Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > TV-advert enforcer patented

Reply
Thread Tools

TV-advert enforcer patented

 
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:55:03 +1200, Brendan wrote:

>> Give me goods at a reasonable price and I will be happy.

>
> We all would.
>
> Patents remove the need to be reasonable about price - why should they ?
> They have a monopoly. Think Telecom, Microsoft...


I think that you should add the words " ... as they presently exist ..."
between your first two words, because I think that a means to enable the
recovery of the costs of genuine research (not product development &
marketing) should be enabled. Otherwise, why should a business want to
throw money at a research project when it would have no way of recovering
that investment?

I think that patents should be limited to the degree that the company
actually invested money into it's discovery.

If a company threw literally 500 million dollars into researching a cure
for cancer, and actually found an effective cure, then that company should
be able to recover that investment. But a patent, IMHO, shouldn't provide
any protection once the research investment is recovered. I think that
this should be based on the recovery of the investment, rather than a
specified period of time - and I think that the company should have to
prove the amount of money genuinely put into researching the newly
discovered invention or discovery, and should likewise have to provide
proof of revenue based on that invention or discovery in order to be able
to justify an annual continuation of the patent protection. I don't think
patents should be granted for the sake of providing a protection of vague
trivialities.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Allistar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
Brendan wrote:

> On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:47:52 +1200, Allistar wrote:
>
>>> I don't think ANYTHING should be patentable.
>>>
>>> It is simply a tool used to close out competition nowadays, whatever
>>> it's origins were.

>>
>> I do think there is some place for patents, just not on abstractions like
>> ideas.
>>
>> Patents a good at protecting the small inventors, but get abused by big
>> corporations. I think the terms on patents should be minimal, like a
>> couple of years max.

>
> Well, if they cannot be banned entirely a short period of a couple of
> years would be good too.
>
> Just look at the likes of Microsoft, Rambus, Intel for examples of
> corporations using patents to kill competition.
>
> Highly speculative and overly wide in scope patents are granted by stupid
> or over worked patent offices and enforced by a hill-billie bullying
> government (e.g. the USA).


Agreed. I despise the way the US government (or at least individuals in it)
are partially funded by big corporates through what they call "lobbying". I
call is bribery, nothing less, and it's a pretty transparent form of
corruption.

Allistar.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Allistar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
Brendan wrote:

> On Mon, 08 May 2006 10:29:46 +1200, Allistar wrote:
>
>>>> Because the money comes from the tax payer, paid out by the government.
>>>> Don't you think the government has some say in what they money they
>>>> hand out is spent on?
>>>
>>> No.

>>
>> We disagree then. I think it's fiscally responsible for the government to
>> know and control where its (i.e. the taxpayers) money is spent on.

>
> That's not what you want though. You want them to control what people eat,
> drink, where they live, what entertainment they are allowed and when they
> see the doctor, what car they own, and how they cook their meals.


You're completely misunderstanding me if that's what you think.

I want more freedom for people, not less. That's what my political
philosophy is based on. People can live as they like, but if they receive
money someone else has earned as distributed through the government via
taxes, they have additional responsibilities: spend the money on what it is
intended for: i.e. survival and try and get gainful employment. (This only
applies to the unemployment benefit).

> It's beyond simple responsibility and WAAAY into fascist totalitarianism.


Not at all, it about freedom to use your property and keep as much of your
property as you can.

>>> I could make the same assertion about you, if I was your employer. But
>>> that would be ridiculous - but tell me HOW it differs conceptually from
>>> what YOU assert ?

>>
>> Beneficiaries are not employees of the government. They are being paid
>> money that, at the end of the day, comes from tax payers.

>
> Beneficiaries are taxpayers.


So they give back some of what they are given. They are not "producing" the
tax they are paying, they are merely keeping less of what they have been
given. Saying they are "taxpayers" and equating them to those that actually
do produce is farcical.

> Employee's or not is irrelevant. I am talking about simply dignities you
> would deny them based on entirely arbitrary value judgements.


It's not arbitrary, it's black and white.

>>> Just some arbitrary definitions that suit your prejudices I think, is
>>> all...

>>
>> I'm not looking to define anything, merely offering my opinion in this
>> discussion.

>
> Your opinion is destructive and based on ignorance.


I disagree.

>>> Yes, I know you have. But you immediately proceed to argue as if 'highe
>>> employment' is currently the case. There is a distinct LACK of
>>> disclaimers, Note:, etc in your argument.

>>
>> "High employment" does not mean "full employment". I throw in the term
>> "high employment" to distinguish from a situation of very low employment,
>> as has been seen in past depressions.

>
> Which sidesteps my point.
>
> 'High employment environment' is not currently the case. But you aregue as
> if it were.


Again, I disagree. There are more available jobs out there than people to
fill them, that's why certain industries are crying for more immigrants to
be brought in. If that's not "high employment" then I don't know what is.

>>> There are no luxuries while on the unemployment benefit.

>>
>> Are you suggesting that there is not one single person on the
>> unemployment benefit who owns a TV or smokes cigarettes?

>
> They are not luxuries.


Nonsense. Are you suggesting that a TV and cigarettes are essential for
survival? How absurd.

>>>>> In your ideology, the only reason they are allowed full right is to
>>>>> have there 'own' money - money not given to them by the tax payer.
>>>>
>>>> If they earn the money themselves then they can do with it as they
>>>> please.
>>>
>>> Why ?

>>
>> Because it's their property.

>
> And why does that grant them the right to do with it as they please ? And
> why is it 'their property' just because they had a job instead of a
> benefit ?


Because they earned it through their own actions. People should, as much as
possible, be able to decide the fate of themselves and their property as
long as they don't impinge on the rights of others.

> I'm serious. I am asking you to justify some of your basic assumptions. It
> may be instructive.


I consider it axiomatic that a individual should have control over the
fruits of their labour as much as possible.

>>>> If it's a handout in the form of the unemployment benefit then there
>>>> are additional responsibilities.
>>>
>>> Why ?

>>
>> Because it is given through a welfare system, paid by average Joe
>> taxpayer. It is paid for a reason, and the money should be used for that
>> reason.

>
> The taxpayer does not want extra restrictions on what is done with their
> money by beneficiaries.


Some don't. Some do.

> This has been proven in election after election.
>
> YOUR opinion is the odd one out.


Maybe, but that won't stop me discussing it in an open forum like this.

> Just incase you missed that...
>
> There has been NO demand for a draconian system like you propose - except
> from a tiny minority of extremists - who, by definition, are out of step
> with the society they live in even more than benefiaries themselves.


I don't consider a small government, low taxation, liberal system to be
"draconian". Quite the opposite.

>>>> People should be able to, as much as possible, keep the fruits of their
>>>> labour.
>>>
>>> Why ?

>>
>> ?? You even have to ask that question? It's about property rights. We
>> don't quite live in a communist country yet.

>
> Yes, I do ask the question.
>
> Questioning basic assumptions is not popular in these news groups, but I
> do not give a damn. I want to see if you can justify your belief system
> without resort to a circular argument. I do not believe you can.


People should be responsible regarding looking after themselves and their
families. People have a right to use the fruits of their labour as much as
possible. Why? Because that's the fair an honest way. People should not be
punished for secceeding or rewarding for failing.

> Which brings your whole argument into doubt.
>
> Communism has nothing to do with it, but I did wonder when you would bring
> that into it.


Because that's the slippery slope an extreme socialist government slides
down. Taking from people by force and then distributing it how they see
fit.

> This country has more to fear from Right wing 'liberal'
> (oxymoron if ever there was) ideology than ever it did from 'communists'.
> Right ideology has already damaged the fabric of this country far more
> than ever socialism did.


I don't disagree with you. The major "right wing" party in NZ are still
socialists.

>>> I'm serious. I want you to explain why it is necessary for these things
>>> to be as you say they are.

>>
>> It is not necessary, but it is highly desirable (in my opinion). It's
>> about fairness and equity.

>
> No it's not. It's about supporting a faith-based political ideology at all
> costs. It's about rationalising it all away so you can sleep at night.


Nope. I'm suggesting systems to improve equity and fairness. To have a freer
more just society.

>>> WHY should they be allowed to 'keep the fruits of their labour'? WHY
>>> should there be 'additional responsibilities' ?
>>>
>>> I want to know what science there is behind your assumptions.

>>
>> Science? This is only opinion, one that a lot of people share. Who said
>> anything about science?

>
> Science is the measure we must use before we make changes to a society
> that affects peoples lives on such a fundamental level.
>
> Opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one, and they are usually full
> of ****.
>
> So: it's back to science. What science is your opinion based upon ?
>
> None I bet.
>
> Unlike mine.
>
> A lot of people ? Sure. But A hell of a lot MORE want something like we
> have now.
>
> How do I know that ? The ACT party hovers around 2% at best. That's how.


I wouldn't consider the number of people voting for ACT a true reflection of
those that want a more liberal society.

But I agree with your point - it seems the majority is happy with socialism.
And that's fine. It won't stop me from having an opinion and it doesn't at
all invalidate that opinion.

>>>>> What if I was to tell you there ARE free lunches, and always have been
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Free for whom?
>>>
>>> Everyone. Everything.

>>
>> What "free lunches" are you referring to?

>
> Well, the first one would have to be the Universe itself. Apparently the
> product of a vacuum fluctuation, it is very much something from nothing.
>
> Then we have zero point energy - that energy which exists in the quantum
> vacuum, calculated to be essentially infinite. All we need to do is figure
> a way to extract it - Black holes do. The Casimir effect is an example of
> it.
>
> Brownian motion might also qualify.
>
> Thermal radiation - even at absolute zero, atoms still move due to quantum
> effects. They do not such energy from the environment - it's already at
> zero. So where does it come from ?
>
> The Sun. Sure, in it's own time scale it is running down but in our time
> scale it is essentially unlimited. We do not PAY it for life of this
> planet - it is not effected by our use of it either. Life on this planet
> is the result of this 'free lunch'.
>
> Gravity.
>
> There are a lot of properties of the universe that are not 'used up' by
> our use of them. They are essentially free lunches.
>
> The 'no free lunch' argument is essentially a convoluted form of
> Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is irrelevant when an external source of
> energy is available - like the quantum vacuum.


Absurdly irrelevant. We are talking about political systems and the effect
they have on society. Not physics and cosmology.

> If nature can do it, so can we. But only if you have the imagination to
> reach for it.
>
> Economics is not science for this very reason. It is an artificial set of
> axioms based around the concept of scarcity. It is essentially a sub set
> of Game Theory and has little to do with the real universe.
>
> Your money is valuable because the rules for this game say it is. But the
> game will end one day, and a new game will begin. And that day is not far
> away - nanotechnology will utterly destroy the basis for economics as we
> know it.
>
> How will you justify your ideology, your faith, when we can copy
> everything you now have for the cost of the raw matter and a bit of energy
> ?


My political opinion is not "faith". And is not concrete. It changes and
will continue to change - which is the only honest way IMO.

> It's an interesting question - how will society cope with a change that
> has not been seen since the invention of argiculture ?


As it always has. One day at a time.

>>>>In an environment of high
>>>> employment I see no reason why an unemployed yet abled person should be
>>>> provided "better than subsistence" on the backs of workers.
>>>
>>> Then you do not understand economics as well as you think you do.

>>
>> What has economics got to do with those on the unemployment benefit
>> spending tax-payer money on luxuries? Enlighten me.

>
> Employment is a market like any other.
>
> Too many workers results in lower wages which results in a poorer standard
> of living and an unskilled workforce. E.g. a 3rd world economy.
>
> Too few workers results is less productivity and unskilled workers.
> Commerce cannot expand and the economy shrinks relative to other nations.
>
> So we have a deliberate policy of moderate unemployment. It's like
> increasing interest rates to control inflation. Commerce does not stagnate
> because there is always new employee's, society does not devolve because
> the majority are in work.


Understood.

> Full employment is possible - but not by your Draconian and myopic ideas
> I'm afraid Allister. But it's undesirable. Last time we had anything close
> to it, Union's calcified the country. And when we had too much
> unemployment, commerce held us all to ransom - especially the employed. A
> largish pool of unemployed keeps things balanced, with neither side able
> to take control.


I understand that some unemployment is necessary. I'd rather the number of
unemployed be on the lower side than the higher, not only for the good of
those that would be otherwise jobless, but because the drain on our tax
system would be less.

The harder it is to full positions the more people will get paid. It's a
competitive environment after all. This may stagnate growth in some areas
but will fuel it in others as people will have more money to spend (which
will, inevitably be inflationary).

>>>> Why should a person be starving when society provided them the
>>>> essentials for survival (one of which is food)??
>>>
>>> Who said they did ? They currently do not. Right here in New Zealand.

>>
>> You brought up the idea of a "starving, destitute" person. I commented
>> that under a welfare system there shouldn't be any.

>
> And yet there is.
>
> They can't afford luxuries like a microwave or a TV.


And why should they be able to? How is someone without a microwave or a TV
"starving and destitute"?

> Why you want to invent a whole underclass of 'untouchables' (as in India)
> is entirely beyond me - but an interesting study of social psychology
> never the less.


I don't. I want a safety net that doesn't let people fall through the cracks
as in India, and incentives for success.

> I enjoy debating this with you Allister, and I do not mean to be harsh.
> But opinions are based upon assumptions that are not in evidence.


And my opinions are always changing - as opinions do. I used to consider
myself a "leftie", but now I'm only "left" with regards to social policy,
and definitely not fiscal policy.

Allistar.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:02:07 +1200, Allistar wrote:

>> That's not what you want though. You want them to control what people eat,
>> drink, where they live, what entertainment they are allowed and when they
>> see the doctor, what car they own, and how they cook their meals.

>
> You're completely misunderstanding me if that's what you think.
>
> I want more freedom for people, not less.


How, therefore, can it be that you think giving vouchers that force a
person to purchase their food - and only certain items at that - at a
particular supermarket is "more freedom"?


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:02:07 +1200, Allistar wrote:

>> It's beyond simple responsibility and WAAAY into fascist totalitarianism.

>
> Not at all, it about freedom to use your property and keep as much of your
> property as you can.


That's what other people call extreme selfishness and self-centeredness.

It's all about me, my, and mine in that philosophy.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:02:07 +1200, Allistar wrote:

>> 'High employment environment' is not currently the case. But you aregue as
>> if it were.

>
> Again, I disagree. There are more available jobs out there than people to
> fill them, that's why certain industries are crying for more immigrants to
> be brought in.


Translated into standard English:

There are jobs out there, but the wages are so pathetic, or the contract
terms so miserable that no sane person is prepared to work for such a
bastard employer, and those employers are thus wanting to import 3rd world
people who are used to working for next to nothing, and the Employment
Court is agreeing with the employees against those bastard employers.

Meanwhile we have more NZers unemployed than there are jobs for them to
fill. This is why there are so many thousands of people registered as
unemployed.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jasen Betts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
On 2006-05-13, Waylon Kenning <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> T'was the Sat, 13 May 2006 19:50:25 +1200 when I remembered "~misfit~"
><(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like this:
>
>>> That's still pretty expensive for the distance. Say I lived in
>>> Hillcrest and studied at Wintec. That's $14 a week. I'd pay about $4
>>> on my scooter, so a saving of $10 a week or $520 a year. Which is
>>> about the price of a second hand scooter anyways

>>
>>You factor in rego and upkeep?

>
> Not at all, rego's about $80 a year, oil's negligible.
>
> I wonder about the idea of a diesel powered scooter, well, more
> biofueled powered. I presume there are practicalities against it
> though.


A diesel motor would be bloody hard to kick start, especially a 250CC single.
a 50 could work, maybe.

alcohol in a conventional engine might work better.

> I did see in the paper that a flight school had purchased the first
> diesel powered planes here in New Zealand? That coupled with the New
> Zealand first of making biofuel from sewage around Nelson must be a
> sign of things looking up in the area of energy in New Zealand.


they've been running trucks off gas from the christchurch sewage plant for
more than 15 years, and using it for electricity generation for longer,
the technology is not greatly different to that used for CNG.

Are they making liquid fuel in Nelson?

Bye.
Jasen
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ray Kunze, the Malibu Enforcer John H Digital Photography 0 01-08-2006 10:57 PM
Bugger! Wish I'd patented the idea... Enkidu NZ Computing 1 07-15-2005 09:03 AM
What is the "patented burp"? Nibbler Digital Photography 7 02-21-2004 05:20 PM
Netflix Business Model Patented. Scot Gardner DVD Video 2 09-22-2003 12:24 PM
WTD SCREENSHOT of Clint Eastwood's "THE ENFORCER" Paul DVD Video 3 09-08-2003 12:46 AM



Advertisments