[QUOTE]"...it's worth noting how slowly the global telephony industry introduced new innovations prior to the advent of the capital-driven personal computing boom in the 1980s[/QUOTE]
Most of the article is pretty good and gives a solid foundation on how we got to here. This statement though is dead wrong. The pace of change might have been fueled by computer tech but it was not the reason for the slow growth in any sense. In the 1968 FCC Carterfone decision it became legal for the first time for other companies to sell hardware that connected to ATT's network. In 1974 MCI filed the antitrust case that eventually lead to the DOJ case and the voluntary breakup of the Bell system on Jan 1, 1984.
My first day on the job at Pacific Northwest Bell was 10/31/83. On my first day of training we were talking about phone color codes when one of the trainers realized that we were never going to sell phones. It was at this point that the industry exploded because you no longer had reps answering the phones providing end to end service in one of the most vertically integrated monopolies of all time.
From the US West wiki arcticle: "US West went through a period of union-management relations that bordered on positive during the early 1990s. After a failed re-engineering strategy, relations fell apart due to increasing hostility between company leaders and employees. When the company rolled out its new slogan – "Life's better here" – employees began wearing buttons and shirts that stated that "Life's Bitter Here"."
I know because I am the Union guy who coined and started the use of 'Life's Bitter Here'. I was in a room during the big teleconferenced roll-out of the 'Life's Better Here' campaign, and asked the VP of the Residential Services division how the employees were supposed to support this when most felt that "Life's Bitter Here" was more accurate. Needless to say he did not appreciate my perspective.
"Socialist software" seems like a fair description to me.
I don't think the problems is in describing it as "socialist." It seems like the problem is in people's heads associating socialism with "totalitarianism" rather than simple working together and sharing. Few people have a problem with public roads, schools, the fire department, etc. even though they are clearly "socialistic" efforts.
OK, your definition is fine with me, I can accept this understanding of the term.
But I suspect this was not the meaning it had in the original post ....
Namely, I think you would have trouble to explain to Google and Microsoft shareholders that they support a sort of socialist conspiracy, "trying to suffocate the world’s capitalism ..." (not your own post , but Corrections one, justifying his own understanding of the term).
The patent system needs changing. As of a year ago, 92% of re-examination requests are granted, and only 22% of the patents re-examined survive with all their claims intact (source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120816/01045920068/ ). If they scrutinise patents properly when they're first applied for, I'm fairly sure we'd see a lot less of these frivolous lawsuits.
Another problem is that it's very hard to punish a company effectively. The punishment comes after the damage has been done, and in a lot of cases you can't really redress the balance. Any fines big enough to matter to the company will be stupidly high relative to the offense, any sales / import bans happen after they've sold lots of them, and in cases where a company has gained a competitive advantage there isn't really anything you can do to fix that. I don't know what the answer to this should be tbh.
So far, however, the U.S. patent system has provided inconsistent protections for Apple inventions, while at the same time supporting dubious patent monetization schemes brought against the company.
The patent system needs changing. As of a year ago, 92% of re-examination requests are granted, and only 22% of the patents re-examined survive with all their claims intact (source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120816/01045920068/ ). If they scrutinise patents properly when they're first applied for, I'm fairly sure we'd see a lot less of these frivolous lawsuits.
Another problem is that it's very hard to punish a company effectively. The punishment comes after the damage has been done, and in a lot of cases you can't really redress the balance. Any fines big enough to matter to the company will be stupidly high relative to the offense, any sales / import bans happen after they've sold lots of them, and in cases where a company has gained a competitive advantage there isn't really anything you can do to fix that. I don't know what the answer to this should be tbh.
Your logic is complete bullshit. The outcomes in reexam say nothing about the system overall unless you provide some information about what percentage of patents are reexamined. Let me give some extreme numbers to help you understand the complete idiocy of your statement. If a billion patents were issued last year and 5 of them were reexamined and all 5 were found to be completely invalid (100%), that would not mean the patent system was broken.
This is a great example of how public propaganda is the reason everyone thinks the patent system is broken. THE PATENT SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN. You are all killing the goose that lays the golden egg. If you don't like the US patent system, go live in Iran, Venezuela, Saudia Arabia, Kazakhstan, etc. You won't have anyone suing you for patent infringement there.
"Socialist software" seems like a fair description to me.
I don't think the problems is in describing it as "socialist." It seems like the problem is in people's heads associating socialism with "totalitarianism" rather than simple working together and sharing. Few people have a problem with public roads, schools, the fire department, etc. even though they are clearly "socialistic" efforts.
Seriously? You think a smartphone operating system should be regulated like a public road or fire department? The reason roads are public is because you can't build two roads in the same spot and roads are necessary for all people rich and poor to function in society. Moreover, roads have been around since the dawn of civilization. Software for consumer electronics is the antithesis of road building.
BTW, you are also wrong about "socialist software". Your comment about "working together and sharing" is communist, not socialist. Socialism is shifting resources between social classes. If you like communism so much, you might try moving to North Korea.
Just wondering which is faster at charging, data Mini USB or 30 pin, then Lighting vs Micro USB, we all know the speed of regular USB, and thunderbolt so knowing there smaller forms ratio would be neat.
I just wonder one thing about micro-USB: Since there are only two ways to insert it, why do I guess wrong about 80% of the time, LoLz...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
"Socialist software" seems like a fair description to me.
I don't think the problems is in describing it as "socialist." It seems like the problem is in people's heads associating socialism with "totalitarianism" rather than simple working together and sharing. Few people have a problem with public roads, schools, the fire department, etc. even though they are clearly "socialistic" efforts.
Well, without dealing with the rest or going into the details, I (and millions of families with 10's of millions of kids) have plenty of problems with most of what's going on in the public school systems, as run by the new "edutocracy" and the NEA...
Apple' magnificent new user interface is once again being used as a vehicle for Microsoft to move the Office suite (Word, Excel & PowerPoint) into the next paradigm- the Mobile world. Apple gets the last laugh was they collect 30% of every new 365 subscription picked up throughout the Store. It seems quite evident that Microsoft waited 2 years in vain, the Android tablet and Microsoft's own tablet as of yet do not command the enterprise clientele that will embrace Office. It continues to be about user engagement, not loss-leader toy competition.
Comments
Most of the article is pretty good and gives a solid foundation on how we got to here. This statement though is dead wrong. The pace of change might have been fueled by computer tech but it was not the reason for the slow growth in any sense. In the 1968 FCC Carterfone decision it became legal for the first time for other companies to sell hardware that connected to ATT's network. In 1974 MCI filed the antitrust case that eventually lead to the DOJ case and the voluntary breakup of the Bell system on Jan 1, 1984.
My first day on the job at Pacific Northwest Bell was 10/31/83. On my first day of training we were talking about phone color codes when one of the trainers realized that we were never going to sell phones. It was at this point that the industry exploded because you no longer had reps answering the phones providing end to end service in one of the most vertically integrated monopolies of all time.
[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture[/URL]
From the US West wiki arcticle: "US West went through a period of union-management relations that bordered on positive during the early 1990s. After a failed re-engineering strategy, relations fell apart due to increasing hostility between company leaders and employees. When the company rolled out its new slogan – "Life's better here" – employees began wearing buttons and shirts that stated that "Life's Bitter Here"."
I know because I am the Union guy who coined and started the use of 'Life's Bitter Here'. I was in a room during the big teleconferenced roll-out of the 'Life's Better Here' campaign, and asked the VP of the Residential Services division how the employees were supposed to support this when most felt that "Life's Bitter Here" was more accurate. Needless to say he did not appreciate my perspective.
"Socialist software" seems like a fair description to me.
I don't think the problems is in describing it as "socialist." It seems like the problem is in people's heads associating socialism with "totalitarianism" rather than simple working together and sharing. Few people have a problem with public roads, schools, the fire department, etc. even though they are clearly "socialistic" efforts.
OK, your definition is fine with me, I can accept this understanding of the term.
But I suspect this was not the meaning it had in the original post ....
Namely, I think you would have trouble to explain to Google and Microsoft shareholders that they support a sort of socialist conspiracy, "trying to suffocate the world’s capitalism ..." (not your own post , but Corrections one, justifying his own understanding of the term).
The patent system needs changing. As of a year ago, 92% of re-examination requests are granted, and only 22% of the patents re-examined survive with all their claims intact (source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120816/01045920068/ ). If they scrutinise patents properly when they're first applied for, I'm fairly sure we'd see a lot less of these frivolous lawsuits.
Another problem is that it's very hard to punish a company effectively. The punishment comes after the damage has been done, and in a lot of cases you can't really redress the balance. Any fines big enough to matter to the company will be stupidly high relative to the offense, any sales / import bans happen after they've sold lots of them, and in cases where a company has gained a competitive advantage there isn't really anything you can do to fix that. I don't know what the answer to this should be tbh.
Does no one edit / proof read these articles before posting?
So far, however, the U.S. patent system has provided inconsistent protections for Apple inventions, while at the same time supporting dubious patent monetization schemes brought against the company.
What are they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0
The patent system needs changing. As of a year ago, 92% of re-examination requests are granted, and only 22% of the patents re-examined survive with all their claims intact (source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120816/01045920068/ ). If they scrutinise patents properly when they're first applied for, I'm fairly sure we'd see a lot less of these frivolous lawsuits.
Another problem is that it's very hard to punish a company effectively. The punishment comes after the damage has been done, and in a lot of cases you can't really redress the balance. Any fines big enough to matter to the company will be stupidly high relative to the offense, any sales / import bans happen after they've sold lots of them, and in cases where a company has gained a competitive advantage there isn't really anything you can do to fix that. I don't know what the answer to this should be tbh.
Your logic is complete bullshit. The outcomes in reexam say nothing about the system overall unless you provide some information about what percentage of patents are reexamined. Let me give some extreme numbers to help you understand the complete idiocy of your statement. If a billion patents were issued last year and 5 of them were reexamined and all 5 were found to be completely invalid (100%), that would not mean the patent system was broken.
This is a great example of how public propaganda is the reason everyone thinks the patent system is broken. THE PATENT SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN. You are all killing the goose that lays the golden egg. If you don't like the US patent system, go live in Iran, Venezuela, Saudia Arabia, Kazakhstan, etc. You won't have anyone suing you for patent infringement there.
"Socialist software" seems like a fair description to me.
I don't think the problems is in describing it as "socialist." It seems like the problem is in people's heads associating socialism with "totalitarianism" rather than simple working together and sharing. Few people have a problem with public roads, schools, the fire department, etc. even though they are clearly "socialistic" efforts.
Seriously? You think a smartphone operating system should be regulated like a public road or fire department? The reason roads are public is because you can't build two roads in the same spot and roads are necessary for all people rich and poor to function in society. Moreover, roads have been around since the dawn of civilization. Software for consumer electronics is the antithesis of road building.
BTW, you are also wrong about "socialist software". Your comment about "working together and sharing" is communist, not socialist. Socialism is shifting resources between social classes. If you like communism so much, you might try moving to North Korea.
Just wondering which is faster at charging, data Mini USB or 30 pin, then Lighting vs Micro USB, we all know the speed of regular USB, and thunderbolt so knowing there smaller forms ratio would be neat.
I just wonder one thing about micro-USB: Since there are only two ways to insert it, why do I guess wrong about 80% of the time, LoLz...
"Socialist software" seems like a fair description to me.
I don't think the problems is in describing it as "socialist." It seems like the problem is in people's heads associating socialism with "totalitarianism" rather than simple working together and sharing. Few people have a problem with public roads, schools, the fire department, etc. even though they are clearly "socialistic" efforts.
Well, without dealing with the rest or going into the details, I (and millions of families with 10's of millions of kids) have plenty of problems with most of what's going on in the public school systems, as run by the new "edutocracy" and the NEA...