Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Idea: If patent changes hands, becomes public (Score 2) 46

This might be a crackpot idea but it just popped into my head so I haven't thought it through...

As a compromise to combat patent trolls, litigation, the stifling of innovation, etc., how about changing the law so that once a patent changes hands it enters the public domain or ceases to be. It's imperfect, but has many benefits.

It would protect the initial inventor/patentor. You wouldn't have the same outcry as if you banned patents all together. However, is also a limitation as it would not stop litigation brought on by the original inventor. But it would put an end to patent trolls and would enable patents to enter the public domain at a much quicker rate. Sure, patent transactions would slow, but it's not unthinkable that a company would purchase a patent to protect itself from a lawsuit knowing that that very purchase will destroy the patent.

Comment Re:Welcome to our world (Score 5, Interesting) 1205

I agree. Voters and governments in Europe have made the choice to tax themselves up the wazoo on fuel. It's more tolerable there given their denser population, better public transit and "leaner" lifestyles. But the spot price of gasoline at the port in Rotterdam is almost exactly the same as it is in New York Harbor or the Gulf Coast. Europeans don't have to pay $8/gallon. Unrelated: It's also interesting to note that after years of $8 fuel in Europe, they have adapted with small diesels. There is little to no sign of the renewable fuels you hear being pitched by politicians on both sides of the pond.

Comment Dvorak named AMD his 10 bagger for 2009 (Score 1) 385

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-10-bagger-pick-2009/story.aspx?guid=D82F39D6-90CC-442A-AECF-FC1C7CE9BD1C&dist=SecMostCommented Which means he thinks the stock could sell for $20 in 2009 (10x current share price, which was ~2 when the article was written). I'm not saying this is a realistic prediction (I hope it is since I'm a shareholder), but just goes to show how meaningless these stupid predictions are. Just like this summer when nearly everyone was predicting $200+/barrel oil.

Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"