Yes, of course that would be true. I was speaking just to US Copyright law, which was why I provided the relevant Section of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
I think, in that respect, it depends on where you live. Carniphage lives in the UK, and unless I'm severely mistaken, IP law in the UK is slightly stricter than in the USA in this respect. The fair or personal use rights in UK copyright law do not include the ability to rip CDs (or do any other kind of media or format transfers), etc.
IIRC, until a very recent amendment, there didn't even exist any legal framework under which movies could be legitimately provided in a digitally downloadable format... Not even if you had the copyright holder's consent.
That probably is true. Yet, people act as if the legal system ultimately ruled against Napster. Napster had some interesting defenses to raise if it were given the opportunity. The arguments probably may have failed, but it wasn't certain.
Well, Bertelsmann was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Since Bertelsmann was one of the big four of the music industry they really didn't want to win. By winning they would be losing. It would mean the they could no longer protect the copyrights that they own from sites that uses the Napster business model.
I utterly agree. I am arguing for *less* reliance on laws and regulations. Copyright and patent law are weaponized by large companies to crush the competition.
Here's a great example of how Patent and copyright law are being abused as a means to attack competitors.
What abuse? If you own a valid patent and you think some one is infringing upon your patent. Then you have the right to inform the allege infringer that you think your patent is being infringed upon. If you want to keep that patent,you must show that you are ready to enforce it. If the allege infringer don't think they're infringing upon your patent, then they can let a court decide. It's the way the legal system works here in the States.
Most, not all, abuse of the patent and copyright laws are actually brought on by small insignificant entities trying to "extort" money from large companies in the form of a out of court settlement. Most large companies don't want to enter any form of law suits. Specially against smaller rivals. It never looks good no matter how good of a case they got. And even if the big comapny have a valid case, it may not persue it because the it would cost them way more to fight the case than they will ever get back. In this type of case who's the one abusing the patent and copyright laws? The big company who maybe right in enforcing a valid patent and copyright? Or the company (that may be infringing upon a patent) that knows that a big company would not waste more than an envelope and letter from a legal team on them because the legal cost way exceeds what can be recovered in damages?
Patent and copyright laws level the playing field among competitors. If you got a patent or copyright, it's only fair that you can license it out to others to use. But would it be fair if one company ignore the law by using your patent or copyright without paying you for a license? That company would be competing unfairly because it's not paying for a license that all his competitors are paying for. It doesn't matter if consumers can buy his products for less because of this. A consumer can also buy products for less from a "fence" of stolen goods. That doesn't mean that this practice must be some how be sanctioned, just because the consumer may benefit from it.
The patent system was devised to prevent inventor's work being stolen. This encourages innovation because the investment in invention can be monetized by the inventor.
BUT
The system can be abused. Many large (and small) corporations have taken to patent squatting. Creating patents for all sorts of inventions they have no intention of developing. And then farming the benefits if any of these ideas are developed.
The problem gets worse when patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. (Using a stylus, clicking a button, a piece of wire and so on)
I don't think the system is a level playing field because it is tilted in favor of large (wealthy) companies.
Small companies merely accused of patent violation will often shut up shop instead of paying the legal costs of defending their IP.
We need to recognize that most innovation is based on derivative work.
A nanny-state patent system can stifle innovation just as too little patent protection can. There is a balance to be struck here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
If you got a patent or copyright, it's only fair that you can license it out to others to use.
Are you suggesting that Apple should license OS X to other parties?
The patent system was devised to prevent inventor's work being stolen. This encourages innovation because the investment in invention can be monetized by the inventor.
BUT
The system can be abused. Many large (and small) corporations have taken to patent squatting. Creating patents for all sorts of inventions they have no intention of developing. And then farming the benefits if any of these ideas are developed.
The problem gets worse when patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. (Using a stylus, clicking a button, a piece of wire and so on)
I don't think the system is a level playing field because it is tilted in favor of large (wealthy) companies.
Small companies merely accused of patent violation will often shut up shop instead of paying the legal costs of defending their IP.
We need to recognize that most innovation is based on derivative work.
A nanny-state patent system can stifle innovation just as too little patent protection can. There is a balance to be struck here.
My "What abuse?" reply was referring to the link you provided.
I am not implying that our (US) patent system is anywhere near perfect. And for sure abuse takes place. But in reality our patent system favors the little guy. The very fact that you can get a patent and never actually make a product using the patent favors the little guy that has a great idea but no financing to actually make or market his idea. Once he has the patent he can try to license or market his patent without the fear of losing it. If our patent system requires a working prototype before they issue a patent, big corporations with the capital to build the product would end up with most of the patents for next to nothing. Even if the patent office gave you a certain amount of time, say 5 years, for you to build or market your patent or it'll expire, won't work. As big corporation would just wait out the short time period, if they know you can't build on your patent.
One of the biggest abuse, in my opinion, is the issuing of patents that requires technology that isn't possible yet. It's one thing to be not able to afford to build on a patent. But it's another for it to be not even possible to build on a patent with the technology that is available.
You can't will something to some one that hasn't been born yet. But you can get a patent for something that requires something that hasn't been invented yet. Boy, I didn't think you had to be an Einstein to work in a patent office. But I guess it wouldn't hurt.
Quote:
Are you suggesting that Apple should license OS X to other parties?
C.
No. I'm just stating that's in only fair for a valid patent or copyright holder to be able to profit from his patent or copyright by licensing it out. By no means does that mean that he has to license it out.
No. I'm just stating that's in only fair for a valid patent or copyright holder to be able to profit from his patent or copyright by licensing it out. By no means does that mean that he has to license it out.
That's an interesting point.
I don't really think Apple should be compelled to license its technology either. (Although I believe Apple might be able to profit from doing so.)
Some technology patents are so important that refusal to license does damage the market.
Patents in the pharmaceutical industry expire after 20 years, I think, proving a window of opportunity for exploitation, but not an advantage that exists for perpetuity.
Free markets are ones where competition thrives within a regulatory framework that keeps the playing field fair.
But companies who don't like the push and shove of real competition come up with legal tricks to give them a tactical edge.
"Sorry, we have designed this printer so that it only uses OUR ink. Using 3rd party ink is in violation of your user agreement."
Why innovate?? Why bother, why employ research and development staff? All you really need is a team of lawyers? There's millions of pages of copyright law, and patent law and contract law. Somewhere in there, there must be a trick that we can use to our advantage.
And remember, if we pay substantial contributions to political parties, we will be assured of their support. (Wink).
Just looking at printers again, look at the insanity of the present situation, there are literally hundreds of ink cartridge formats, all doing the same function. (Holding a few drops of liquid). The printer manufacturers put more effort into preventing ink piracy than they do into making better printers. Hey, don't worry if the paper jams, there are 23 patents on the cartridge. Hey did you know it registers as empty when it's sill 23% full?
Now imagine a common cartridge format agreed by manufacturers. A standard. Consumers would win out, and manufacturers would compete in making the best printer instead of the best ink marketing tool.
The CD is a standard set by the music industry. This standard limits the time and quality of sound that's on a CD. Every CD player maker make their CD players so to conform with this standard. Cd players have gone from over $500 to less than $50 (with more features) in the thirty years since the CD's first came out. But the music on a CD don't sound any better today than it did 30 years ago. And many people with good audio systems claim that most of the CD players today don't reproduce the sound on a CD as accurately as the CD players made 15 years ago. That's because the only way to compete is to make the CD players cheaper. There is a limit as to how good the music on a CD will ever sound. This limit was set 30 years ago, when it became a standard.
There's now a SACD (Super Audio CD) standard. But in the 8 years that it's been avaiable it hasn't really taken hold. Even though a player that can play SACD and CD don't cost much more than a regular CD player. Consumers have been forced to adhere to the CD standards for so long that they are reluctant to change. Even though cost is not a real barrier to do so.
Blu-Ray is suffering the same growing pain. And it's only been about 15 years since the DVD standard was set. But Blu-Ray has a better chance since our governemt is forcing everyone to the new standard digital TV signal in 2009. Many people are opting to buy HDTV's and thus can benefit from Blu-Ray when the prices come down.
If printer makers were forced to use standard cartridges and ink from third party ink makers. Then the amount of innovation they can put into their printers are limited by the maker of the ink cartridges. If they can't redesign their cartridges or change the formula on the ink so that their printers can produce better prints because their redesighed cartridge and ink won't work with other printers. Then the only thing they can do to compete is to make their printers cheaper than their competitors. There's only so much a printer maker can do when it's forced to adhere to standard cartridges and standard ink. And prints from every printer maker will eventually look the same because they all must use the same ink with the same cartridge.
You also have to realize that the reason why most third party ink is cheaper to begin with is because they invest very little back into making a better ink. Or better printers. It's the printer makers that spend money on R&D to develop better ink. And unlike CD players and CD's where the CD player makers has no control over the way CD's are encoded, printer makers can make ink and cartridges. And thus the printer maker has design control of the printer, cartridge and ink to produce a better print.
But hey, you say this is fair because the competitive playing field is level when all printer makers must use the same standard ink and cartridge. The consumer wins, right? Having a CD standard may have worked out for consumers because most consumers didn't need any more music quality that what a standard CD can supply. But photo quality ink jet print technology wouldn't progress nearly as fast is it did if it weren't for the printer maker having the freedom to design all aspect of their printers. And if a third party ink and cartridge industry had to spend money in research to come up with better ink. Their ink cartridges probablly wouldn't sell for much less than what a printer maker sell their ink cartridges for now.
In almost every case, multi-vendor standards have been a win for consumers. And driven quality and innovation upwards. Please read the other posts on this subject. But yes after a time all standards need to be upgraded.
CDs were a massive win for manufacturers and consumers. (Philips/Sony)
The successor to the CD was not SACD but the MP3 player. Haven't you noticed?
Sony's BluRay will probably fail. (hurrah!)
No one should force manufacturers to create standards. That would be nuts.
But the legal system should not be abused by the nonsense of issuing patents and copyrights on microscopic variations between one ink container and another. By tolerating the frivolous abuse of copyright, the law is encouraging this anti-competitive nonsense.
In almost every case, multi-vendor standards have been a win for consumers. And driven quality and innovation upwards. Please read the other posts on this subject. But yes after a time all standards need to be upgraded.
Not necessarily in all cases. There are an infinite number of examples where competing companies built their own incompatible systems. The competition between these systems foster innovation because of the rule of competition.
Using petroleum gas as an example. Petroleum was originally primarily used as kerosene for lighting and heating fuel. As lighting primarily gave way to electricity and heating gave way to steam, natural gas, and electricity. The powerful petroleum industry needed a new industry for its product to dominate.
During the time the combustion engine was a fledgling technology. Many people experimented with various fuel sources such as vegetable oil, plant sugar, compressed air, water, and electricity. The petroleum industry bought up and forced out these competing fuel technologies to make petroleum oil the leading fuel source. Petroleum gas is a multi-vendor standard but did not win through fair competition and has not proven to be a viable long term energy source. Ironically now we are back to experimenting with those very same fuel sources from 100 years ago.
Quote:
But the legal system should not be abused by the nonsense of issuing patents and copyrights on microscopic variations between one ink container and another. By tolerating the frivolous abuse of copyright, the law is encouraging this anti-competitive nonsense.
We can all agree with patent and copywrite abuse in general. But I think you come up with these ideas and don't realize the ripple effect they have across everything. If the government attempted to argue that patents cannot be issued between printer and ink cartridges you create a precedent for all other products that perform a similar function but perform that function in a slightly different way. This would actually kill innovation and the ability to compete.
I agree with DavidW. That cheap 3rd party ink cartridges have invested nothing to making printers or improving ink. They are living off of the innovation from those who do spend lots of money on research and development of improving printers and inks.
I agree with DavidW. That cheap 3rd party ink cartridges have invested nothing to making printers or improving ink. They are living off of the innovation from those who do spend lots of money on research and development of improving printers and inks.
Imagine if the most expensive part of owning a car, was buying gas.
As consumers, we would want the auto manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient cars. Right?
But if the auto manufacturers *also* owned the gas stations, they'd be motivated to produce *less efficient* cars. Sell more fuel, make more money.
This is what has happened with printers. The most expensive part of owning a printer is the ink. And because the law permits manufacturers to lock-out competing ink vendors, they have been free to drive up the cost of printing.
Imagine if the most expensive part of owning a car, was buying gas.
Buying gas is the most expensive part of owning a car. Gas will cost most owners more than insurance, oil and regular maintenance combined. And if the owner keeps the car long enough, gas will cost more than the car itself.
Quote:
As consumers, we would want the auto manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient cars. Right?
Gas can be considered a "standard". Every standard car uses the same standard gas. Car makers have already reach the limit as to now many miles they can get out of a gallon of gas with internal combustion engine design. The only way they can get more MPG now is to make cars lighter, more aerodynamic or reduce the friction in moving parts. And they are reaching those limits. The next step is hybrids. MPG in cars haven't really gone up significantly in over 30 years.
Quote:
But if the auto manufacturers *also* owned the gas stations, they'd be motivated to produce *less efficient* cars. Sell more fuel, make more money.
No, in a free market car makers would make cars with as many MPG as possible to compete. They would invest in a combination of engine design and gas formula to achieve the highest MPG. So the consumers will buy their cars and their gas over their competitors.
Cars may become cheaper to buy because car companies can recover some of the cost over the life of the car with the gas it must buy from them. They will build their car to last as long as possible because the longer the car last, the more profit it will make for the maker over the car's lifetime.
What incentive do gas producers have now in coming up with a gas formula that gets more mpg in a standard internal combustion engine? All this will do is reduce the amount of gas they sell to consumers. They will have to raise the price of gas. There's a limit as to how much gas a consumer can use. The more MPG, the less the consumers uses.
Quote:
This is what has happened with printers. The most expensive part of owning a printer is the ink. And because the law permits manufacturers to lock-out competing ink vendors, they have been free to drive up the cost of printing.
The cost of printing hasn't gone up significantly in 20 years. Not when you include the cost of the printer. The ink cartridges sold by printer makers still cost about $25 to $45. But the printers now cost about 5x less. For a better printer. That prints higher quality prints.
Example- if 12 years ago you had paid $250 for a printer that uses $35 color ink cartridges and you use one ink cartridge per month. Then in three years it would have cost you $1510 (plus paper). Figuring 3 years is about the life span of an ink jet printer.
Now a printer that produces higher quality prints cost $60 with color ink cartridges that may now cost $40. If you use the same one ink cartridge per month then the total cost over three years would come to $1500 (plus paper). And most likely you would get more prints.
If anything the price of ink cartridges have remain nearly the same. Even the third party ink cartridges haven't really come down in price.
And printer makers do compete with other printer makers. There are dozens of printer makers and they compete with the cost of the printer, the speed in which it can print, the quality of the prints produced and the cost of the refill ink cartridges. All this keeps the cost of printing down.
A hard drive is manufactured like that Brothers ink cartridge. A 300 G hard drive probably has about 310 G on it. But the buyer can't use the extra 10 G. You see every hard drive platter has bad sector when it's made. So in order to ensure that the consumers get the 300 G they advertise, the hard drive platter is made with a certain amount of reserve space. This reserve space is used to make up for bad sectors. It can only be access with low level formating software. Even then, you can only use the extra space to replace bad sectors that may occur on your hard drive over time. It's standard business practice. You always get a faction more than they advertise. Otherwise companies can get a class action suit against them for short changing their customers. Even a small faction under what's advertise can amount to thousands on dollars extra for the company. The Brother's ink cartridge issue is no issue as long as the consumers got to use the amount of ink that was advertised and that they paid for.
Comments
I think, in that respect, it depends on where you live. Carniphage lives in the UK, and unless I'm severely mistaken, IP law in the UK is slightly stricter than in the USA in this respect. The fair or personal use rights in UK copyright law do not include the ability to rip CDs (or do any other kind of media or format transfers), etc.
IIRC, until a very recent amendment, there didn't even exist any legal framework under which movies could be legitimately provided in a digitally downloadable format... Not even if you had the copyright holder's consent.
That probably is true. Yet, people act as if the legal system ultimately ruled against Napster. Napster had some interesting defenses to raise if it were given the opportunity. The arguments probably may have failed, but it wasn't certain.
Well, Bertelsmann was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Since Bertelsmann was one of the big four of the music industry they really didn't want to win. By winning they would be losing. It would mean the they could no longer protect the copyrights that they own from sites that uses the Napster business model.
I utterly agree. I am arguing for *less* reliance on laws and regulations. Copyright and patent law are weaponized by large companies to crush the competition.
Here's a great example of how Patent and copyright law are being abused as a means to attack competitors.
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm
C.
What abuse? If you own a valid patent and you think some one is infringing upon your patent. Then you have the right to inform the allege infringer that you think your patent is being infringed upon. If you want to keep that patent,you must show that you are ready to enforce it. If the allege infringer don't think they're infringing upon your patent, then they can let a court decide. It's the way the legal system works here in the States.
Most, not all, abuse of the patent and copyright laws are actually brought on by small insignificant entities trying to "extort" money from large companies in the form of a out of court settlement. Most large companies don't want to enter any form of law suits. Specially against smaller rivals. It never looks good no matter how good of a case they got. And even if the big comapny have a valid case, it may not persue it because the it would cost them way more to fight the case than they will ever get back. In this type of case who's the one abusing the patent and copyright laws? The big company who maybe right in enforcing a valid patent and copyright? Or the company (that may be infringing upon a patent) that knows that a big company would not waste more than an envelope and letter from a legal team on them because the legal cost way exceeds what can be recovered in damages?
Patent and copyright laws level the playing field among competitors. If you got a patent or copyright, it's only fair that you can license it out to others to use. But would it be fair if one company ignore the law by using your patent or copyright without paying you for a license? That company would be competing unfairly because it's not paying for a license that all his competitors are paying for. It doesn't matter if consumers can buy his products for less because of this. A consumer can also buy products for less from a "fence" of stolen goods. That doesn't mean that this practice must be some how be sanctioned, just because the consumer may benefit from it.
What abuse?
The patent system was devised to prevent inventor's work being stolen. This encourages innovation because the investment in invention can be monetized by the inventor.
BUT
The system can be abused. Many large (and small) corporations have taken to patent squatting. Creating patents for all sorts of inventions they have no intention of developing. And then farming the benefits if any of these ideas are developed.
The problem gets worse when patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. (Using a stylus, clicking a button, a piece of wire and so on)
I don't think the system is a level playing field because it is tilted in favor of large (wealthy) companies.
Small companies merely accused of patent violation will often shut up shop instead of paying the legal costs of defending their IP.
We need to recognize that most innovation is based on derivative work.
A nanny-state patent system can stifle innovation just as too little patent protection can. There is a balance to be struck here.
If you got a patent or copyright, it's only fair that you can license it out to others to use.
Are you suggesting that Apple should license OS X to other parties?
C.
The patent system was devised to prevent inventor's work being stolen. This encourages innovation because the investment in invention can be monetized by the inventor.
BUT
The system can be abused. Many large (and small) corporations have taken to patent squatting. Creating patents for all sorts of inventions they have no intention of developing. And then farming the benefits if any of these ideas are developed.
The problem gets worse when patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. (Using a stylus, clicking a button, a piece of wire and so on)
I don't think the system is a level playing field because it is tilted in favor of large (wealthy) companies.
Small companies merely accused of patent violation will often shut up shop instead of paying the legal costs of defending their IP.
We need to recognize that most innovation is based on derivative work.
A nanny-state patent system can stifle innovation just as too little patent protection can. There is a balance to be struck here.
My "What abuse?" reply was referring to the link you provided.
I am not implying that our (US) patent system is anywhere near perfect. And for sure abuse takes place. But in reality our patent system favors the little guy. The very fact that you can get a patent and never actually make a product using the patent favors the little guy that has a great idea but no financing to actually make or market his idea. Once he has the patent he can try to license or market his patent without the fear of losing it. If our patent system requires a working prototype before they issue a patent, big corporations with the capital to build the product would end up with most of the patents for next to nothing. Even if the patent office gave you a certain amount of time, say 5 years, for you to build or market your patent or it'll expire, won't work. As big corporation would just wait out the short time period, if they know you can't build on your patent.
One of the biggest abuse, in my opinion, is the issuing of patents that requires technology that isn't possible yet. It's one thing to be not able to afford to build on a patent. But it's another for it to be not even possible to build on a patent with the technology that is available.
You can't will something to some one that hasn't been born yet. But you can get a patent for something that requires something that hasn't been invented yet. Boy, I didn't think you had to be an Einstein to work in a patent office. But I guess it wouldn't hurt.
Are you suggesting that Apple should license OS X to other parties?
C.
No. I'm just stating that's in only fair for a valid patent or copyright holder to be able to profit from his patent or copyright by licensing it out. By no means does that mean that he has to license it out.
No. I'm just stating that's in only fair for a valid patent or copyright holder to be able to profit from his patent or copyright by licensing it out. By no means does that mean that he has to license it out.
That's an interesting point.
I don't really think Apple should be compelled to license its technology either. (Although I believe Apple might be able to profit from doing so.)
But on the point of compulsory licencing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
Some technology patents are so important that refusal to license does damage the market.
Patents in the pharmaceutical industry expire after 20 years, I think, proving a window of opportunity for exploitation, but not an advantage that exists for perpetuity.
C.
Free markets are ones where competition thrives within a regulatory framework that keeps the playing field fair.
But companies who don't like the push and shove of real competition come up with legal tricks to give them a tactical edge.
"Sorry, we have designed this printer so that it only uses OUR ink. Using 3rd party ink is in violation of your user agreement."
Why innovate?? Why bother, why employ research and development staff? All you really need is a team of lawyers? There's millions of pages of copyright law, and patent law and contract law. Somewhere in there, there must be a trick that we can use to our advantage.
And remember, if we pay substantial contributions to political parties, we will be assured of their support. (Wink).
Just looking at printers again, look at the insanity of the present situation, there are literally hundreds of ink cartridge formats, all doing the same function. (Holding a few drops of liquid). The printer manufacturers put more effort into preventing ink piracy than they do into making better printers. Hey, don't worry if the paper jams, there are 23 patents on the cartridge. Hey did you know it registers as empty when it's sill 23% full?
Now imagine a common cartridge format agreed by manufacturers. A standard. Consumers would win out, and manufacturers would compete in making the best printer instead of the best ink marketing tool.
The CD is a standard set by the music industry. This standard limits the time and quality of sound that's on a CD. Every CD player maker make their CD players so to conform with this standard. Cd players have gone from over $500 to less than $50 (with more features) in the thirty years since the CD's first came out. But the music on a CD don't sound any better today than it did 30 years ago. And many people with good audio systems claim that most of the CD players today don't reproduce the sound on a CD as accurately as the CD players made 15 years ago. That's because the only way to compete is to make the CD players cheaper. There is a limit as to how good the music on a CD will ever sound. This limit was set 30 years ago, when it became a standard.
There's now a SACD (Super Audio CD) standard. But in the 8 years that it's been avaiable it hasn't really taken hold. Even though a player that can play SACD and CD don't cost much more than a regular CD player. Consumers have been forced to adhere to the CD standards for so long that they are reluctant to change. Even though cost is not a real barrier to do so.
Blu-Ray is suffering the same growing pain. And it's only been about 15 years since the DVD standard was set. But Blu-Ray has a better chance since our governemt is forcing everyone to the new standard digital TV signal in 2009. Many people are opting to buy HDTV's and thus can benefit from Blu-Ray when the prices come down.
If printer makers were forced to use standard cartridges and ink from third party ink makers. Then the amount of innovation they can put into their printers are limited by the maker of the ink cartridges. If they can't redesign their cartridges or change the formula on the ink so that their printers can produce better prints because their redesighed cartridge and ink won't work with other printers. Then the only thing they can do to compete is to make their printers cheaper than their competitors. There's only so much a printer maker can do when it's forced to adhere to standard cartridges and standard ink. And prints from every printer maker will eventually look the same because they all must use the same ink with the same cartridge.
You also have to realize that the reason why most third party ink is cheaper to begin with is because they invest very little back into making a better ink. Or better printers. It's the printer makers that spend money on R&D to develop better ink. And unlike CD players and CD's where the CD player makers has no control over the way CD's are encoded, printer makers can make ink and cartridges. And thus the printer maker has design control of the printer, cartridge and ink to produce a better print.
But hey, you say this is fair because the competitive playing field is level when all printer makers must use the same standard ink and cartridge. The consumer wins, right?
CDs were a massive win for manufacturers and consumers. (Philips/Sony)
The successor to the CD was not SACD but the MP3 player. Haven't you noticed?
Sony's BluRay will probably fail. (hurrah!)
No one should force manufacturers to create standards. That would be nuts.
But the legal system should not be abused by the nonsense of issuing patents and copyrights on microscopic variations between one ink container and another. By tolerating the frivolous abuse of copyright, the law is encouraging this anti-competitive nonsense.
C.
In almost every case, multi-vendor standards have been a win for consumers. And driven quality and innovation upwards. Please read the other posts on this subject. But yes after a time all standards need to be upgraded.
Not necessarily in all cases. There are an infinite number of examples where competing companies built their own incompatible systems. The competition between these systems foster innovation because of the rule of competition.
Using petroleum gas as an example. Petroleum was originally primarily used as kerosene for lighting and heating fuel. As lighting primarily gave way to electricity and heating gave way to steam, natural gas, and electricity. The powerful petroleum industry needed a new industry for its product to dominate.
During the time the combustion engine was a fledgling technology. Many people experimented with various fuel sources such as vegetable oil, plant sugar, compressed air, water, and electricity. The petroleum industry bought up and forced out these competing fuel technologies to make petroleum oil the leading fuel source. Petroleum gas is a multi-vendor standard but did not win through fair competition and has not proven to be a viable long term energy source. Ironically now we are back to experimenting with those very same fuel sources from 100 years ago.
But the legal system should not be abused by the nonsense of issuing patents and copyrights on microscopic variations between one ink container and another. By tolerating the frivolous abuse of copyright, the law is encouraging this anti-competitive nonsense.
We can all agree with patent and copywrite abuse in general. But I think you come up with these ideas and don't realize the ripple effect they have across everything. If the government attempted to argue that patents cannot be issued between printer and ink cartridges you create a precedent for all other products that perform a similar function but perform that function in a slightly different way. This would actually kill innovation and the ability to compete.
I agree with DavidW. That cheap 3rd party ink cartridges have invested nothing to making printers or improving ink. They are living off of the innovation from those who do spend lots of money on research and development of improving printers and inks.
I don't really think Apple should be compelled to license its technology either
And you have previously stated that Apple and Mac OS X is not a monopoly.
I really can't understand why you think Psystar has a case.
I agree with DavidW. That cheap 3rd party ink cartridges have invested nothing to making printers or improving ink. They are living off of the innovation from those who do spend lots of money on research and development of improving printers and inks.
Imagine if the most expensive part of owning a car, was buying gas.
As consumers, we would want the auto manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient cars. Right?
But if the auto manufacturers *also* owned the gas stations, they'd be motivated to produce *less efficient* cars. Sell more fuel, make more money.
This is what has happened with printers. The most expensive part of owning a printer is the ink. And because the law permits manufacturers to lock-out competing ink vendors, they have been free to drive up the cost of printing.
At around $1000 per pint. We have to ask. WTF?
And if that wasn't bad enough.
http://cwsandiego.com/?p=41
C.
Imagine if the most expensive part of owning a car, was buying gas.
Buying gas is the most expensive part of owning a car. Gas will cost most owners more than insurance, oil and regular maintenance combined. And if the owner keeps the car long enough, gas will cost more than the car itself.
As consumers, we would want the auto manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient cars. Right?
Gas can be considered a "standard". Every standard car uses the same standard gas. Car makers have already reach the limit as to now many miles they can get out of a gallon of gas with internal combustion engine design. The only way they can get more MPG now is to make cars lighter, more aerodynamic or reduce the friction in moving parts. And they are reaching those limits. The next step is hybrids. MPG in cars haven't really gone up significantly in over 30 years.
But if the auto manufacturers *also* owned the gas stations, they'd be motivated to produce *less efficient* cars. Sell more fuel, make more money.
No, in a free market car makers would make cars with as many MPG as possible to compete. They would invest in a combination of engine design and gas formula to achieve the highest MPG. So the consumers will buy their cars and their gas over their competitors.
Cars may become cheaper to buy because car companies can recover some of the cost over the life of the car with the gas it must buy from them. They will build their car to last as long as possible because the longer the car last, the more profit it will make for the maker over the car's lifetime.
What incentive do gas producers have now in coming up with a gas formula that gets more mpg in a standard internal combustion engine? All this will do is reduce the amount of gas they sell to consumers. They will have to raise the price of gas. There's a limit as to how much gas a consumer can use. The more MPG, the less the consumers uses.
This is what has happened with printers. The most expensive part of owning a printer is the ink. And because the law permits manufacturers to lock-out competing ink vendors, they have been free to drive up the cost of printing.
At around $1000 per pint. We have to ask. WTF?
And if that wasn't bad enough.
http://cwsandiego.com/?p=41
C.
The cost of printing hasn't gone up significantly in 20 years. Not when you include the cost of the printer. The ink cartridges sold by printer makers still cost about $25 to $45. But the printers now cost about 5x less. For a better printer. That prints higher quality prints.
Example- if 12 years ago you had paid $250 for a printer that uses $35 color ink cartridges and you use one ink cartridge per month. Then in three years it would have cost you $1510 (plus paper). Figuring 3 years is about the life span of an ink jet printer.
Now a printer that produces higher quality prints cost $60 with color ink cartridges that may now cost $40. If you use the same one ink cartridge per month then the total cost over three years would come to $1500 (plus paper). And most likely you would get more prints.
If anything the price of ink cartridges have remain nearly the same. Even the third party ink cartridges haven't really come down in price.
And printer makers do compete with other printer makers. There are dozens of printer makers and they compete with the cost of the printer, the speed in which it can print, the quality of the prints produced and the cost of the refill ink cartridges. All this keeps the cost of printing down.
A hard drive is manufactured like that Brothers ink cartridge. A 300 G hard drive probably has about 310 G on it. But the buyer can't use the extra 10 G. You see every hard drive platter has bad sector when it's made. So in order to ensure that the consumers get the 300 G they advertise, the hard drive platter is made with a certain amount of reserve space. This reserve space is used to make up for bad sectors. It can only be access with low level formating software. Even then, you can only use the extra space to replace bad sectors that may occur on your hard drive over time. It's standard business practice. You always get a faction more than they advertise. Otherwise companies can get a class action suit against them for short changing their customers. Even a small faction under what's advertise can amount to thousands on dollars extra for the company. The Brother's ink cartridge issue is no issue as long as the consumers got to use the amount of ink that was advertised and that they paid for.