The Internet of Things -- Devices Talking to One Another -- is coming of age in 2013 according to Clive Thompson at Wired Opinion in No Longer Vaporware: The Internet of Things Is Finally Talking.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Mobile Phone Smartphone Industry Dominated by Monopolists
Work for a living?
No. "OWN the value chain."
We heard that a news reporter looking for a story allegedly once asked the late millionaire playboy, talented photographer and visionary art collector Gunter Sachs, who inherited a family automobile-based fortune and married movie star Brigitte Bardot, what he was "working on" at that moment.
Sachs allegedly replied in serious humor that he was "working" on nothing, because, as he had said, " you can't earn anything "working" ". And that is undoubtedly true, because we know a lot of working people who in fact earn very little, while those who earn the most do so by "not working", at least, not in the normal meaning of the term.
A modern version of Sachs might for example "do patents".
As they say at Matt Asay at The Register,
Apple and Samsung mobile monsters: 'We only eat RAW CASH'.
Also take a look at Asay's earlier writing:
Apple's patent insanity infects Silicon Valley: Patent trolls go nuclear
No. "OWN the value chain."
We heard that a news reporter looking for a story allegedly once asked the late millionaire playboy, talented photographer and visionary art collector Gunter Sachs, who inherited a family automobile-based fortune and married movie star Brigitte Bardot, what he was "working on" at that moment.
Sachs allegedly replied in serious humor that he was "working" on nothing, because, as he had said, " you can't earn anything "working" ". And that is undoubtedly true, because we know a lot of working people who in fact earn very little, while those who earn the most do so by "not working", at least, not in the normal meaning of the term.
A modern version of Sachs might for example "do patents".
As they say at Matt Asay at The Register,
Apple and Samsung mobile monsters: 'We only eat RAW CASH'.
Also take a look at Asay's earlier writing:
Apple's patent insanity infects Silicon Valley: Patent trolls go nuclear
Facebook Subsidiary Instagram in Gigantic Attempted (?) IP Rights Grab of User Photos: Users Flocking to Instagram Alternatives
Facebook's Instagram in its new terms of service is apparently continuing a tradition, emphasized e.g. at the Apple firm, which is to rip off gullible consumers as much as possible. Jenna Wortham has the story at the New York Times in Facebook Responds to Anger Over Proposed Instagram Change.
The fact is that Instagram changed its terms of service effective January 16, 2013, so that arguably -- based on those terms -- user photos could be used by the company free of charge for advertising purposes. Savvy users have of course raised a firestorm of protest and many are shifting to alternative services.
The result of these protests and massive user concern is that the legalese in the terms of service is allegedly to be changed so that user photos can not used by Instagram for free in their advertising, which appears to this commentator to be clearly illegal anyway, even if the terms of service would provide for it.
Such broad, blanket appropriations of rights are sham contracts imposed upon users unilaterally for one party's benefit and should not be enforceable.
One way to tell companies that this kind of theft of intellectual property will not be tolerated is to move to alternative services.
See for example Craig Kanalley at the Huffington Post in
Instagram Alternatives: 11 Photo-Sharing Apps To Consider In Light Of New Terms Of Service.
This entire debacle should alert all Internet users to the reality that commercial enterprises are out there to make money for themselves -- at USER cost. People who use the Internet should stop bowing to all the ridiculous garble and hype thrown at them by the hawkers and should become better informed about what is actually going on in the real world.
The people who run these companies are not -- as often touted by the sometimes clueless mainstream press -- heroes or even "geniuses". They are common merchants viz. traders hawking their wares for personal and company profit. Consumers should view those people accordingly. Caveat emptor.
The fact is that Instagram changed its terms of service effective January 16, 2013, so that arguably -- based on those terms -- user photos could be used by the company free of charge for advertising purposes. Savvy users have of course raised a firestorm of protest and many are shifting to alternative services.
The result of these protests and massive user concern is that the legalese in the terms of service is allegedly to be changed so that user photos can not used by Instagram for free in their advertising, which appears to this commentator to be clearly illegal anyway, even if the terms of service would provide for it.
Such broad, blanket appropriations of rights are sham contracts imposed upon users unilaterally for one party's benefit and should not be enforceable.
One way to tell companies that this kind of theft of intellectual property will not be tolerated is to move to alternative services.
See for example Craig Kanalley at the Huffington Post in
Instagram Alternatives: 11 Photo-Sharing Apps To Consider In Light Of New Terms Of Service.
This entire debacle should alert all Internet users to the reality that commercial enterprises are out there to make money for themselves -- at USER cost. People who use the Internet should stop bowing to all the ridiculous garble and hype thrown at them by the hawkers and should become better informed about what is actually going on in the real world.
The people who run these companies are not -- as often touted by the sometimes clueless mainstream press -- heroes or even "geniuses". They are common merchants viz. traders hawking their wares for personal and company profit. Consumers should view those people accordingly. Caveat emptor.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Trademarks by State Predict Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections : An Amazing Result
The Presidential Election Map for 2012 is virtually identical to the 2008 Presidential Election Map and both show the same veritably near correlation to trademarks by State.
Here is the 2012 Presidential Election Map at The Economisit -- go there for more information and data:
Here is our posting from 2008 at Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy and How Trademarks Predict Voting in Presidential Elections : The Amazing Result
__________
The U.S. Department of Commerce
has just issued
its report on
"Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy".
Everyone will be commenting on that report but we found a unique Presidential-election-related characteristic in one of the maps in that report, Map 2: Trademark-Intensive Industries' Share of Covered Employment by State, 2010:
Now compare that map to the division of the United States into red and blue States in the Presidential Election 2008 (map via NPR.org):
Now that is a pretty good match.
So what do trademark-intensive industries share in common with voting behavior in Presidential elections?
The answer is pretty clear is it not?
Here is the 2012 Presidential Election Map at The Economisit -- go there for more information and data:
Here is our posting from 2008 at Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy and How Trademarks Predict Voting in Presidential Elections : The Amazing Result
__________
The U.S. Department of Commerce
has just issued
its report on
"Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy".
Everyone will be commenting on that report but we found a unique Presidential-election-related characteristic in one of the maps in that report, Map 2: Trademark-Intensive Industries' Share of Covered Employment by State, 2010:
Now compare that map to the division of the United States into red and blue States in the Presidential Election 2008 (map via NPR.org):
Now that is a pretty good match.
So what do trademark-intensive industries share in common with voting behavior in Presidential elections?
The answer is pretty clear is it not?
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Has Apple Invented ANYTHING of Note is a Legitimate Question while Apple Samsung Patent Wars Continue in Koh Court:
Paul Elias has the story at Boston Globe's Boston.com in Judge aims to resolve Apple-Samsung legal dispute. Does Koh have a clue? We doubt it.
Tech-savvy people like LawPundit are very unhappy with the Apple firm's claims that Apple allegedly invented things that actually OTHER people invented, so make sure you see THIS YouTube video -- ESSENTIAL! The video is not from us.
VIDEO:
Has Apple Really Ever Invented Anything?
YouTube video by razetheworld
See also:
Apple haven't invented anything
Jean-Louis Gassée at the Guardian
What did Apple invent? Nothing.
PandaWhale.com
What Did Apple Really Invent? (9 pics) by Xaniel at Izismile.com
We were at Stanford Law School in Silicon Valley before the seven-headed hydra Apple company saw the light of day and we saw then the digital era in its evolutionary beginnings before many of the primary inventions and discoveries that led to the modern era of PCs, tablets, pads and smartphones were stolen and wrongfully "patented" as proprietary inventions by a host of companies trying to monopolize obvious modern technological progress and development for their selfish, greedy private benefit.
This nonsense will end only when the courts start to come down hard on a patent law system gone wildly astray.
Crossposted from LawPundit.
Tech-savvy people like LawPundit are very unhappy with the Apple firm's claims that Apple allegedly invented things that actually OTHER people invented, so make sure you see THIS YouTube video -- ESSENTIAL! The video is not from us.
VIDEO:
Has Apple Really Ever Invented Anything?
YouTube video by razetheworld
See also:
Apple haven't invented anything
Jean-Louis Gassée at the Guardian
What did Apple invent? Nothing.
PandaWhale.com
What Did Apple Really Invent? (9 pics) by Xaniel at Izismile.com
We were at Stanford Law School in Silicon Valley before the seven-headed hydra Apple company saw the light of day and we saw then the digital era in its evolutionary beginnings before many of the primary inventions and discoveries that led to the modern era of PCs, tablets, pads and smartphones were stolen and wrongfully "patented" as proprietary inventions by a host of companies trying to monopolize obvious modern technological progress and development for their selfish, greedy private benefit.
This nonsense will end only when the courts start to come down hard on a patent law system gone wildly astray.
Crossposted from LawPundit.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
U.S. Supreme Court to Rule Whether Human Genes are Patentable Under the American Constitution
"Are human genes patentable?"
How can the answer be anything but NO?
As posted by Dennis Crouch of Patently-O, Supreme Court has Granted Cert in the Myriad Case, Question: Are Human Genes Patentable.
Timothy B. Lee also has the story at Ars Technica in Supreme Court to rule on patentability of human genes.
We posted previously at LawPundit about this sordid legal farce of greedy companies trying to cash in commercially by claiming "patent" ownership of your genes and mine, as if the two halves of a cleaved orange would be an "invention"':
- The Unteachables on the Federal Circuit: If Citizens Are Obligated to Obey Laws They Do Not Agree With, Are Lower Courts Also Not Obligated to Follow the Precedents of the United States Supreme Court Even if The Judges Disagree?
- Myriad Human Gene Patent Case Vacated and Remanded by U.S. Supreme Court in Light of Prometheus
The Almighty, whoever that might be or have been, in whatever shape or form, according to whatever religion you preach or not, "invented" the genes, whether via evolution, or creation, or intelligent design, whatever you believe,
it makes no difference,
but the inventor was NOT some human in a laboratory.
We hope the Supremes get that and make it clear to the recalcitrant judges on the Federal Circuit who think everything is a human invention worthy of monopolistic ownership for the profit of the few.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
