Cash for Clunkers? Yes, that was a total failure. It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!! Oh my god, they can't get anything right!

Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.

Wave is a protocol. It's just the first implementation that is google's. Build your own server and you own everything.

The threw in a box of suck. That should be enough.

correllation is not causation?

agggh! Read this: The study controls for teachers' reports of aggression and impulsivity at age 10, the child's gender, and parenting style.

Do you think scientists with >10 years training know less about statistics than you? They actively try to exclude other causes, which is what "controls for" means. Any other ideas for root causes that do not include those controlled for? Or were you just trying to be smart with a nice one-liner because it worked so well for others?

You guys are being ironic, right? Or sarcastic? Or something?

Actually, I didn't know. Thanks for letting us know. It is indeed quite funny. (and proves my point).

It takes even more to visit other planets. Should Mars become the patented intellectual property of the people running the Mars rover program?

That's basically how the American West was explored: you take the risk of going there, if you survive, you own a piece of land. And ownership last forever, unlike patents that expire after 20 years.

How is that exclusive? Nobel himself patented dynamite, and only with that money could afford the prize, which certainly is a benefit to society. Anything a company legally sells is a benefit to society. If that cancer drug is not a benefit for the patient, would he (or his insurance) not buy it? If that tomato weren't a benefit for you, would you buy it? In any transaction that's not illegal (i. e. both sides are free to refuse to make it), both sides increase their utility. Of course there are exceptions (weapons), but the principle is the fundamental idea of capitalism. And while there are problems when capitalism is taken to the extreme, it's pretty obvious by now that well-regulated companies acting in their self-interest ultimately further mankind's goals.

You can't patent, say, a person blowing air into glass for the purposes of shaping but you can patent a machine that performs the same operation.

I'm pretty sure if our patent system had been in place at the time glass was invented, it could have been patented. Many people make the mistake of thinking "oh it's so obvious. Just melt some silicon and form it into a bottle using air pressure". But it's not obvious. And in that case it was one of humanities most important inventions. Think how much work went into perfecting the process: the right tools, the perfect temperature etc. It took over 300 years until we had glass that was at least free of visible imperfections. And why would anybody ever spend years to do that kind of research? I'm sure at the time glass was invented, new traveled slowly and it was easy to keep the process somewhat secret for a few years. Today, we believe it's better to share all the details openly and then impose and artificial restriction to encourage invention.

A properly working patent system is about free, open disclosure and sharing of knowledge.

Think of the negative impact on medical advances if someone, years ago, were able to patent "physical modification of human organs using a blade."

No, it doesn't sound absurd. A patent expires after 20 years. Surgery was invented in the 18th century. Missing out on the first few years wouldn't matter anymore, since surgery is probably more limited by anatomy, biochemistry and pharmacological research than constantly inventing new techniques. Even better, a functioning patent system might have motivated someone to think of surgery earlier. Maybe more than 20 years earlier.

I'm not saying the system is perfect. I don't believe business patents or all the other seemingly obvious stuff are useful. But by misrepresenting the other side of the argument, you're not doing the cause a favor. People with too strong an opinion usually haven't thought the issue through.

Maybe by investing 20 years of your life and millions of dollars to find something that will lead to a process that allows you to create antibiotics that save millions of lives. You can then patent that process and those antibiotics. For 20 years. Oh, and the royalties go to your employer who financed your research and will invest it into more research.

Yes, it's an evil evil broken system.

New rule: you can not comment on something you didn't even bother to read. It's processes to find or design antibiotics targeting the ribosome that were patented, not the ribosome itself. You're creating millions of ribosomes each second, and you haven't been sued yet, have you?

With less sarcasm: the ribosome is not patented. It's using the knowledge about it to create drugs using specific methods that is. Yes, it'd be great if it all were free for all, but this is arguably why the patent system was created: it's very important research, even basic research that could never be fully financed by patent royalties. It's important that some of the certainly large financial gains the drug companies made with this discovery (a lot of antibiotics target the ribosome and were discovered using the patented processes) go to the institutions that financed the risky 20-year gamble in the first place. Being in the hands of a research organization, any money will be devoted to future research.

How in the world do you complain about something like this. I expect the people at slashdot see the patent and are like "Micro$soft suxxx and I want my stuff for free?" then a few guys pass it around and all decided they dun like it. So they shrug "Must be evil" out comes the +5 insightful post!

Two thirds of Mac owners have three or more computers in the home, while only 29% of PC owners have two or more PCs.

Isn't IE marketshare about 70%? What a coincidence!