« The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs: Honestly, Ballmer, what the frig are you people thinking? | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | Al Franken Reads the 4th Amendment to Justice Department Official »
EU bodies to discuss IP barriers to innovation
[Quote:]
A meeting of members of the European Commission and Council of Ministers will today and tomorrow discuss whether the European Union’s intellectual property laws are holding back the region’s competitiveness.
Asking the question is answering it. If thee European Union’s intellectual property laws aren’t holding us back, you’d never even asked the question in the first place.
And that’s where the good news ends:
The Commission has produced a review of the EU’s innovation policy and put it in context with other nations’ and regions’ policies. That review says that intellectual property laws in the EU could better favour business.
That’s the wrong way around. You want innovation? Rewrite the laws so they better favour the consumer – if you’re in the pockets of corporations when you write these laws, there’s not going to be any innovation. If you’d rewritten the laws ten years ago in the manner this report suggests, the mp3 format would have been outlawed.
The Commission has long campaigned for the creation of a single EU patent but has in the past failed to win the support of the European Parliament for the plan.
Of course – the new laws would really have fucked innovation, and Parliament recognized that (after lots of prodding of people in the software business, of course)
“The European patent system is costly and fragmented, discouraging innovation compared to the US and Japan. The difference in patenting costs in comparison to these countries is significant and is not being reduced. It is high time to change this situation,” it said.
Fine. SCRAP most of the laws, and you’ll see patenting costs go down significantly.
The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs: Honestly, Ballmer, what the frig are you people thinking?
[Quote:]
I know you guys are relieved that Vista is almost officially dead. But throwing a party for Windows 7? Really? That’s like having a party to celebrate the fact that your hemorrhoid surgery was a success. I mean, yes, you’re glad the painful roid is gone. You look forward to being able to sit down without wincing. But you don’t necessarily invite all your friends over to talk about it.
[..]
The even more scary thing is I know Ballmer and his circle of sycophants are up there telling themselves that yes, this Win7 party idea is stupid, and yes, this video is awful, but hey, “at least people are talking about Windows 7, right?”
Yes. You are right.
Federal Reserve Admits Hiding Gold Swap Arrangements, GATA Says
[Quote:]
The Federal Reserve System has disclosed to the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc. that it has gold swap arrangements with foreign banks that it does not want the public to know about.
The disclosure, GATA says, contradicts denials provided by the Fed to GATA in 2001 and suggests that the Fed is indeed very much involved in the surreptitious international central bank manipulation of the gold price particularly and the currency markets generally.
Windows 7 Party
[Quote:]
Turns out, though, it’s a lot more fun when you imagine these guys are helping you plan a… slightly different party.
Don!t worry Jon, they will pick a solution that brings the most money to them.
I agree that the patent system is abused a lot by people seeking fast fortune. It isn’t all bad however. Patents enable costly research as it ensures a way of getting money out of new products. getting rid of patents will have a more negative impact on innovation than you seem to be aware of in your remarks.
So the question is really how to have patents stimulate innovation without the abusive side effects. Tricky stuff imho.
Note that I didn’t ask for “getting rid” of patents. I asked for a rewrite. Yes, it’s tricky, but the current system is broken.
@Jim, I respectfully disagree. As a European, I trust the government still better than the industry. Therefor I feel that big costly research for the good of man kind, should be performed by governments, not my people that will lie about how good it is, or delay one invention until some other expires, or not sell it to South Africa, because of commercial interests. I know in America trains, postal, electricity, pharma, jails, etc. are all operated by the private sector, but I don’t think things are working out so bad in Europe. I think exactly because costly research is often so important, it should be left to the government. If that makes me a commie, so be it.
I think for example the pharmaceutical industries basically employ these brilliant researchers and pay them (a tiny bit) of the commercial money. However, those researchers usually build them selves an environment that is mirrored of the academic environment, and after talking to several, I have concluded they would do research anyway and they would not mind working for a Uni. So it might be true that without patents the companies would not do research (though I doubt even that) but it absolutely false that some how the scientists need that stimulant, direct or indirect. The same holds for hardware designers, programmers, etc. So all in all, I don’t think patents are needed anyway. But I don’t know. What we do agree on, is that the current system has huge drawbacks. To me one of the biggest drawback is the lottery syndrome it causes. Patent as much as you can even if you don’t use it your self, you can get rich by having others pay you when they make money with something that even partly overlaps your patent. Some companies collect only patents and do nothing else but sue and threaten other companies. Now those things can not be very good for innovation. And since there are soooo many patents and it can take years for a patent to become known (they are called submarine patents) there is no way you can “navigate” through the rocks, steering clear of all the patents, what ever your business is. This will get worse and worse. I overheard two young people the other day. They were talking about staring a (database) company. Their biggest concern was, not to get too successful for a year or two, than become very successful quickly and sell their company before the patent sharks would appear. I asked them and they spend more than half their time on strategies to get the patent sharks out. Their main weapon was not filing a patent them selves (that would set them back 30.000 euro for the euro zone alone), because the don’t want to fall victim to patent troll companies that use automated systems to check new patents against their portfolio. Man, this patent system is nog work…
at the very least any new law would need a “use it or lose it” provision. If, 6 months after the patent issue, you’re not using it, it automatically becomes public domain. That, and a maximum time of 10 years for traditional industry and 5 years for IT, would be an interesting start of a new set of laws.