>>>> At that point we were discussing patents, not copyrights. A patent
>>>>> describes a method and it is the copying of the method which is
>>>>> prohibited.


>>>>You obviously don't grasp patents.


>>>>> From your discussions I get the clear impression that you cannot
>>>>> distinguish between copyright and patent.


>>>>Back to you. It's copyright where copying is prohibited.
>>>>It's patents where even completely independent reinvention is
>>>>forbidden.


>>> There is no point in arguing with you while you use your own unique
>>> definition of terms.


>>So you say I can circumvent any patent by not knowing it and
>>reinventing the method described therein?


> I'm saying you have invented your own definitions. As usual you are
> trying to twist what I said into something else.


"A patent describes a method and it is the copying of the
method which is prohibited." Your words. You are --- again
--- wrong. The copying is not prohibited. The using of the
method is prohibited, irrespective of the source of the
knowledge --- including reinvention.

But you don't grasp patents, it seems.


>>> Come to think of it, there is not much point in
>>> arguing with you anyway.


>>Because I don't share your enthusiasm for patents and don't
>>feel bad that software patents are being ignored?


> You give me a choice?


You always have choice. You just should be forced to live
with the consequences.

>>>>I wrote about software patents (and story patents). You
>>>>change to hardware patents.


>>> You were talking about patents in general but your blinkers only allow
>>> you to see software patents.


>>I made it quite clear I was talking about software patents.
>>If you missed that, you need to reread the thread.


> You entered the thread in Message ID
> <q46768-(E-Mail Removed)> when you wrote "A patent is a
> monopoly on a thought." Not a mention of software.


At this point, no. But my next post:
| Even with patents in my fields [...] and (this is probably
| specific to the field) "That's very obvious, not a novel way"
| and "That's as inventive as Amazon's one-click patent".
is clearly talking about software patents --- software is my field, and the
one-click patent is a prime example.

To which you answered:
> I entered the thread with Message-ID:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> when I pointed out to you
> that a patent had to be intelligible not to an ordinary person but to
> someone "skilled in the art". Still no mention of software.


Of course you don't mention software, since you sometimes don't
read carefully what is said.

>>>>> Its got nothing to do with whether you have copied a patented idea for
>>>>> software or a patented idea for improving the steam tricycle. I was
>>>>> referring to the copying of a copying of a patented idea and making
>>>>> the point that it is not legitimate just because everyone does it.


>>>>There are 100 other ways for improving steam tricycles, but very
>>>>few ways, if any. are open with overbroad software patents.


>>> Its easy. If you think a patent is overbroad, you can appeal it to the
>>> PTO.


>>Ah, yes. The PTO is infailable.


> That's why they allow you to appeal the original patents.


And their appeals process is infaliable as well.

>>>>>>And that helps society by higher prices for all products?
>>>>>>Explain how!


I note you haven't yet explained why the drawbacks are all for
the good of society.

>>>>> I suppose you don't register your car or pay taxes and justify this by
>>>>> claiming that by so reducing your costs you make life cheaper for
>>>>> others?


>>>>I suppose you'd gladly pay me $10,000 per year for my patent
>>>>of using vehicles of any kind for transport?


>>> Assuming any such patent was possible, no I wouldn't pay you $10,000 a
>>> year ... I would buy a horse.


>>You'd gladly live in a big city wit all-horse transportation,
>>not even coaches 'allowed'? That's surely innovative.


> You keep jumping to wrong conclusions.


But you would buy a horse.


>>>>I suppose you'd really like comparing saltwater to sunlight,
>>>>too? Taxes are necessary for any society with a government,
>>>>and not paying them increases the costs for others.


>>>>Not paying robber barons does, however, not increase the cost
>>>>for others.


>>> 'Robber Barons'. It sounds as though you never expect to have a
>>> worthwhile idea in your life.


>>I've had quite a few. They are protected by copyright.
>>After all, I produce software.


> Anything you write, good, bad or indifferent, is protected by
> copyright. But an idea has to exceptional to be worthy of a patent.


Mu-ha-ha.
Just look at the stuff being patented.

As one who's had ideas patented: Mu-ha-ha.


>>But it's obvious your idea of a worthwile idea is "How much
>>money can I squeeze from it, no matter the cost to society."


> Is your idea any different?


Yes.

> How do you get paid?


By bank transfer, the usual method around here.

> Who determines the level?


That's me and the one who wants my work. We agree upon it.

> Would you reduce your demands so as to ease the impact on
> society?


Reducing my demands would not ease the impact on society, to the
contrary: I'd pay less taxes, buy less goods --- and I'm not paid
by society.

>>>>> The point is, you don't have to pay license fees. You can avoid them
>>>>> by using adifferent non-patented method.


>>>>I asked you to design a non-patented webshop. Try it. It's
>>>>not possible.


>>> I'll do that when you design a low-temperature super-critical power
>>> generator.


>>Where can I find one? I expect you can find a few webshops
>>on your own, without me pointing ...


> You should use Google.


Google tells me there is no such thing, but then I'm only feeding it the
terms you gave me. So: Where can I find one?

>>>>>>>>Now, you say patents are good, i.e. good for the society as
>>>>>>>>a whole. The onus is on you to explain why having to pay tons
>>>>>>>>of license money (licenses for every patent affected, that comes
>>>>>>>>quickly to a large sum or being unable to have a webshop, much
>>>>>>>>less an attractive one) is helping the society more than it
>>>>>>>>is (obviously, by higher prices in webshops or by the absence
>>>>>>>>of webshops) hurting society.


>>>>>>> It encourages inventors.


>>>>>>It encourages monopolist-wishing people. Monopolies are a good
>>>>>>thing for society in which way?


>>>>> I knew we would get to this.


>>>>Then you have the perfect, logical answer to persuade me that
>>>>e.g. software patents, and patents on webshops, as they are used
>>>>today, are good for society ...


>>> Why should I try and persuade the unpersuadable?


>>So you agree that your position is untenable?


> That doesn't follow at all.


Ah, then it *was* an ad hominem. I knew it would come to that as your
arguments ran out.


>>>>>>And even if we assume your claim of encouraged inventors was true,
>>>>>>can you show that the net effect was stronger than the higher
>>>>>>prices for goods and less webshops? Especially as inventoers
>>>>>>cannot sell their inventions over the net due to the patents on
>>>>>>selling over the net and so on --- the only way to reach a world
>>>>>>wide public as a small company or single inventor. (And that is
>>>>>>assuming patent claimers were small companies or single people.
>>>>>>Most patents are big business.)


>>>>> You do have a mental block about paying license fees. I don't know
>>>>> what kind of mobile phone you use but, have you any idea of what the
>>>>> license fee is for the operating system? Its certainly multiple
>>>>> dollars.


>>>>Android for example is open source. No license fees.


>>> From memory, the fee charged by MS was $20.


>>The fee charged by MS for an Windows Mobile whatever OS, right?
>>Of course, that's about the weak reed copyright, not patents.


> That's for a license to use Windows.


i.e. nothing about patents, you just jump to copyright. typical.


>>>>>>Tell me how the ability to patent the things mentioned on the
>>>>>>ffii-website encourages innovation and disseminates ideas
>>>>>>for, say, webshops.


>>>>> I've already told you that I don't know anything about web shops.


>>>>Well, I know something about web shops, and the ability to
>>>>patent doesn't encourage innovation, it hampers it by holding
>>>>back the competition and thus reducing the pressure to innovate.
>>>>Nor do the patent texts disseminate ideas in a worthwile way ---
>>>>there are much better ways used in practice.


>>> HAW! You write as though the copying of patented ideas encouraged
>>> innovation.


>>Competition encourages innovation. Patents hinder competition.


> Your complaint is that you can't compete.


My complaint is that I am not allowed to compete if software
patents are enforced. My complaint is that that hinders innovation
and hurts society.


>>> Now you write as though the copying of patented ideas is innovation in
>>> action!


>>Not directly. It's a race: you can either run faster (invent
>>better) or lay stumbling blocks for others (patents). We've
>>seen often enough that no competition and no innovation go
>>hand in hand. I've listed examples above.


> You want to copy patents so that you can 'invent better'.


In software, invention is gradual and builds upon tons of older
innovations. Patents thus hinder innovation.

> Not being able to copy them prevents you from 'inventing'.


Not being able to use an OS usually hinders programs from running, yes.

> I think I've had enough of this nonsense.


You are fresh out of arguments.
I shall ask you not to use any software that interfers with some
patents for a month. i.e. don't use any computer for a month,
and that goes for your washing machine, your car, your digital
watch and your TV set too.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-15-2011, 03:43 AM
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:11:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:05:17 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>> --- denial of everything snipped ---

>
>>>[1] Of course they are due: for example credit for authorship.
>>> See most open source licenses, that require even noting where
>>> something was changed, to make clear what is the original
>>> and what has been changed by others.

>
>> You will allow them the honour and glory but nothing more.

>
>You are really good at putting words in other people's
>mouthes.


Well, what else are you trying to say?

>Well, so can I: You will allow them your firstborn
>and all your money.
>
>>>[2] The point is that creating another copy is no work.
>>> It's cheaper than dirt and is trivially completely automated.

>
>>> Noone of the 'true-believers' has any problems with paying for,
>>> say, special wishes or custom modifications or consulting.

>
>>> However, there is no added value for society in forcing
>>> others to reinvent the wheel by going closed source. If all
>>> the duplicated work poured into closed source was avoided,
>>> we'd be much further on as a society.

>
>> Nobody is "forcing others to go closed source".

>
>Non sequitur.


It's a 'non sequitur' when I use your own words in the context of your
own arguments?
>
>> The 'others' always
>> have the choice of finding another way to do something

>
>Like brick and mortar shops instead of webshops. Great.


Are you saying there simply is no new way to implement a webshop? Can
you prove that? ... or are you merely saying that you can't think of
one.

To paraphrase Franz Schubert, new tunes are like waves on a beach:
there is always another one.
>
>I asked you to show a way for a patent free webshop because
>that would be a lesson for you in finding "another way",
>without, say, the internet.


You don't prove your case by asking me to do something I know nothing
about.
>
>> or paying a
>> small sum for using the patented idea.

>
>Where exactly is the law that says "for using a patented idea,
>you need to pay a *small sum*"?
>Where exactly did you get the idea that it cannot be a large sum or
>a enormous sum?
>Where exactly did you get the idea that it cannot be a
>'non-compete agreement + a large sum + a royalty'?
>Where exactly did you get the idea that the patent holder can
>in any way be forced to allow someone to use the patent, no
>matter what price is offered?


Any of these things are possible: the right to do these things is
built into patent law (but there are fish hooks in the anti-trust
implications of some of these activities).
>
>It's often optimal for a company not to give out licenses to
>hinder competition, especially if it has broad patents, at
>least to the common patent logic. This is not optimal for
>society, of course.


Its rare for companies to not hand out licenses. It does happen of
course.
>
>Indeed, if you own a plot of land you have less rights over
>it than over a patent.
>
>> You should remember that to be patentable an invention has to be
>> non-obvious to those skilled in the art. Patents aren't about just
>> ordinary ideas, no matter what hindsight may allow you to make of
>> them.

>
>There is ample evidence of overbroad and trivial patents,
>especially in the area of software patents. I.e. obvious to
>those skilled in the art and sometimes with more prior art
>than you can shake a stick at.


Such patents are vulnerable.
>
>
>A simple google produces e.g.
> http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulk/patents/isnot/isnot.html
>with some more examples here:
> http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulk/patents/isnot/isnot.html
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial...sehene_Patente
>(German), listing the One-Click-Patent, progress bars, the
>hyperlink, status indicator on the caps-lock-key, double click
>patent, number plate codes in domain names, and some more
>non-computer related patents (some of which were rejected, at
>least in part, in court).
>
>
>And here is a study you should read
> http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf
>
>Your claim is that --- unless competitors/imitators be held
>at bay, with, say, patents --- inventors don't get "their due"
>for their hard work[1] and that's suggested to be a bad idea.


Its held to be a bad idea by those who created patent law.
>
>The study shows, among other things, that even though computers,
>software and semiconductors are imitated very quickly --- and they
>are and have been without doubt extremely innovative --- the new
>stronger protections in the 80's (i.e. what you are clamouring
>for more of) caused stagnant R&D in these industries.


It doesn't show that at all. Its so full of unquantified 'may' and
'might' that its no more than an unproved hypothesis.
>
>
>I'll be waiting for your rebuttal why this study is incorrect
>(facts and proof, please) and that it's point that patents
>in e.g. the software industry, if pushed, actually hindering
>innovation isn't true (facts and proof, please) and so on.


There is a fundamental flaw in the paper. They reach their conclusions
via an oversimplified analysis. They make no allowance for the effect
of developments in the wider world on the value of a patent. Nor do
they make any allowance for the finite life of a patent.

More importantly, they use an unrealistic value for 'S' - the market
share which the inventor might realise in the event of unrestrained
copying. The authors have used 0.5 (i.e. 2 competitors) for simplicity
but do acknowledge that S may be <0.33 (i.e. 3 or more competitors).

These values are unrealistic. In the real world there are hundreds of
competitors and I know at least one case where S<.0005 (i.e. thousands
of competitors). Your pet example of webshops is probably similar. In
these situations the inventor can expect to be swamped, annihilated,
if copying of the invention is allowed to occur.
>
>After all, those who ask for special considerations for certain
>people must show that the net effect for society is positive.
>
>
>-Wolfgang
>
>[1] However, you haven't yet shown by what natural right or Will
> Of God the inventor is due anything.[2]
>
> I disagree with the notion that just because he is an inventor
> he is due anything, just as I disagree with the notion that
> someone is my King or Master "because God put him there".
>
>[2] I agree that it's on the average a good idea for society to
> give the inventor just enough to recover his costs and make
> a decent living for inventions that help society. That's
> what's happening e.g. in universities. (And why I think
> that innovations made there should be free for the society:
> they already paid for them. Of course, feel free to make a
> spin-off company that makes products out of such innovations
> and sells themm for a profit.)


I'm not discussing this subject with you any further.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-16-2011, 08:56 PM
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:11:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:05:17 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>>>[1] Of course they are due: for example credit for authorship.
>>>> See most open source licenses, that require even noting where
>>>> something was changed, to make clear what is the original
>>>> and what has been changed by others.


>>> You will allow them the honour and glory but nothing more.


>>You are really good at putting words in other people's
>>mouthes.


> Well, what else are you trying to say?


What else is there to say? Whatever I say, you try to twist
it into something I didn't say.

>>Well, so can I: You will allow them your firstborn
>>and all your money.


>>>>[2] The point is that creating another copy is no work.
>>>> It's cheaper than dirt and is trivially completely automated.


>>>> Noone of the 'true-believers' has any problems with paying for,
>>>> say, special wishes or custom modifications or consulting.


>>>> However, there is no added value for society in forcing
>>>> others to reinvent the wheel by going closed source. If all
>>>> the duplicated work poured into closed source was avoided,
>>>> we'd be much further on as a society.


>>> Nobody is "forcing others to go closed source".


>>Non sequitur.


> It's a 'non sequitur' when I use your own words in the context of your
> own arguments?


Let's see:
"forcing others to reinvent the wheel" turns into "forcing
others to go closed source".


>>> The 'others' always
>>> have the choice of finding another way to do something


>>Like brick and mortar shops instead of webshops. Great.


> Are you saying there simply is no new way to implement a webshop?


Well, if you can come up with a webshop that isn't a selling
system or doesn't use a client and a server (and maybe a
payment processor) ...

> Can
> you prove that? ... or are you merely saying that you can't think of
> one.


I don't need to prove that. You need to prove that patents
don't hinder innovation, because you claim they are good.

> To paraphrase Franz Schubert, new tunes are like waves on a beach:
> there is always another one.


And guess what: it isn't a specific tune that's patented (and
anyway, that's done by copyright just as well), but the gestalt of
"tune".

>>I asked you to show a way for a patent free webshop because
>>that would be a lesson for you in finding "another way",
>>without, say, the internet.


> You don't prove your case by asking me to do something I know nothing
> about.


I don't need to prove my case.
You need to prove your case, namely that patents are good.

I merely need to show examples where patents are not good.

>>> or paying a
>>> small sum for using the patented idea.


>>Where exactly is the law that says "for using a patented idea,
>>you need to pay a *small sum*"?
>>Where exactly did you get the idea that it cannot be a large sum or
>>a enormous sum?
>>Where exactly did you get the idea that it cannot be a
>>'non-compete agreement + a large sum + a royalty'?
>>Where exactly did you get the idea that the patent holder can
>>in any way be forced to allow someone to use the patent, no
>>matter what price is offered?


> Any of these things are possible:


Then you agree that your claim of "paying a small sum for using
the patented idea" is as valid as "just a small injury from a
big plane crash" --- it can happen, but it doesn't tell even
half of the story.

> the right to do these things is
> built into patent law (but there are fish hooks in the anti-trust
> implications of some of these activities).


And since you defend the patent law as it is (and that in areas
where you admit having no idea about), it's your turn to justify
all of these possibilities.

>>It's often optimal for a company not to give out licenses to
>>hinder competition, especially if it has broad patents, at
>>least to the common patent logic. This is not optimal for
>>society, of course.


> Its rare for companies to not hand out licenses. It does happen of
> course.


Really?

>>Indeed, if you own a plot of land you have less rights over
>>it than over a patent.


>>> You should remember that to be patentable an invention has to be
>>> non-obvious to those skilled in the art. Patents aren't about just
>>> ordinary ideas, no matter what hindsight may allow you to make of
>>> them.


>>There is ample evidence of overbroad and trivial patents,
>>especially in the area of software patents. I.e. obvious to
>>those skilled in the art and sometimes with more prior art
>>than you can shake a stick at.


> Such patents are vulnerable.


Which only means that they might be taken down in a court of law,
sometime, after lots of damage is done. That's as clever as
arming an amok runner in a mall with a couple machine pistols,
ample ammunition and fragmentation grenades --- but also training
the mall cops as sharp shooters and giving them sniper rifles,
so the amok runner is vulnerable.

>>A simple google produces e.g.
>> http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulk/patents/isnot/isnot.html
>>with some more examples here:
>> http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulk/patents/isnot/isnot.html


>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial...sehene_Patente
>>(German), listing the One-Click-Patent, progress bars, the
>>hyperlink, status indicator on the caps-lock-key, double click
>>patent, number plate codes in domain names, and some more
>>non-computer related patents (some of which were rejected, at
>>least in part, in court).


>>And here is a study you should read
>> http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf


>>Your claim is that --- unless competitors/imitators be held
>>at bay, with, say, patents --- inventors don't get "their due"
>>for their hard work[1] and that's suggested to be a bad idea.


> Its held to be a bad idea by those who created patent law.


Cite, please.

>>The study shows, among other things, that even though computers,
>>software and semiconductors are imitated very quickly --- and they
>>are and have been without doubt extremely innovative --- the new
>>stronger protections in the 80's (i.e. what you are clamouring
>>for more of) caused stagnant R&D in these industries.


> It doesn't show that at all. Its so full of unquantified 'may' and
> 'might' that its no more than an unproved hypothesis.


Especially the parts where they use real data from the real
world. Suuuure.


>>I'll be waiting for your rebuttal why this study is incorrect
>>(facts and proof, please) and that it's point that patents
>>in e.g. the software industry, if pushed, actually hindering
>>innovation isn't true (facts and proof, please) and so on.


> There is a fundamental flaw in the paper. They reach their conclusions
> via an oversimplified analysis.


They take your static model (which is basically what *you* argue
how patents help inventors) and show that it is very flawed in
computers, semiconductors and software. They offer a slightly
more complex model and show that it fits much better to reality.

> They make no allowance for the effect
> of developments in the wider world on the value of a patent.


Such as?

> Nor do
> they make any allowance for the finite life of a patent.


20 years is pretty well infinite in software, computers and
semiconductors. Unless you are talking about deep space
probes, which tend to use mature technology and tend to have
decases long operation times.

Maybe you don't grasp the difference, but maybe you should
live for 14 days in the technology of 1991. Tell me, what
camera did you use back then?

> More importantly, they use an unrealistic value for 'S' - the market
> share which the inventor might realise in the event of unrestrained
> copying. The authors have used 0.5 (i.e. 2 competitors) for simplicity
> but do acknowledge that S may be <0.33 (i.e. 3 or more competitors).


> These values are unrealistic.


Just as "zero immitation costs" and "zero first mover advantage".

However, that only strenthens the case for patents, so if
patents are not a very good solution even using this stacked
deck, what do you think will patents do in the real word?

> In the real world there are hundreds of
> competitors


Name hundreds of chip manufacturers. Of mobile phone producers,
Of camera makers. Of operation system or office packet or standard
business package (for a *given* business area) etc. makers.

And then find out how many of them are actually capable of
competing with the top 10 (if there even is a top ten!).

> and I know at least one case where S<.0005 (i.e. thousands
> of competitors).


Name it and the major invention.

> Your pet example of webshops is probably similar.


Of course:
- All (or most) webshops sell the same stuff.
- There are thousands of sellers of webshop.

> In
> these situations the inventor can expect to be swamped, annihilated,
> if copying of the invention is allowed to occur.


Ah, static model. Beloved, wrong static model, where
subsequent innovation does not happen.

Read the study to understand why this model is not applicable
to e.g. software.

>>After all, those who ask for special considerations for certain
>>people must show that the net effect for society is positive.


[...]

> I'm not discussing this subject with you any further.


Stamping your foot and closing your ears does not make an
agument.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evil Apple's patent infringement of Nokia cost them RichA Digital Cameras 520 09-16-2011 03:33 AM
Evil Apple not as ruthless as Adobe, but close RichA Digital Cameras 26 08-17-2011 11:48 AM
Intel, more evil than Apple F---- up HUGELY (again) Rich Digital Cameras 15 04-28-2011 12:43 PM