test 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (81) comment rss

  • On the post: Obama Tasks CDC With Study Of Video Games And 'Violent Media'

    test ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2013 @ 04:32am

    Re: Re: Newsflash

    Hey genius,

    The U.S. started its "war on poverty" back in 1964. Now that we've spent several trillion dollars on it, are we out of poor people yet?

    xoxo, Anonymous

  • On the post: Obama Tasks CDC With Study Of Video Games And 'Violent Media'

    test ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2013 @ 04:34am

    Why the CDC?

    Can someone explain to me why the CDC is doing this study? The agency that handles infectious disease outbreaks?

    I wouldn't mind the usual pissing-away of taxpayer dollars, which of course necessitates higher taxes, if we at least gave the money to some agency with some experience with firearm violence, like the ATF, etc.

  • On the post: HBO Go Goes Everywhere… Except Your TV Set

    test ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2012 @ 04:33pm

    AirPlay

    Is on the way. Early next year. From a very reliable insider.

  • On the post: Why Do Copyright Maximalists Think That Lame 'Education' Campaigns Will Brainwash Children?

    test ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2012 @ 05:32pm

    What's one more indoctrination campaign?

    We already teach children all kinds of lies about organized religion, political affiliation, etc.

    Why is it irrational to expect them to fall for this one too?

    xoxo, Anonymous

  • On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster

    test ( profile ), 19 May, 2012 @ 03:47pm

    Wrong again, Mikey

    Hi Mikey,

    It's your friend Anonymous. The one who writes in every time you say something dumb, especially about patents and patent policy. Anyway, as a dog returns to its own vomit, your post has brought me here to the comments section.

    As a number of posters have already pointed out, the only reason that FB didn't close down was because the syndicate supported FB at the opening price. There are some obvious reasons that's bad -- as an exercise, I'll let you work those out for yourself. I think you're capable of that. Let me take some time to explain some of the not so obvious reasons.

    In case you hadn't noticed, the market's in a downtrend that shows no sign of reversal. The easiest way to stop that would have been to suck in retail "investors" who don't know (or care) about Euro-zone politics, China's leveraged and slowing economy, etc. The easiest way to do that would have been to open FB at a reasonable price per share, with a reasonable float size, and then let the shares pop by 50% and make headlines everywhere around the world. Sure, it would have screwed FB out of money, but it would have insured that the syndicate members would have made even more money, and since when do investment bankers watch out for the interests of their clients?

    Instead, we had double the float at double the price, and solid proof that there's no new money entering the market. All of the other companies in the sector sold off, maybe because the FB offering sucked wind, but more likely because the buyers didn't have any spare cash lying around and had to take profits in order to make the new investment.

    So now FB will close down on Monday, or whenever the syndicate stops supporting the price. And all of the social media startups that have been justifying their price based on FB's $100b market cap are going to ratchet lower, etc. And the market will continue its sell off as the institutional sellers continue to de-riskify.

    So, in closing, the FB IPO trading near its opening price does qualify as a disaster.

    xoxo, Anonymous

  • On the post: CISPA Authors Launch Twitter Account To Preach False Merits Of The Bill

    test ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2012 @ 01:08pm

    TEst

    The sneaky B clause above, gives EVERYTHING that sopa wanted to give to both government and private corporations to censor ANYthing :

    ".........(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.............."

    'theft or misappropriation of private information and intellectual property', basically evolves to what sopa wanted to do about catching those nasty 'pirates', and doing anything government or private corporations want to do with their information.

    What's amazing is, how the people who are preparing this bill, have been able to squeeze half of the essence of SOPA into CISPA with just one sentence, and two phrases .....

  • On the post: Author's Guild Boss On E-Book Price Fixing Allegations: But… But… Brick-And-Mortar!

    test ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2012 @ 04:39pm

    Darn you, Tim.

    Every time Mike's retarded scrivenings put me on the verge of blocklisting BestNetTech, you have to go and post a smart and insightful analysis.

    Can you get your own website? Or put Mike's "talents" to work...adjusting Pantone shadings in your logos or something?

    xoxo, Anonymous

  • On the post: How The Patent System Is Rigged To Only Expand What's Patentable

    test ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2012 @ 04:26am

    Re: Re: Lol, again.

    Did you read the original post? And did you read my reply?

    This thread is about a relatively subtle point -- whether the structure of the appellate process guarantees an expansion of statutory subject matter because there's no "appellant" when a patent is granted for a new class of invention.

    Masur is wrong, of course, and should know better -- he clerked for Judge Patel and Patel has decided several cases declaring entire classes of patents unpatentable.

    I just can't stop laughing at some of the quotes from Masur's piece. Like how reading Masur's article is going to inspire the Federal Circuit to create "constraining precedent." LOLOLOL. And how the Queen of France will invite Jon to discuss patent policy over tea, 'cause he's just so damn insightful. ROTFL.

    You and all the other sheeple here want to discuss whether patents are baaaa-aaaaad. Usually with some brilliant argument like "Someone got a patent that didn't deserve it. We should dismantle the entire system. Patents are baaa-aaaad." I refuse to waste my time on that kind of idiocy.

    If you want me to reply, you can answer this question. Name one other field where that kind of argument isn't completely transparent bullshit. E.g.:

    "I received a parking ticket I didn't deserve. Now I won't drive to my job to innovate anymore. Parking tickets hinder innovation. We should dismantle the entire parking ticket system. Parking tickets are baaaa-aaaad."

    xoxo, Anonymous

  • On the post: How The Patent System Is Rigged To Only Expand What's Patentable

    test ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 08:22pm

    Lol, again.

    Hi Mike,

    I had gone away for a while but, like Michael Corleone, your ever-insightful commentary has drawn me back in.

    The patent system is intended to grant patents on new and non-obvious inventions. Did it ever occur to you and Mr. Masur that perhaps the "inflationary pressure" pushing the boundaries of patentable subject matter ultimately derives from mankind's never ceasing quest to innovate?

    Yes, Mike. It's true. There were no patents on semiconductors, digital computers, and business methods back in the 19th century. Is that because of the Federal Circuit or because of the nature of innovation?

    Jonathan Masur. Lol. Yale Law Journal. ROTFL.

    You crack me up.

    xoxo, Anonymous.

  • On the post: Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites'

    test ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Fuck 'em all

    Suck my dick bitches

  • On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US

    test ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 04:39am

    Don't know what you're talking about again.

    Hi Mike,

    Normally I'm used to posting in response to your demonstrated ignorance on patents. It's nice to see that you're broadening your interests. Good for you!

    It actually does make a difference. Some organizations have stated policies that say "thou shalt not own debt that is not AAA rated." So now all these people need to figure out whether they need to sell their U.S. treasury holdings, ignore the S&P rating in favor of Moody's rating (where that's an option), or amend their policy (so they can hold U.S. debt, and the debt of other AA+ rated countries). That probably translates into at least some selling.

    Do you understand now how your claim is incorrect?

    XXOO, Anonymous

  • On the post: How One Startup Used Patents To Kill A (Better) Competitor

    test ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 05:05am

    Shocked! Shocked, I say!

    Let's get this straight. The patent system is designed to protect innovators from copycats. And someone got a patent and then sued a copycat. It must be a slow news day for you, Mike.

    I agree with #6, here. It's not like the target couldn't indemnify the buyer for any patent problems, especially if this is one of those "baseless" claims you're so fond of writing about. More likely diligence revealed the deal was a dog and this was just an excuse to walk away from it.

    XOXO, Anonymous

  • On the post: Contract Dispute Reveals That Intellectual Ventures Paid Consultant To Get Unions To Fight Patent Reform

    test ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2011 @ 03:56am

    Obvious anti-patent bias, again

    Hi Mike,

    It's your friend Anonymous again. As usual, you'll see me calling you out when your anti-patent bias is so blatantly obvious that even a dummy like me can spot it:

    "the current patent system hurts the American economy and makes us less competitive (thereby hurting unions)"

    I'm guessing that you really meant to say something like:

    "the current unionized labor system hurts the American economy and makes us less competitive (thereby hurting Americans"

    Or you can explain how unions make us more competitive.

  • On the post: How Facebook Used White Space To Crush Myspace

    test ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2011 @ 02:57pm

    Almost correct.

    Quicken came first, Money was the challenger. Perhaps you mean Mint?

    Your friend, Anonymous

  • On the post: Surprise: Justice Department Says Isolated Genes Should Not Be Patentable

    test ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2010 @ 04:31am

    "...which makes perfect sense..."

    Patents are granted for, e.g., new and nonobvious compounds of matter. Gene patents are for _isolated_ gene sequences. _Isolated_ gene sequences do not exist in nature, therefore they are patentable.

    Want to explain why the contrary "makes perfect sense"? It seems to me your anti-patent bias is leading you to shoot from the hip again.

    Your friend, Anonymous

  • On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release

    test ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2010 @ 08:35pm

    Re: ...does not mean that unforeseen innovations such as computer programs are always unpatentable

    Nope. Mike's right about that part. Scalia didn't join in that part, which means it got less than a majority of nine justices. That's not law, just dicta.

  • On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release

    test ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2010 @ 08:33pm

    Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

    The U.S. has had a patent system since 1790 and we still out-innovate every other country on the planet. The pace of innovation in software and business methods in the past 12 years since State Street is incredible. Correlation isn't causation, but surely you can point to a country that doesn't recognize software patents and still out innovates us. How about Europe?

  • On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release

    test ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2010 @ 08:23pm

    Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

    When you said it was "reasonably upsetting...," I thought you were saying that you found it "reasonabl[e]" for many that find software patents to be abhorrent to be upset about Bilski. My point #1 is that I don't think it's reasonable because the Court as an institution isn't supposed to create exceptions to statutes they don't like. If I got that wrong, I apologize.

    1. Your other reply addresses Stevens' argument about s. 273. I've already responded. I don't find his argument persuasive at all.

    No, the justices aren't kooks. They're doing their job, which is interpreting statutes and applying the Constitution when that's necessary. But 90% of the discussion on this topic has nothing to do with any of that. Here's what makes a kook a kook, they argue policy and then, instead of going to the body that makes laws based on policy, they go to the body whose job it is to interpret the laws and then act surprised and upset when the Court ignores all of their policy arguments.

    1a. I'm the one making a strawman argument? Why don't you name the country that doesn't have a patent system that out-innovates the United States? The U.S. has had a patent system since 1790, and it doesn't seem to have hurt innovation at all. I think we've probably out-innovated every other nation on earth, and this is doubly true in the software space in the 12 years since Bilski.

    2. Every time I hear someone complain about the lack of clarity in Bilski, I ask them, "What should the Court have said? What clarity were you seeking?" So I'm asking you that too; see 3. below.

    2a. I'm not going to accede to your views if they don't persuade me. I'm sorry if you find that insulting.

    3. Thank you. I wish newspapers would ask me for quotes every once in a while. First off, refer to 2. above. Second, courts are supposed to decide cases based on the facts in front of them. When those decisions apply broadly to other facts, that's precedent. And when those decisions are applied badly to other facts, that's bad for all of us. The Bilski patent application was a horrible piece of crap that should have never gotten this far in the process. It was an abstract idea!

    If you wanted the Supreme Court to announce the perfect test that would solve all these problems, they should have been given a patent application that had some merit to it. As it stood, the Court recognized that the facts were bad, that it didn't have enough expertise in this area to announce the perfect test, and by declining to propose the perfect test, it left the lower courts, the Patent Office, the inventors, and the patent attorneys with enough latitude to try and figure out what the right test(s) should be. What more could you possibly ask for here?

    3a. C'mon now. You're pretending I'm making ad hominem attacks here and I've said nothing of the sort. I said that your copyright stuff is very smart and I meant it. If I've hurt your feelings, I do apologize. I do appreciate this blog and I've been a reader for years now.

    3a.ii. If you're laughing you're not paying attention. Parker/Flook/Benson are not clear. The rhetoric we've seen from the Court over the past five years suggested that business method patents are categorically unpatentable, which conflicted with the Federal Circuit's Bilski decision. That makes things unclear. Now we have a Supreme Court decision that says beyond a doubt they're patentable, here's one test, and we have to work out the other tests together. That's clear. See the difference?

    4. Don't complain that the IEEE press release got their numbers wrong. Their numbers were right for the statement that they were making.

    5. Back to 3a, if it makes you feel any better, you're right in that I'm in a small minority here. That doesn't mean that I don't think I'm right.

  • On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release

    test ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2010 @ 07:37pm

    Re: Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

    I don't know what you mean when you say that business method patents are unconstitutional.

    What bothers me is that I don't get why software patents are special. It seems to me that either all patents are bad or no patents are bad. I don't think it's defensible to claim that every other kind of patent except software/business methods is fine.

  • On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release

    test ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2010 @ 07:30pm

    Re: Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Stevens doesn't effectively rebut this argument at all. In a nutshell, I think it's fair to say his claim is that s. 273 is merely a defense to infringement, and it was enacted to protect all of the innocent prior users that had been operating under the presumption that business methods weren't patentable.

    If that's truly the case, and s. 273 wasn't meant to tacitly recognize the patentability of business methods, and Congress really doesn't want business methods to be patentable, then why didn't they just amend s. 101 to say that business methods aren't patentable? It's been 12 years now. They clearly know how to define business method patents -- they can just crib the language from s. 273.

    Answer -- they don't think business method patents are unpatentable. And Stevens was wrong.

Next >>