Is this phone cheaper? Who is buying this phone? Who is selling this phone to whom and how?

Early Android sales was much about competitors "getting something comparable to an iphone to sell" as it was about consumers "getting something comparable to an iphone on their network".

One cannot just look at product to explain sales.

Firstly, this over-generalization of scientific productivity by age group is completely irrelevant unless we are having some age group contest. Scientists do extremely specific work, none of which is ambiguous. Specificity is part of the craft. A scientist who is ambiguous about their research hasn't gotten anywhere.

Secondly, the nature of research and publication, as well as their cycles, are vast and highly dependent on the scientific community that surrounds that research, as well as the environment in which that research is being done. For example, imagine a Physics professor at an ivy league university, and compare him with a chemist that works in a lab at a giant corporation. Most universities conducting research are open and public, aiming for advancement in the field. Most corporations conducting independent research are secretive, aiming for patents and advancement in their respective markets. Scientific productivity is as much the result of a community or group as it is the product of any one man's talent or inspiration.

Finally, these inferences into how the behavior of a young scientist differs from an old scientist are stereotypical, and would only contribute to prejudice at best. Any scientist with real talent would most likely be aware of it, and it is that awareness that matters more than any age bracket. Scientists know when they are on to something. They tend to believe strongly in their work, regardless of age. That belief is what is important and it can be measured.

I agree with you in spirit, as do many others, and with much of what you said, although I have slightly more respect left for the status quo I think.

The problem with changing the system is that it isn't about reasoning or science. Unfortunately it is about politics, and when it is about politics it is about money. We need to make money speak, and to do it, we need to make money.

The pharma industry is built on patents, and the music and entertainment industry on copyright. They are all insanely rich thanks to IP law, and they will protect those laws til their demise.

First, everyone believes they have to own something to sell it. Until that belief changes, we will still be hogging our MP3s and "stealing" data that can be freely copied infinite times. It is as childish as playing house with sand castles. Too bad they make a real living out of it.

Second, we must solve the money problem. Until a new system is in place that makes more money for these so-called "innovators and creators", no legal change will happen. In fact, regardless of what they believe, if a new system makes more money than the existing system, there really is no contest. All those who were in favor of the current system will suddenly be rapping about how great system B is. All corporations want is money.

Free software won a generation over, but it failed to convert IP into money. It was the first step of the above 2. Programming makes it obvious... Every bit is the same. Every bit can be copied. Those who claim to own certain bits impede the progress of other bits.

Unfortunately free software didn't really care about #2. And that is fine. They really just cared about programming... which definitely worked in their favor winning people over. They did it for the love of the game, so to speak. Eventually money was found servicing free software but that is still not the same as monetizing IP or the software itself. Case in point, the music industry doesn't sell customer service. They would never be able to.

... is precisely the bottleneck. The throughput of one person or one entity is minuscule in comparison to the entire intellectually innovative population, and because of sole ownership, no one can build on any of these "publicly disclosed" ideas. They are public as a reference of "what you may not do without our permission" and not "what we now know how to do, feel free to run with it".

But ownership is what drives capitalism, and no ownership is not necessary. What is necessary is "freedom of use" and "fair trade" together with "ownership". I should be able to sell a car based on Google's patent (assuming it is thorough enough, which it isn't) and feel comfortable with the percentage of sales the law dictates I owe Google for my "source of expertise and inspiration". This would accomplish "freedom of use". The missing piece would be regulation of trade so that it is "fair". For example, people wouldn't be able to sell something at a loss, and they would be required to profit. This is similar to the tax laws that require "fair compensation" so that even if a corporation owes little or no taxes, payroll taxes would still be collected.

Innovation evolves, grows, and stacks. The moment someone has full claim to one brick and what can be built on top of it, construction grinds to a halt, and all the innovative builders are sent away, resulting in everyone working on their own tiny little houses which is exactly what is happening today.

Patents should be a contribution to the community, with the community dictating what fair compensation for that contribution may be. Not contributing or not sharing should not even be an option, yet that is the compensation. It is totally backwards. Those who file patents should get paid, not have to pay. Those who invent shouldn't be burdened with monetizing their ideas.

Building something together requires sharing ownership. The hogging of intelligence keeps everything primitive, and fighting in court over who came up with something first or whether someone "stole" an invention is the primitive behavior the whole system encourages.

(sorry for the rant)

No one should have the right to prevent someone from using a solution or an idea. The problem isn't with patents existing, it is with their restrictions on re-use and elaboration by other people.

When someone claims to have invented something, they're just hiding their sources of inspiration. If we all made our sources open, then we would have so much more to "invent".

Anyone should be able to use anything and profit. Instead of it being about ownership and theft, it should be about free redistribution, transparency, and paying it backwards to those you owe credit.

Innovation is only a small part of how businesses grow and make money. Kodak was deep in the film photography business... everything about the industry and everything about the company in someway had a connection. These connections and channels of revenue are built, established, then reinforced with assets. This is a process that takes decades. And as long as there are sales, it all works. When the well dries however, the whole ecosystem collapses, and innovation has little to do with it. It's all about damage control, and making up for it elsewhere.

Digital is a completely different beast than film. Kodak started at square 1 with digital cameras, as did everyone else. Those who are winning in the digital photography space have little to owe to their film camera roots... apart from maybe their brand recognition. Digital cameras are computers with a lens. They require sophisticated software from firmware to computer software for the users... It's insanely more complex. And the catch? They can't sell anymore film, development and production costs are higher, and margins are slimmer.

  In Kodak's case, they probably couldn't make up for it even if they became #1 in digital cameras. Their old corporate infrastructure, all their assets, and everything they knew how to do well would have had to go, and if that is what equals Kodak, then honestly nothing could have saved them.

Well, I'm mainly talking about the Japanese console gaming industry. Games will never go away, so if you're a competent dev house then there will always be work. But who is really making money and how?

Sony bet biggest on online distribution with their PSP Go which was a catastrophe. So if console games aren't being distributed online, and the storefronts are shrinking, that is a sign of major turmoil. That's really all I am saying. And if you prefer the Wall Street perspective, an industry that isn't growing is as good as dead.

Microsoft is winning right now, but it isn't really because of good titles or better games (they come out on ps3 also), but more due to the success of xbox live.

As for gaming cycles, ps = 1994, ps2 = 2000, ps3 = 2006, ps4 != 2012.

Although overall sales will always be good in some form or another, the blockbusters will take up more and more of the pie, and the titles that fail to brake even will continue to increase. The fact that most hits are sequels already proves that new innovation that leads to uncharted success is becoming rarer than ever before. And uncharted territory is where real growth is at.

There is just too much work between idea and release.

I can't end with a little sarcasm?

Facts: Been going for 25 years. Last time I went, a lot of the stores I remembered were either gone, or their game section was half the size. Didn't see new stores replacing them either. The used game stores have all had a hard time and sell more DVDs and game cards now to make ends meet. Game sections of major electronic stores like Yodobashi and Bic Camera have all shrunk. Titles released for XBOX and PS are fewer and further between with more sequels and less publishers. Bandai merged with Namco. Square merged with Enix. Tecmo merged with Koei. Publishers often mask the state of their development studios, but at lower levels it gets worse. Many development houses focus on one game for years, and if their game fails, they fail with it. SNK failed. Sega failed. Midway failed. As a recent example Team Bondi of LA Noire failed. Every time the next generation of consoles come out, huge consolidation and failure occurs. A lot of companies fail to scale up their capabilities to meet new development demands.

So now it's more like making big budget movies: huge costs and lengthy development cycles that carry fatal risks. Obviously the industry will never go away, but it definitely isn't how it used to be. ... and I'm mainly referring to console games.

Just look at Japan. The stores are either gone or half the size. Building games just sucks as a business, and like a failing movie industry, each studio loses life every time a game flops until they are either acquired or go kaputz. Bigger budgets. Fewer titles. Less players. Lack of interest. The end.

Here is the scenario. Workers do stuff secretively because they do not want their supervisors to know. Now the supervisors start to monitor those workers so that they can see when they are being naughty, except, they themselves are not being monitored, so the workers are outraged when they find out the supervisor was watching youtube on the job, which entails monitoring the workers to make sure they aren't watching youtube...

So who watches the watchers?

First, one doesn't need to monitor someone to undo secretiveness. For example, have their monitor displayed on a public wall. Them knowing that what they are doing is public will already alter their behavior. Openness makes people behave. No watchers.

Second, the idea that the workers need to be watched would apply to all workers at all levels. In other words, why stop with the workers? Or the supervisors? Or the branch managers? Or the VP or CEO? Is the one person that behaves without being monitored the one? To think that monitoring only should apply to a certain class or category of people already implies prejudice:

"I am better, ergo, don't watch me."

If members of a system or group can all watch one another, and they all have the capability to challenge anyone, then consider that system well monitored.

Dangerous = Hide it, is the idiots solution. Because if anything, information will want to get out, and to assume that this information is unique, or that it cannot be replicated, or that it is the only time anyone will come up with it is idiotic.

On the other hand, recognizing any information that has more potential for harm, is a good thing. And there are intelligent ways to go about it. The military already classifies its information and enforces boundaries to some extent. This is just an example of it already being done in some form or another.

Deciding who deserves to know is where it is tricky, but just assuming all information should be free and out there is actually not very responsible. Rather, getting the right information to the right people is what being responsible really entails.

On the personal level, we should have some control over our own information, our identity, and what harms us. We should have that right, especially if the government already has that right (and uses it against us).

I get that if someone copies a work with no revenue, they cannot be sued for lost revenue. But if copyright is owned by the copyright owner, and is their right to not allow copying, then I do not understand how someone who obviously copied something can still be innocent. They would be guilty, but not liable for damages. They should at most have to pay for the plaintiff's legal fees if being taken to court is what it took.

In the case of film and music there are huge disproportionate criminal fines in place, and you'd think it would be the same with journalism... but I guess the lobbyists weren't aggressive enough to steer the law their way!?

Right, those are all upsides of legitimate copies. In your case the upsides make you pay, not the downsides.

I mentioned fear and guilt as two possible downsides. The law and the relevant ad campaigns usually play on both. But my point was that they are kind of weak, and that yes, the upsides are where the choices are being made, of which you proved to be a perfect example.

We can definitely add peace-of-mind to the upside, but this is part of the service which the pirates provide, so in this case the pirates are failing in service... If pirates had equal or better service, only the downsides would come into play.

Pricing is part of the service. And pirates have advantage over price, but if they also have advantages over everything else, then they really have everything going for them.

The only downside is guilt of not paying and fear of getting caught. Guilt will make a lot of people with the money to pay as long as they get what they want. Fear will make cowards and the paranoids pay, but then again, no one is really scared of getting caught downloading a game.

It's advertising, and because we know better about monitors, it's clearly not for us. But think of, say, laundry detergent commercials. The latest always makes your clothes whiter and removes more stains than the "leading brand". Well, the commercial has been the same for 50 years. And so have the detergents, more or less...

All that matters is the warning at the bottom. Think of cigarettes. They kill you, but as long as they told you so.