Searching \ for '[OT]: Domain names for evil patents' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=domain+names+evil
Search entire site for: 'Domain names for evil patents'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Domain names for evil patents'
2006\02\12@121913 by Gus Salavatore Calabrese

face picon face
I want a woman/man on the street opinion of the following domain names
Please tell me which one is your favorite and which one is lousy.

These names are for a website where I say negative things about
patents and copyrights ........
I talk about how patents/copyright stifles innovation and creative  
thinking
How they create an unfair playing field  BIG COMPANIES versus garage  
inventors
How patents/copyright penalize the entire human race to allow  
ownership of a process result
        that each of us has thousands of times per day.

Cheerio
AGSC



NAMES ........

patentlystoopid.com
patently-stupid.com
patently-ridiculous.com
patentlyinsane.com
patentlyevil.com

got a better idea ?  Tell me what it is .....




2006\02\12@134119 by Robertino Benis

picon face
I wouldn't put copyrights and patents in the same basket!

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:19:09 -0800, Gus Salavatore Calabrese  
<spam_OUTgscTakeThisOuTspamomegadogs.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Robertino Benis
Airyz Limited

2006\02\12@140736 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
What about a name that says what you are for, instead of what you are against?

Like:  peoplespatents.com patents4people.com garageinventors.com



{Original Message removed}

2006\02\12@141042 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I talk about how patents/copyright stifles innovation and creative
thinking

Realy? The GPL depends on copyright law....

I don't think the notion of patents is evil (I don't think a capitalist
economy can develop without patents, who would pay for the development
of the next generation of medicines?), but the current implementation is
certainly flawed (to put it mildly).

Ask artists, authors, etc what they think about a world without
copyright... Ask the rest of the world what they think of a world
without artists, authors, etc.

> patentlystoopid.com
> patently-stupid.com
> patently-ridiculous.com
> patentlyinsane.com
> patentlyevil.com

Something that expresses that the idea of patents is good but the
current practice is bad:

patentflaws, patentbugs, buggypatents, sillypatents, stupidpatentsystem,
etc

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\02\12@152806 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> who would pay for the development of the next generation of medicines?

That's one of the problems... the only "medicines" that get promoted
large-scale (and of which the average doctor knows) are the ones that make
money, which are not necessarily the ones that make or keep people healthy.


> Ask artists, authors, etc what they think about a world without
> copyright... Ask the rest of the world what they think of a world
> without artists, authors, etc.

Let's see... music for example. Most of what many lovers of music would
describe as the "high art of music" (classical music) was written in a
world without even the notion of a formal copyright. I know that the world
is different now, and even then there were the odd struggles about who
wrote what first. But still... there's a clear relationship between the
market force and copyright, but not an as clear one between the quality and
copyright.

Performing artists can live very well without copyright; they have their
own form of copyright built-in, so to speak.

This is also a question about professional art, which is as controversial
as professional religion... If you think that art is something that's in
everybody and a need of expression of everybody, and that fostering this is
more important than whether or not a few are making money by the bucket
loads with their art, then copyright becomes much less important, or even
counterproductive.

Art in this sense of personal expression is possibly less common today than
200 years ago, with all the copyright protection that we are having. I'm
not sure whether it's relatively easier to become a full-time artist. (I
mean relative to the much higher economic efficiency today, and the
therefore much higher surplus to spend on not necessary things.)

> stupidpatentsystem

This one expresses it probably best, but isn't very catchy :)

Gerhard

2006\02\12@153122 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Gus,

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:19:09 -0700, Gus Salavatore
Calabrese wrote:

I like:

> patently-stupid.com

But:
patent-stupidity.com
works as well...

Cheers,




Howard Winter
The H²Org
http://www.ecomstation.co.uk

2006\02\12@161937 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>> who would pay for the development of the next generation of
>> medicines?
>
> That's one of the problems... the only "medicines" that get promoted
> large-scale (and of which the average doctor knows) are the
> ones that make
> money, which are not necessarily the ones that make or keep
> people healthy.

No-one says kapitalism is perfect, but just like democracy it is so far
the least worse system we have come up with.

>> stupidpatentsystem
> This one expresses it probably best, but isn't very catchy :)

I cast my vote with Lindy:

> What about a name that says what you are for, instead of what you are
against?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\02\13@052410 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>>> who would pay for the development of the next generation of medicines?
>>
>> That's one of the problems... the only "medicines" that get promoted
>> large-scale (and of which the average doctor knows) are the ones that
>> make money, which are not necessarily the ones that make or keep people
>> healthy.
>
> No-one says kapitalism is perfect, but just like democracy it is so far
> the least worse system we have come up with.

This wasn't a comment about whether or not capitalism or democracy, this
was one about patents in medicine. Which as little to do with either. Most
capitalist and democratic theories agree on that there needs to be /some/
public sphere. Now what exactly that is or should be is in constant
discussion and flux.

> I cast my vote with Lindy:
>
>> What about a name that says what you are for, instead of what you are
>> against?

Agreed.

Gerhard

2006\02\13@112457 by Sergey Dryga

face picon face
Gus Salavatore Calabrese <gsc <at> omegadogs.com> writes:

>
> I want a woman/man on the street opinion of the following domain names
> Please tell me which one is your favorite and which one is lousy.
>
> These names are for a website where I say negative things about
> patents and copyrights ........
> I talk about how patents/copyright stifles innovation and creative  
> thinking

Do not like the system? Beat it using it's own methods.  Patent, or publish,
all inventions you make.  Put patents in public domain, the publications will
become a public disclosure and, therefore, a 'prior art' which will prevent
others from patenting it.

> How they create an unfair playing field  BIG COMPANIES versus garage  
> inventors

There are numerous examples when "garage inventors" won agains the BIG GUYS.  
Some names: Hewlet-Packard, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Genentech, Celera
Genomics.  Not all of these started in a garage, but all were startups in a
field with large companies.  

IMHO, people often complain about patents/big companies/monopolies when they do
not have a really BIG idea, or do not have business accumen to make it happen.


Sergey Dryga


2006\02\13@120359 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Sergey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]:  Domain names for evil patents' on
Mon, Feb 13 at 10:29:
> There are numerous examples when "garage inventors" won agains the
> BIG GUYS.  Some names: Hewlet-Packard, Apple, Microsoft, Google,
> Genentech, Celera Genomics.  Not all of these started in a garage,
> but all were startups in a field with large companies.  

And obviously they could have never made it without patents?  Is that
because someone else could "do it better"?  What patents does Google
depend on for its business?  What about Microsoft?  I'm quite certain
that both depend on trademarks, but just what patent has led to Google
being the most popular search engine today?  Do they have a patent on
fast database lookups?  A patent on a clean user interface?  A patent
on their page ranking algorithm (the basics of which are discussed no
their "about" site and the details of which are a trade secret - not a
patent)?  A patent on selling ads whose content is related to the text
a user typed in (maybe, I'm not sure on that one)?

> IMHO, people often complain about patents/big companies/monopolies
> when they do not have a really BIG idea, or do not have business
> accumen to make it happen.

Some of us think that, since we live in a society that is supposedly
driven by market forces, perhaps every business should compete on
their merits or ability to compete in a free market.  Using patents to
block anyone else from making the same thing is both socially
backwards (these are my thoughts!  I won't share them with you unless
you pay me for them and promise not to repeat them!) and anti-market
forces.  If someone else can make the same product for less money, then
it seems that the inventor perhaps lacks the "business accumen" to
compete in a free market.  If cheaper really isn't better, then the
cheaper product will die out.  There's rarely any reason to stifle
competition through patent-encumbering much of anything - especially
things like algortihms.

Make a better product at a fair price, and it'll succeed - unless
someone else does it better.  Patents make some sense when a developer
is ramping up production or something like that, but really, since
when was it any government's job to enforce ethics?  Because that's
what it boils down to - attempting to force ethical behavior on people
who would otherwise "steal" someone's invention without giving
"proper" credit.  I have little respect for laws whose only purpose
are stifling of competition and making sure someone gets richer.  And
yes, I *have* had significant ideas taken and made into fairly
successful comercial products.  Oh well, I don't feel like anyone owes
me fame and fortune anyway.

Charging for thoughts in a me-first, greed fueled society which has
fallen behind the rest of the world acedemically and socially.  Boy, I
wonder if the two are possibly related...

--Danny, cynical

2006\02\13@134828 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:
> Patents make some sense when a developer
> is ramping up production or something like that, but really, since
> when was it any government's job to enforce ethics?  

Well, one of the major purposes of government is to protect private
property from theft etc.  Protecting IP (Intellectual Property) to me
falls under this category (notwithstanding that government does nothing
well).

So I think the discussion boils down to whether one believes that
individuals should "own" Intellectual Property (versus hard assets).

If you don't believe it, you're probably a "socialist", if you do,
you're probably a "capitalist".

Carey

2006\02\13@140318 by Walter Banks

picon face
These comments are not aimed at the author but are a counter point to
their reasoning.

Development of a new idea rarely pays for the development costs.
A level competitive playing field should also account for the mix
of development and early marketing costs for those ideas that
pay off and those that don't. Producing a product copy can put
the original developer at a significant competitive disadvantage.
For example, software tools.

Patents time out and long before they time out they are usually
no longer have a significant IP value.

The critics of the patent system have a point on many issues. The
patent office needs to do due diligence on prior art (case in point
all the software patents issued about 10 years ago - to be fair
essentially all of them have not been enforceable). The patent
office needs a better process of public review.

W..


> Some of us think that, since we live in a society that is supposedly
> driven by market forces, perhaps every business should compete on
> their merits or ability to compete in a free market.
    * * *
> If someone else can make the same product for less money, then
> it seems that the inventor perhaps lacks the "business accumen" to
> compete in a free market.



2006\02\13@140647 by olin piclist

face picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:
> If someone else can make the same product for less money, then
> it seems that the inventor perhaps lacks the "business accumen" to
> compete in a free market.

But the inventor is burdened with the cost of inventing, whereas the copycat
may have a lower cost.  It's not fair if the inventor pays for research that
leads to ideas for a better gizmo if someone else can look at this gizmo and
sell it cheaper because he doesn't have to pay back the cost of the
research.  Put another way, without patent protection there is no mechanism
for the price of a product to reflect the research that went into coming up
with the idea for it.  In such a system, people will be very reluctant to
invest in research that might lead to new product ideas if they are pretty
much guaranteed to be out-competed once the product goes to market.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\02\13@142501 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Walter wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]:  Domain names for evil patents' on Mon, Feb 13 at 13:05:
> The critics of the patent system have a point on many issues. The
> patent office needs to do due diligence on prior art (case in point
> all the software patents issued about 10 years ago - to be fair
> essentially all of them have not been enforceable). The patent
> office needs a better process of public review.

It's worth pointing out that, when I essentailly say "patents are
stupid", I mean that patents as presently implemented are stupid.  The
US PTO is really unsuitable for assessing a big chunk of what's
submitted, and the system's entirely too abused.  The system has valid
reasons, as Olin and Walter point out.  How many of the new patents,
say, last year were for the valid reason of protecting marketability
of an idea which was costly to develop, and how many of them were
filed just to keep everyone else out of the sandbox, or to eventually
sue someone who independently comes up with the same idea / uses a
technology presumed to be usable but not really (LZO compression,
anyone)?  Do the abuses/misuses of the system outweigh the benefits
yet?

I don't know how to fix it.  I just like to complain. :)

--Danny

2006\02\13@162905 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> It's worth pointing out that, when I essentailly say "patents are
> stupid", I mean that patents as presently implemented are stupid.

If that is your message try to say (just) that! I would disagree with
"patents are stupid" but a agree with "the current patent practice is
stupid".

> I don't know how to fix it.

Maybe that is where you should put you effort, or what your site should
be about? "how to transform the patent system into something that
works"?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\02\13@164348 by Sergey Dryga

face picon face
Danny Sauer <piclist <at> dannysauer.com> writes:

>
> Sergey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]:  Domain names for evil patents' on
> Mon, Feb 13 at 10:29:
> > There are numerous examples when "garage inventors" won agains the
> > BIG GUYS.  Some names: Hewlet-Packard, Apple, Microsoft, Google,
> > Genentech, Celera Genomics.  Not all of these started in a garage,
> > but all were startups in a field with large companies.  
>
> And obviously they could have never made it without patents?  Is that
> because someone else could "do it better"?  What patents does Google
> depend on for its business?  What about Microsoft?  I'm quite certain
> that both depend on trademarks, but just what patent has led to Google
> being the most popular search engine today?  Do they have a patent on
> fast database lookups?  A patent on a clean user interface?  A patent

An example from US PTO:
United States Patent  6,678,681  
Brin  January 13, 2004  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information extraction from a database


Abstract
Techniques for extracting information from a database are provided. A database
such as the Web is searched for occurrences of tuples of information. The
occurrences of the tuples of information that were found in the database are
analyzed to identify a pattern in which the tuples of information were stored.
Additional tuples of information can then be extracted from the database
utilizing the pattern. This process can be repeated with the additional tuples
of information, if desired
------------------
Google has 15 patents listed in the US PTO.  

{Quote hidden}

Some people already commented on this point.  Here are my $0.02:
a follower will often have a lower cost structure because they can use more
modern equipment for manufacturing.  Patent protection expires in 17-20 years.  
In the case of drugs, generic drug manufacturers can sell for much less
precicely because they have lower cost structure, they do not need to invest as
much in R&D and in marketing.  In addition, they use more modern technologies
(15-20 year more modern).  
Example: a typical drug development costs $850 million and takes 11 years.  A
company has to spend this money without return in 11 years, and has only about
10 years of exclusive sales.  Add to this the fact that only about 10% of drugs
make it through a development process and one should expect pharma companies to
charge high prices to make up the investment and have enough money to develop
new drugs.  BTW, people often complain that pharma co's too profitable, but
other industries are even more profitable, e.g. software or oil.  

{Quote hidden}

Glad to hear that.  I did not mean to imply you specifically, it was a general
point.  

> Oh well, I don't feel like anyone owes
> me fame and fortune anyway.

> Charging for thoughts in a me-first, greed fueled society which has
> fallen behind the rest of the world acedemically and socially.  Boy, I
> wonder if the two are possibly related...

You have a point here, although I have to say that this society, which has
fallen behind, still has the most developed economy and standard of living.  No
system is perfect, but it seems to me that the greed-fueled society ( I would
call it entrepreneurial society) is much better off than other, more idealistic
ones in terms of social development, protections etc.  I speak from experience
living in 2 vastly different countries for extended periods of time.  
>
> --Danny, cynical

--Sergey, cynical? realistic? idealistic? just full of it?




2006\02\13@175233 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Sergey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]:  Domain names for evil patents' on Mon, Feb 13 at 15:46:
> Danny Sauer <piclist <at> dannysauer.com> writes:
> > ...but just what patent has led to Google being the most popular
> > search engine today?  Do they have a patent on fast database
> > lookups?
>
> An example from US PTO:
> United States Patent  6,678,681  
> Brin  January 13, 2004  

I'll be damned, they *do* have a patent on database lookups.  Eh, I'm
convinced that's taken out only as protection from being sued by
someone else who would have eventually patented database lookups -
something which shouldn't be patentable anyway, and an example of the
problems with the patent system.  Retrieving tuples from gathered
information, indeed.  Bah. :)

> You have a point here, although I have to say that this society,
> which has fallen behind, still has the most developed economy and
> standard of living.  No system is perfect, but it seems to me that
> the greed-fueled society ( I would call it entrepreneurial society)
> is much better off than other, more idealistic ones in terms of
> social development, protections etc.  I speak from experience living
> in 2 vastly different countries for extended periods of time.  

I question just how much longer resting on our laurels (I'm taking a
US-centric view in my posts here, in case that's not yet clear) will
be adequate to maintain that position.  Our bullying of the rest of
the world (some justified, some not) and the erosion of my rights as a
citizen certainly aren't doing much for *my* view of our security...
:)  As I write out another $1200 check for one more month of two
people's health insurance, and as I fill my car's fuel tank up with a
product whose cost has doubled in the last 12 months while its
producers' income has also increased at a similar rate, I question how
much longer the standard of living will remain "better".

Regardless we're (I'm) drifting a little too far into politics at this
point, and I'm starting to sound like someone who dislikes his
country, when in fact I'm quite happy for the opportunity available to
me here.

--Danny, not packing up and moving just yet... ;)

2006\02\14@020730 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Danny Sauer wrote:

> I'm convinced that's taken out only as protection from being sued by
> someone else who would have eventually patented database lookups

Well, yes.  A remarkable number of obnoxious patents are probably
meant to be defensive.  It might be interesting to look up the
stats and see how many times a "big company" initiated a lawsuit
or royalty request for violation of less substantial patents.  I'm
inclined to believe it doesn't happen very often.  The reverse,
where some inventor manages to cripple a nascent industry by
wanting inconvenient royalties for a patent they filed but never
did anything with, is very frustrating (remember token ring?)

BillW

2006\02\14@021548 by Robert Rolf

picon face

William Chops Westfield wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Danny Sauer wrote:
>
>
>>I'm convinced that's taken out only as protection from being sued by
>>someone else who would have eventually patented database lookups
>
>
> Well, yes.  A remarkable number of obnoxious patents are probably
> meant to be defensive.  It might be interesting to look up the
> stats and see how many times a "big company" initiated a lawsuit
> or royalty request for violation of less substantial patents.  I'm
> inclined to believe it doesn't happen very often.  The reverse,
> where some inventor manages to cripple a nascent industry by
> wanting inconvenient royalties for a patent they filed but never
> did anything with, is very frustrating (remember token ring?)

Remember Gordon Gould, Patlex, and his notarized notebook from
1956 which successfully got him patent rights on laser applications,
decades after the industry took off?

"Torpedo" patents are getting to be far too common because of
the lax and inept patent examination process.


Robert


2006\02\16@110757 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

nothing
> well).
>
> So I think the discussion boils down to whether one believes that
> individuals should "own" Intellectual Property (versus hard assets).
>
> If you don't believe it, you're probably a "socialist", if you do,
> you're probably a "capitalist".


Well no, that is a "conservative's" view of it all.  Much too
simplified.  "Liberals" likewise often end up with shorthand that is
likewise too simplified.  

There is no pure socialism or pure capitalism anywhere.  Socialism
unlike communism believes in private property and ownership, but puts
more onus on the government rather than corporate ownership.  Capitalism
is based on money being the most important thing.  If you have money you
have control.  Very elitist.  Socialism is based on people being more
important than money.  People should have control.  Socialism is more
democratic than capitalism for that reason.

Unfettered capitalism degrades into fascism where corporate power merges
with government power.  Socialism usually degrades when the power
becomes concentrated again and democracy is killed.

Government btw does many things very well.  Until personal profit or
power becomes more important or ideology (right or left) drives
decisions instead of rational thought.  Government run medical programs
for example are better and more cost efficient than for profit programs.
Ideology likes to drives thoughts on medicare but medicare has always
been better than private insurance at delivering for the patients.

And IP isn't a part of this.  Patents and copyright are good until they
interfere with the public good - and medical patents are one case.
Often public (government) funds help develop medicines through research
at public facilities and grants but then become the property of
producers instead of the property of the people (government) that paid
for the development.

But I don't want to devolve into duplicating effort on the problems with
medical patents.






-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
.....postmasterKILLspamspam.....vgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\02\16@114502 by blackcat

face picon face
-- copied from below --
---> Government run medical programs
for example are better and more cost efficient than for profit programs.
Ideology likes to drives thoughts on medicare but medicare has always
been better than private insurance at delivering for the patients. <----

---> WOW  I would like to see some supporting evidence for the above  
paragraph.  I think
most evidence is to the contrary.   <---- AGSC



On 2006-Feb 16, at 9:08 AM, William Killian wrote:


> {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...