DISQUS

Does anyone really think any real legal standards are at work here. The US antitrust case was to protect MS rivals, the EU case to protect the EU from becoming irrelevant. If the EU is trying to make its members a force in the global innovation economy; it can either keep badgering successful US companies or tell its own businesses the innovation era is not a fad and that they should join in.

Good point Luis. Well, Greg, you have a "natural monopoly" on the paper- your ability to answer questions and explain it would deter any effort at misappropriation. Still I thougt Enigma could easily be baited given his glee at anything about Wikhpedia.

Yes companies compete as much on commercial policies as they do in product/ service markets. Ever hear of Mickey Mouse`s copyright act or count the number of times IBM has changed its mind on software patents in the past 40 years. Perhaps the most interesting cases of industry-govt ties are those where entire industries compete on policy fronts, such as the current sparring between big pharma and high-tech on patent reform.

When they do MikeT they better cite you as prior art. Or yot can file that patent and become a troll. In any case Tim, you should look at the CAFC and its rulings on the enablement and best mode patent doctrines. Basically the Court has specifically ruled that software patent apps can simply give high level functional descriptions of the invention, which has resulted in the issuance of numerous broad patents and many ridiculous patents. This has resulted in vague property lines that require expensive litigation to settle (of course in a common law system this is expected to some extent- bright lines only exists in civil codes- the current rapid fire litigations are not the fault of the system though but of broad patents). Does it mean there are no benefits from software patents or that we should eliminate them. Only if you leap to drastic conclusions. I recommend some light reading on Lemley, Chisum, Mowery, perhaps even Dam.

This brings up the whole point that gamers are the most technologically oriented and demanding of consumers. Funny then that the company that "dumbs it down" might be the one that wins. Many other sectors might learn from this:)

OK so you commoditized (or are trying to) the op system and server markets. So some companies might have to make money elsewhere (not likely). What about the rest of the tech market. I agree w MikeT that some things should be "open" but they have to accomodate "closed" technologies and apps. Or the FOSS movement will stand in its own way by resting on ideologies that got it out of the cave.

OK whats the market cap in dollars. Who got wealthy and is going to make the next cutting edge product before the next stone and ice age. Why doesnt FOSS come up with another winner. I`m skeptical about most things and want to see FOSS do more given the years its been around. FOSS should focus on some technologies (plats, servers, backend etc) rather others (desktop apps), pull in over $1b in annual sales on an average and let folks like Oreilly rather than Stallman speak for it. Then there might be creative destruction. PS MSFT does use Apache:)

Thanks to Professor Wu for responding and acknowledging my point that IP already allows decentralization of innovation- a theme of Professor Chesbrough "Open Innovation" work. Professor Wu`s example of the NIH clarifies that I was talking about decentralization away from the state, whereas Tim Lee war talking about decentralization from "monopolies" (ahem, successful companies:). I also was not aware of the efforts at WIPO to expand IP rights, which I dont necessarily agree with.

Actually they cant sue you now Tim. Theyve already read Enigmas post, which was going to be their precise charge and which Enigma now owns the copyright to. Enigma you should license the post to the RIAA/ MPAA for enough to pay Tims bail and legal fees. I hope this helps.

Interesting that Ed Felton calls the "Hollywood Studios" a *small group* but you call them a *bureaucracy*. He emphasizes the far reaching leverage on technology wielded by an isolated group of execs and lawyers that are out of touch; while you highlite the fact that there is little consumers can do in situations like this, thus villifying the Studios and adding subtle effect to your criticism of them. Anyways I wouldnt go as far as calling the Studios goals or decisions incoherent or say that theyre putting on a *show*. Why? Every party involved acted in their self interest (the Studios MSFT etc) but nobody gave the studios the incentive to risk piracy w economies of scale that a 32 bit WMP license would invite. Of course the Studios will see a lot of piracy still, but at least they addressed the potentially greatest, and possibly easiest, source of it. The Studios goal wasnt to stop piracy but to deter it on the grand scale. In your analysis you hypothesized the Studios goals and then criticized the goals you conjured up when in fact the Studios probably have other objectives in mind. PS- The Studios know that piracy happens to a greater or lesser extent, its not something that either occurs or doesnt occur (which you implied as their assumption when you drew up the strawman goals for them).

Point taken Doug. But hey I dont dismiss Tim do I? I dont dismiss anyone. My disagreement w Tim (and strangely I find myself appreciating Enigma as more considered on market forces and MikeT on fair use than Tim although they and I never agree), is that his views dont reflect the *industry* as it is, nor widely accepted axioms in IP (nobody knows how innovatiom works BTW- Tim:). He also tends to be very politically charged, non accepting that firms work for profit and is too idealistic. Those arent bad things but they raise issues where I engage him. Tim *expects* firms to act altruistically and seems disappointed when they dont. I expect them to do their thing. I dont like everything MS does and I dont care much about them but I switch products rather than whine when firms arent doing what I want.

That summary of Lemley is a bit off mark but I applaud the effort. If you`re going to draw inferences from an article like that then CITE. A company like MS working for profit is healthy. This "but what about me" attitude folks have when talking about companies is getting old. MS can do what it wants and if you think social welfare would be raised by certain actions apparently the market doesnt.

Doug I did a review of that Inc.com article yesterday on IPcentral. Personally the argument against IP could have been better (and has been in other publications) but I felt it hit on too many obvious issues. It amazes me these impractical views. Soliciting a readership is one thing, but dont pass it off as informative to public policy.

Steve I referred you to the paper not to side you w software patents (or me:) but to show you one perspective on them. And as someone who argues his side, I didnt mind referring a paper I agree 50% with as you seemed like you would be be interested in its narrative of judicial interpretation based on your comments re Merges. Email me to continue this discussion. I dont like following these long threads.

Wow Tim knows how innovation works... Contact IBMs licensees about patents. Eliminating patents now would not simply rewind time BTW. You disagree? Ask IBM, oh wait where do they get money to invest in OSS.