Comment Re:Test This Claim: (Score 4, Informative) 515
This submission was posted by sampenzus which means it's just more idle crap polluting the front page.
This submission was posted by sampenzus which means it's just more idle crap polluting the front page.
So you'd rather have companies never disclose this information at all by hiding them indefinitely as trade secrets? There are many things wrong with the patent system, but to block them entirely would lead to less propagation of information into the public domain.
Exactly, as the bigger corporation would just file a counter-suit to invalidate your patent.
No, it would only end patents for small inventors because they wouldn't have the money to do the exhaustive searches to find any and all prior art or to pay the fines. On the other hand, huge behemoths like IBM or Microsoft would have little issues as they have huge groups of devoted staff to be used for this purpose. And if they did happen to misfile a patent, the fine would be peanuts to them.
Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence in looking for it then they won't be able to prove you knew about it, so you won't get convicted and hence won't get fined.
You mean like how if you are innocent of a crime that you are never wrongfully accused and convicted? Yeah, that never happens.
Sure in an ideal world that is the purpose that patents would serve, but in the real world patents are used by bigger corporations to bully around any smaller competitors.
Counting on Ray Ozzie to come to Lotus' defense is a fool's errand, though. Like all the once-luminary personalities that got bought by Microsoft, he belongs to them and will serve their interests instead of our own.
Because Ray Ozzie never served his own interests until he got to Microsoft? Yeah right.
Yes, if you screw up you will have bad consequences happen. This is why programmers at these companies are constantly tweaking their algorithms. It's not as if they just start these computers up and forget about them.
No I don't lack any reading ability at all. He was trying to claim that because there are high costs of entry that somehow it's not a free market which is false. Certain types of activities have more expensive infrastructure costs. That's just the way it is. That doesn't make it any less of a "free market". The notion of a "free market" has to do with being able to freely exchange goods without government intervention not that anyone and everyone can necessarily start a business in any field they want.
Did you even read the part that I quoted from the GGP? He was saying that they were complaining that they got 3 boats INSTEAD OF 2 boats.
Sure it can, but there are certain fields that are just going to have high barriers to entry by their very nature.
It seems to me like any potential for exploiting millisecond delays in transaction transmission will be consumed and defeated by the time it takes a human operator to interpret the information and hit the "confirm purchase/sale" button.
Did you even read the summary? Let me quote the relevant section:
The 'algos' that make autonomous trading decisions
The problem is the start-up cost. Buying the necessary hardware, obtaining the required data sources, developing the necessary analytical formulas and coding them efficiently costs a *lot* of money. So it's the free market of people who already have a lot of money and time, or simply an enormous amount of money.
Because the people currently providing these services didn't have to pay all the infrastructure and coding costs when they joined? Since when did "free market" mean you didn't have to spend money to join in?
Or how strictly does a typical private tracker enforce ratios for older, overseeded torrents?
Private trackers enforce a ratio for your cumulative downloads and uploads not on a individual torrent basis.
These corporate moneymongers are sad that they can only buy 3 boats this year instead of two
lolwut? Why would someone be sad that they could afford more boat than they originally expected?
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
