[QUOTE=kladner;413498]:shock: ...err, really?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, not ironic. Maybe sardonic? I don't really have a handle on that word, so many people have confused me about irony I'm hesitant to use the word at all.

Ironic, sardonic, facetious, sarcastic.....¿quien sabe? (Online dictionaries could possibly help.) :unsure:

Sure there was irony there. He may have placed it in parentheses, but it's still there to be read.

[QUOTE=davar55;413436]Our only disagreement here is in your last sentence. The IP laws are indeed intended to promote creativity (creation) and dissemination of knowledge, and do indeed give a temporary monopoly to the innovator. THIS IS a GOOD thing.[/QUOTE]

Great. We are in general agreement.

But you seem to miss my fundamental point...

While technology gets faster, for some inexplicit reason the length of patents get longer (in the temporal domain).

This doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Could you please give an argument where a "Patent Troll" helped the commons?

[QUOTE=chalsall;413661]Great. We are in general agreement.
But you seem to miss my fundamental point...
While technology gets faster, for some inexplicit reason the length of patents get longer (in the temporal domain).
This doesn't make sense, IMHO.
Could you please give an argument where a "Patent Tr*ll" helped the commons?[/QUOTE]

Higher tech patents getting 'longer" provides insurance that the tech giants will
stay giants, and by the 2big2fail concept, this is deemed good.

[QUOTE=davar55;413946]...and by the 2big2fail concept, this is deemed good.[/QUOTE]

By whom?

Certainly not the consumers, who have to pay more because of the _unnatural monopoly_ granted by a patent.

As a thought experiment, imagine that simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division et al was patented in perpetuity, and thus a company which wanted to sell, for example, a spreadsheet (or just about any computing device or software) to a consumer would have to pay the patent holder a licensing fee. In your mind, would this be a good or a bad thing?

You might consider this a ridiculous example, but there are several only slightly less outrageous examples... Consider that some methods of the simple DCT algorithm are still under patent, which impact JPEG and MPEG encoding. Computer Vision is riddled with similar patents. Hell, Amazon has a patent on "One-Click Buying" (WTF!).

The ICT domain have technology companies suing each other constantly, often for hundreds of millions of dollars, even though many of the patents granted by the USPO are arguably "obvious" and thus shouldn't be patentable. It costs a lot of money to challenge a patent.

This is the whole reason for the recent phenomenon of "patent trolls"; companies which produce no "new art" themselves, but make a great deal of money buying patents and then suing companies who are actually producing products and services.

Care to explain to me how this, in your mind, benefits the consumer and/or advances the state of the art?

[QUOTE=chalsall;413981]Care to explain to me how this, in your mind, benefits the consumer and/or advances the state of the art?[/QUOTE]

:hello:

Here's a thoughtful essay about the value of someone's creativity and how that value is not necessarily financial but will be different for different authors/musicians/cartoonists/etc depending in large part on how much [U]exposure[/U] their work already gets.

[URL]http://www.tetherdcow.com/underexposure/[/URL]

[QUOTE]It comes down to basic commonsense and survival strategies. Sure, your efforts have value, but the value might not necessarily be financial. If that value can be parlayed into money, great. If it can’t, then decide whether there is other opportunity to be had. If that opportunity is exposure, and you could use some exposure, then take it. If that opportunity is connection, and you need connections, then take it. If there is no advantage in making a deal, then don’t make the deal. The only bad exchange is one where you feel an inequality exists. But don’t let someone else tell you what that inequality is.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;414286]Here's a thoughtful essay about the value of someone's creativity and how that value is not necessarily financial but will be different for different authors/musicians/cartoonists/etc depending in large part on how much [U]exposure[/U] their work already gets.
[URL]http://www.tetherdcow.com/underexposure/[/URL][/QUOTE]

Money is just a measure of economic VALUE. Of course there are values that
are not measured in money and that may even supercede monetary value, and
it's fine for anyone to prefer to work to achieving those values instead of monetary
wealth, if they choose. The key to monetary value is exchange or trade value;
the other values are those which pertain more to the individual in and of themselves,
even when involving other people (such as in the case of love).

[QUOTE=chalsall;413981]By whom?
Certainly not the consumers, who have to pay more because of the _unnatural monopoly_ granted by a patent.
As a thought experiment, imagine that simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division et al was patented in perpetuity, and thus a company which wanted to sell, for example, a spreadsheet (or just about any computing device or software) to a consumer would have to pay the patent holder a licensing fee. In your mind, would this be a good or a bad thing?
You might consider this a ridiculous example, but there are several only slightly less outrageous examples... Consider that some methods of the simple DCT algorithm are still under patent, which impact JPEG and MPEG encoding. Computer Vision is riddled with similar patents. Hell, Amazon has a patent on "One-Click Buying" (WTF!).
The ICT domain have technology companies suing each other constantly, often for hundreds of millions of dollars, even though many of the patents granted by the USPO are arguably "obvious" and thus shouldn't be patentable. It costs a lot of money to challenge a patent.
This is the whole reason for the recent phenomenon of "patent trolls"; companies which produce no "new art" themselves, but make a great deal of money buying patents and then suing companies who are actually producing products and services.
Care to explain to me how this, in your mind, benefits the consumer and/or advances the state of the art?[/QUOTE]

One shouldn't want to be an anti-patent tr*ll either.

Should there be NO patent rights?

[QUOTE=davar55;414291]Should there be NO patent rights?[/QUOTE]The world got along very nicely for millennia without patent rights.