Perhaps the jury needs to be held responsible for some small portion of the damages they negligently awarded to Apple. I think 1% might drive the message home while still being fair.
What's that? They can't come up with 1% of the award? Come on, it's barely over $10,000,000.
Great idea! Since the only people that will see this are those that paid for it, it would make sense to thank them for not stealing it.
Actually providing customers a BENEFIT for buying something rather than punishing them for it, might make people feel a little better about going through all the hassle of purchasing movies legitimately.
I don't think cable cutting will be much of an issue. I think the bigger problem for the cable companies is the younger generations that will never see a need to sign up for their services to begin with.
No they aren't. All of the jobs you've listed are depending on certain tools to do their jobs but none of them have any reason to care about the IP involved in the creation and distribution of those tools.
They need a tool to do a job. As long as the tool does the job, it doesn't matter who owns the patent or copyright. It doesn't matter what name is on the box as long as the tool is up to the task. IP doesn't make tools better, it makes them more expensive.
The only thing the end user sees from IP is the increased cost from protecting it and from limited competition in the market. Not to mention the opportunity costs from features that can't be implemented in one tool because the patent owner refuses to license it for that use.
It's the old "this tool has a really useful feature and this other tool has a different equally cool feature. I wish I could have a single tool with both features." But you can't, because that is illegal.
IP has almost no effect on the number of sales at Wal-Mart. Trademarks and brand image may effect what brand people buy, but with or without IP people would still buy roughly the same amount, just under a different name.
In cases where there are no IP protections (clothing) or where patents and copyrights have expired (common medicines) Wal-Mart can make their own generic products and undercut the name brands while still keeping the same or higher profit margin for themselves.
So, retailers like Wal-Mart should in fact favor LESS IP protections rather than more.
It's less like borrowing my neighbors car (because then he couldn't use it) and more like going in my garage and building one exactly like it for myself without asking his permission.
Contempt
Perhaps the jury needs to be held responsible for some small portion of the damages they negligently awarded to Apple. I think 1% might drive the message home while still being fair.
What's that? They can't come up with 1% of the award? Come on, it's barely over $10,000,000.
Re:
I wonder if we could petition Google to remove the Olympics from the search results based on this?
"We do not agree to your terms of use, so we will no longer be providing links to your website."
I'd buy one. It would make a great gift to troll friends with.
Re: Re: Can I get the poster and stickers?
Don't forget the grocery stores. They are the backbone of the IP industry after all.
http://www.bestnettech.com/articles/20120607/10055319241/feds-say-we-need-stronger-ip-laws-because-grocery-stores-employ-lots-people.shtml
Re: Re: What I See
Great idea! Since the only people that will see this are those that paid for it, it would make sense to thank them for not stealing it.
Actually providing customers a BENEFIT for buying something rather than punishing them for it, might make people feel a little better about going through all the hassle of purchasing movies legitimately.
I don't think cable cutting will be much of an issue. I think the bigger problem for the cable companies is the younger generations that will never see a need to sign up for their services to begin with.
Re:
They'd just find a loophole in the law and do it anyway.
Depending on IP to make a living?
No they aren't. All of the jobs you've listed are depending on certain tools to do their jobs but none of them have any reason to care about the IP involved in the creation and distribution of those tools.
They need a tool to do a job. As long as the tool does the job, it doesn't matter who owns the patent or copyright. It doesn't matter what name is on the box as long as the tool is up to the task. IP doesn't make tools better, it makes them more expensive.
The only thing the end user sees from IP is the increased cost from protecting it and from limited competition in the market. Not to mention the opportunity costs from features that can't be implemented in one tool because the patent owner refuses to license it for that use.
It's the old "this tool has a really useful feature and this other tool has a different equally cool feature. I wish I could have a single tool with both features." But you can't, because that is illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP has almost no effect on the number of sales at Wal-Mart. Trademarks and brand image may effect what brand people buy, but with or without IP people would still buy roughly the same amount, just under a different name.
In cases where there are no IP protections (clothing) or where patents and copyrights have expired (common medicines) Wal-Mart can make their own generic products and undercut the name brands while still keeping the same or higher profit margin for themselves.
So, retailers like Wal-Mart should in fact favor LESS IP protections rather than more.
Entitled?
It's less like borrowing my neighbors car (because then he couldn't use it) and more like going in my garage and building one exactly like it for myself without asking his permission.
Re: Wrong in many ways.
Or not sold at all.