I really like that idea, I am sure I am missing some important part that makes it not so easy to do. When you file a patent for invention like (dishwasher) you have to supply all the design drawings for the project. I do not see why they could not do that with software patents.
Notice that the drawings for that showshoe binding patent are not "design drawings" for a snowshoe binding. (Those drawings are lacking a lot of dimensions that one would need for such a product.)
You have to provide information that tells someone skilled in the art how to do what you claimed. That's it.
FWIW, "What you claimed" is rarely a complete product. Instead, it's an aspect that can be used in multiple products. (While I don't know where else one might use that snowboard binding mechanism, I'm sure that someone else does.)
The points he made about how to improve the patent system are really good ones. I have always though a short lifespan on patents would be better for inovation.
I think patents are good for certain things but over all it slows inovation. I think we could be another 25 years farther down the road with technology if there where not so many bad patents out there.
The problem with merely shortening the lifespan of patents is hinted at by the logic in the argument for doing it. When we grant a monopoly to a party in return for a patent, what we are in essence saying is "If you hadn't filed here then we would not know of this invention until later."
This argument made sense when the system was first conceived because the norm for that time was to keep inventions as family secrets and innovators themselves were rare. But these days the norm is for some openness and there are so many innovators that there can be very little margin between first to invent and second to invent. Software patents in particular are problematic because it is far more open by its very nature -- the existence of a solution highlights the search space. The problem with merely shortening patents in this light is that it just adjusts the cost/benefit calculation on the basis of this being a sudden jump when this development is the result of a trend that has no signs of stopping.
Fortunately, the revision seems straightforward: revamp patents to make the calculation explicit. By the time software patents are completely useless, they will have a 0 year life (and be dead). Meanwhile if other fields end up as amendable to optimization as software is, we can gracefully scale down the patents there without having the same conversation all over again.
How do you make yourself more desirable if you have been out of work?
I am not homeless but not able to land work and have been working in a different industry for 5 years but want to get back in to what I went to school for which is Computer Engineering.
To make yourself more desirable to employers, I'd have personal projects that demonstrate your abilities.
I'm a freelance writer slash "creative". I've been that way for over five years. I also have creative projects and those have been generating revenue and opportunities for me.
It's not easy. I was homeless for several weeks about a year ago. Couldn't cover the rent. But I've done factory work for many years and I'd choose this any day.
It's going to be hard, but open source is really your best friend here.
Personally I'd suggest finding a new project that's up and running with a very committed founder, and put a lot of effort into contributions.
If you pick something like openphoto, you'll be able to make a difference, make a good track record of work done by yourself, and if openphoto takes off, then you'd be in the perfect position to get hired to work on it.
If open source is too much work, you can also publish in trade journals. For example I published an article on JSR-170 for IBM DeveloperWorks in 2006 when I was unemployed. It took about a weekend to write, and IBM paid me $600 for the piece (and boy was I desperate for the money). I had companies asking me for interviews within days due solely to that article. The oddest thing is that I continue to get interview requests from that piece (and a few from PHP Architect), even though it was written in 2006.
By the way, the reference to "SoloFX Enterprises" is fake. As I said, I was unemployed at the time, so I just made something up. You'll find several other articles from me right around the same time period.
Edited - My comment earlier was worded poorly and did not come across as I was hoping.
The price fixing talk did not start with Amazon. It started because when Apple joined the market the publishers where not going to give them the same deal that Amazon had forced on them. So I think Apple wanting to get a piece of the market worked with the publishers and they all set the same pricing. Now it happened so quickly that people think they fixed the price which I agree they did. Instead of each one working with apple to come up with there own pricing.
This whole price fixing thing came about when Amazon had 95% of the market share and was able to dictate the prices, since they where the only ones selling e-books in large amounts. Now that apple is in the market along with other people Amazon share is at about 55% so they have lost that ability to control the market.
I do think Apple and the book companies came together to set a hire price and force Amazon to follow suit or risk not having all the books that Apple would have.
I do not understand why the books have to cost that much. I agree with NathanKP in that they are just files and the cost to the publisher is almost nothing at all. I know they are wanting to make a profit but I think when you charge more then a paper book something is wrong.
Go all e-books with a lot less paper books and call yourself the greenest in the business. I find that a lot of companies are scared of change and I am not sure why. I see change as a great thing that can propel the world in to new and better technology.
It seems counter intuitive, but I think it has to do with the opening up of the ebook market. Several years ago, Amazon offered the only decent ereader in town--the Kindle. Thus, given the limited market, they could dictate price and keep the market price low because there wasn't much demand.
Fast forward several years and each of the major bookstore chains offered their own ebook reader (Nook, Kobo) and tablets started offering ebook experiences--either through Amazon/Barnes and Noble/Kobo apps or the tablet creator's own ebook reader (iBooks). The market explodes in terms of the number of devices people now read on, and publishers start treating ebooks as an accepted way of offering content--with that comes the high costs in terms of marketing, promotion, post-production costs (do they do anything special for ebooks), that kind of thing.
I'm dubious about this analysis. You seem to be saying that prices were low when Amazon had a monopoly and prices have risen as competition entered the market. That's counterintuitive so perhaps I've missed something.
I think it's the same idea as what happened with the online music market. Initially, it was a niche market that reached a turning point when Napster hit the scene and started offering music online for free. At that point, publishers started taking action and we saw the rise of digital music stores and the complete marginalization/destruction of the previous market with low prices/easy access.
In other words, Amazon had a niche market that few people competed in. Hence, price ended up being artificially low (same as the online music market in the 90s). Once people realized they could turn it into another distribution channel, competitors exploded and the price of the good adjusted to a more normalized market value.
In economics, a monopoly can go one of two ways. It can either push prices to an extreme high in order to maximize profit, or it can push prices to a low in order to lock competitors out of the market and incentive the purchase of other goods (Kindles in Amazon's case). Once the monopoly broke, the price of the good normalized--which for us means it increased.
I am saying the prices where lower then they are now. When Amazon had a almost all the market share they were able to bully the publishers to the pricing they wanted. When Apple entered the market publishers stood strong and got together and got Apple to the prices on there ebook store.
Amazon then was forced to raise there prices if they wanted to get the same books that Apple got. So yes as the market has grown and there are more choices the prices have gone up. The publishing industry conspired with each other to get hire prices.
But by all accounts that spat was not about what Amazon was paying the publishers. It was about what price Amazon were allowed to sell those books at to their customers. Those are fundamentally different issues.
The patent law should change to, if the company goes under or after so many years the patent is no longer valid. Once the patent is no longer valid it can not be re patented ever again. This way companies can't keep using there old patents to hold inovation hostage.
I think Zediva had a great idea and found a loop hole in the law. I find it strange there is different rule for streaming and for DVD rentals in the movie industry. Why can't it be all the same? Sooner or later no one is going to rent DVD anyways everything will be online.
If this takes off the whole graphics industry is going to get so much better. I am talking from movies to games to everything else you can think of. I mean think if FIFA started to use this in there games, you could make it so you see a shoe lace move or individual hair strains moving.
I hope they get this out to market sooner rather then later.
Even if polygons weren't the limiting factor on the shoe laces or hair, the cost of computing the physics will limit how detailed things get. Need more cores...
Of course. My point is that polygons aren't the limiting factor today, so having unlimited polygons wouldn't "fix" that. The GPU typically determines polygon budget, with the CPU determining physics and AI.
Of course, you can dump physics onto the GPU, but that will cost you polygons. I guess that could, in theory (if you really had unlimited atoms), give you more cycles for physics.
These days the media pushes sports and actors more and more. They show being a TV or Movie star you can make a lot of money. What they do not show is that there are 1,000's and 1,000's of people trying to do that same thing that never make it anywhere.
This is the same thing for sports and even less make it to the big leagues and make the money that you see the stars make these days.
I have to agree that there needs to be a push to make computers and science more appealing to the younger generation. The more we can show that engineers and scientist are not labeled geeks the more we will get the younger generation test out the different fields.
I think this is Apple way of controlling everything you do more and more with there devices, this is also true with Google and there Chrome OS. They want you to be become dependent on them and only them for all your needs.
There is a lot of people out there that don't want to think when it comes to software or hardware. They want something that works and is easy to use. With the size of both these company's I could easily see each taking about 40% of the market and leaving everyone else fighting for 10%.
