joebadmo

60 ms·

511.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Yeah, I've been thinking about how perverse legal systems are by fundamental nature. Laws are made (to some large degree), argued, and adjudicated by lawyers. The more laws there are, and the more complex legal system as a whole gets, the m
512.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Right, I didn't mean to imply that he's a practicing lawyer (since he's clearly a writer and editor for This Is My Next/Verge, but it was foolish of me to expect everyone else to know that) or that he was a patent lawyer. What I meant by th
513.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I recently asked a patent lawyer acquaintance of mine the question: "Do you think patents encourage innovation?" His answer was: "There's absolutely no question at all whatsoever." Which I was certainly a bit suprised by. Maybe the truest c
514.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Is it really imaginable that institutional investors won't just change their rules to allow an exception for US bonds? Honest question.
515.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Anyone else disturbed by the weirdly Luddite/anti-Google tone of this piece? Is there some reason not to take Google's statement about the human driver at face value? Is there really anything more to this story than: "A human quite unremark
516.
by joebadmo 15y ago
The sad thing about all of this is that the patent system in our industry is in fact horribly, cynically broken. What really confuses me about this whole thing is that no one seems to disagree that the patent system is broken. (Well, exce
517.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Yes, that's generally what smart people do when they're losing an argument: deny all terms and definitions. That's my point: once you render it all meaningless, it's easy to argue whatever you want, as Gruber demonstrates. For example: But
518.
by joebadmo 15y ago
If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of t
519.
by joebadmo 15y ago
They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; see
520.
by joebadmo 15y ago
The convolutions continue. "What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game." It's easy to redefine the game as whatever suits your outcome.
521.
by joebadmo 15y ago
re moat: I don't see how your points here speak to your argument that Android is uncompetitive. It's an attempt not to get locked out of the mobile search market. If anything, it promotes competitiveness. A LOT of marketshare isn't a monopo
522.
by joebadmo 15y ago
re moat: That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certa
523.
by joebadmo 15y ago
You're right. I never liked when Apple started waging war on Android over IP, especially in light of their wholesale copying of Android's notification system, for example, but it didn't seem particularly out of character, and it seemed in l
524.
by joebadmo 15y ago
But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just have different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. And another important part of the MS antitrust
525.
by joebadmo 15y ago
They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; M
526.
by joebadmo 15y ago
You need to learn how defensive patents work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation It's not just to stop from being sued over that particular patent, but to be able to use that patent to counter-sue when litigated for
527.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Maybe I'm being naively optimistic, but if we take Google to be both unafraid to take risks and long-term in its thinking, we can interpret all of its actions as spending as little as possible on patents while getting opponents to spend as
528.
by joebadmo 15y ago
That argument is fair and interesting, but it has no bearing on the current issue: "So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." It's in no way hypocritical for Google to try to acquire the patents and th
529.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Then they would have unhypocrytically continued to use them only defensively. Can you explain exactly how Google is being hypocritical in this case?
530.
by joebadmo 15y ago
It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident? His arguments here are just so disingenuous. "So if Google
531.
Is Google+ a Cathedral or a Bazaar?(theconversation.edu.au)
1 points by joebadmo 15y ago|0 comments
532.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Maybe that's what's keeping me from immediately jumping in, too. But I can't imagine such a high profile startup with serious funding and such public statements would really be straight-up lying about this. And in light of the blog post, it
533.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Actually, I'm impressed. The apology is pretty comprehensive with no weasel words, and the new features seem pretty serious. My personal chances of using the service as a host have gone from 'just might try it' a few weeks ago to 'yeah, no'
534.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Hey, thanks for fighting the good fight, ColinWright! I, for one, appreciate it.
535.
by joebadmo 15y ago
As a Windows user, I get more tempted to switch with each new hardware release from Apple. But Apple's historical and maybe just now truly culminating priveleging of 'consumers' over power users scares me off in equal proportion. I'm very c
536.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I think here the relevant definition of 'obvious' is 'readily inventable independently by competent parties.' I.e. ideally, you want the defensive patent to be obvious enough that your likely attackers will have come up with and used it i
537.
Good Defensive Patents Are Bad Patents (Julian Sanchez)(juliansanchez.com)
21 points by joebadmo 15y ago|2 comments
538.
Top Ten Most Wanted Design Bugs [2005]
1 points by joebadmo 15y ago|0 comments
539.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Ranking something lower, especially if it gets knocked off the first page, has the same effect in kind, if not degree, as blocking. I'm not sure which part of this you think contributes to the filter bubble effect (which I'm skeptical about
540.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I mean, yeah, I get that that's the hope, but I'm not sure I buy the idea that a collection of individuals even as talented and capable as those can really replace someone with as singular a vision and fierce a personality as Jobs. I'm sure

More ›