Adam Wasserman’s Techdirt Profile
|
|
About Adam Wasserman
Adam Wasserman has spent the last decade working as a high-level strategist in technology-based product management and business development.
From 2004, he worked as an independent management consultant, assisting high-tech startups and venture capitalists in identifying, validating, and measuring demand for new technology-based products.
From 1998 to 2004, he was CTO for the International Air Transport Association (IATA), building the operations for its online businesses.
Prior to that, Adam was Product Manager of Internet Solutions at MPACT Immedia (which became Bell Emergis), and before that, Enterprise Solution Specialist at SHL Systemhouse. He spent another 7 years as a high-end network and connectivity specialist.
Adam sits on the Advisory Board of Little Animation.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/adamw |
Adam Wasserman’s Written Stories.
RSS
Twitter
(as Adam Wasserman)
My favorite augmented reality is VH1's Pop-Up Video. That is the info I have *got* to have.
Might be interesting (as Adam Wasserman)
I for one would be interested in seeing a mechanism for determining actual market value of a patent. It could possibly even help sort out the good one from the bad ones, and I can not see how it would make things worse than they already are.
So without arguing the merits of patents themselves, I can see an argument for a patent market. There might even be a bubble, followed by the inevitable collapse, and that could conceivably bring some long overdue sanity and critical evaluation to bear.
For example I would love to see the market value of this one: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fne tahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220090132950%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/200901 32950&RS=DN/20090132950.
We can only pray that the filing fees would be higher than the value.
Look up what stealing is (as Adam Wasserman)
There is a strict legal definition of what theft is, and none of the commenters above know what it is.
Re: (as Adam Wasserman)
Inappropriately attaching the label Nazi is always relevant to some people.
Not entirely sure why, I class it with similar examples of bad taste, like compulsive overuse of popular movie catchphrases. They're both unattractive.
Re: Re: Re: (as Adam Wasserman)
I knew someone would end up correcting me. :-)
Perhaps it is fair to say that *no human endeavor whatsoever* is a complete break from the past. In which case building on the past can not be the defining characteristic of innovation because logically *everything* would be innovation in that case.
Which by the way - is pretty much true. Humans are innovation machines. It is what we do, and have been doing since the dawn of time. Most of that time (as you and many others point out) with no form whatsoever of "intellectual property" protection.
Re: (as Adam Wasserman)
True innovation?
Is that like the One True Brace Style?
It seems you are saying that since True Innovation learns from the past, something that was a complete break from the past - let us consider quantum theory compared to Newtonian physics - could not be considered innovation.
As for your comments about copycats "stealing away" "the profits" it sounds to me (and it could just be me) as if you would like a sinecure.
Well, that is just not the way the world usually works, and when some artificial mechanism is put into place to provide a sinecure, the historical reality has been that it disappears (along with the regime that instituted it) when the inequities inherent in the system become intolerable for the common people who shoulder the burden.
Re: Bad name? (as Adam Wasserman)
TwoOne Seat In EU Parliament"So, he also doesn't care which party he joins into a coalition with."
Not a statement easily understood by people with no experience in coalition governments.
Re: Wow (as Adam Wasserman)
TwoOne Seat In EU Parliament"this just shows that there is an extremely self-centered and oblivious (largely) youth element that for a brief moment in time is jazzed up about this metaphysically unimportant topic"
I will try and provide an alternative perspective on why this *is* an important topic.
The metaphysical issue at stake is whether or not a single person can legitimately lay claim to ownership of an idea. Whether that idea is a song, or the concept of a four wheeled vehicle driven by an internal combustion engine, all of society is hurt if one person is allowed to make an exclusive claim on the concept.
Monopoly rights encourage laziness, stagnation, and insensitivity to consumer needs and wants. This is why competition is such a highly valued concept in so much of the world. It makes no sense that competition be restricted in certain industries and not in others. It makes no sense that a television show has to pay performance rights for the songs that are played during the show, but no royalty to the designers of the clothes that are worn.
There is no substantive difference between the effort required to write a song and that required to design a lovely dress.
Since 2004 I have worked for and with post-bubble early-stage tech companies and their investors. The chilling effects of IP maximalists on innovation and entrepreneurship is tangible.
It is practically impossible for a startup to obtain funding these days without a patent or at the very least a patent application. This has two effects: a) suppressing good business ideas that because they are un-patentable will stimulate competition and be good for the economy, and b) the filing of bogus or marginally valid patent applications that once granted suppress competition which would be good for the economy.
Although it is clearly a matter of opinion, some of us feel that the metaphysical question of idea ownership is one of the most critical questions of this coming century.
I would suggest that the US government agrees since it classified the IP treaty that it is working on as a state secret. It is very likely that highly placed officials in the US government feel that IP "ownership" is one of the last industries in which the US has a fighting chance of maintaining hegemony. It is possible that "IP" is the new "oil" in the eyes of the D.C. think tanks, and is perceived as key to national security as oil was in the last century. Certainly US government behavior seems to support this, and definitely does not contradict this.
Re: Re: Revisionist history (as Adam Wasserman)
Your original comments started off with:
"As soon as the "pirate party" came into being, it pretty much removed the chance of getting anyone totally unbiased in the discussion, because politically you have to be for or against them as a result"
The article had as a subject the bias of judges handling the Pirate Bay case.
You made a clear statement that "pretty much" all judges...
("anyone" in this case being equivalent to "any judge" because the article was not discussing the bias of anyone but judges, so your statement either a) applied to judges specifically or b)was irrelevant to the article upon which you were commenting. You tell me which.)
...in Sweden would be biased *because* they would have to be politically for or against the Pirate Party.
I maintain that it should be quite possible to find a judge in Sweden who is neither for nor against the Pirate Party.
For one thing, the existence of a political party does not guarantee that one is for or against it. One could quite well be indifferent to it.
For another thing, to the extent that I know the Swedes, they are like Goldilocks: they very much prefer "just right" to either too big or too small. In fact there is a special word in Swedish for it: Lagom.
Your revised statement introduced the totally new concept that in fact it might be possible to find an unbiased judge and that in testing for bias one should search for pro and con both. Nice idea, but not what you said at the outset.
By the way, it is spelled "litmus".
Revisionist history (as Adam Wasserman)
"No,not at all. I am only saying that if we are going to use some sort of association litimus test for "can't be the judge because he is pro-copyright", then there should be some sort of limitus test to the other end."
That might be what you are saying *now*, but that is not at all what you said at the outset. You write well and seem to be literate, so I am forced to conclude that your revisionist history (regarding your own comments) is more likely the result of intellectual dishonesty than it is a failure to express yourself clearly.
I applaud your brief, if dishonest, attempt to de-polarize, but I see just two comments below that you revert to type quickly enough.
Binary thinking (as Adam Wasserman)
Dude, there are at least seven other political parties in Sweden, so no, one does not have to be for the Pirate Party or agin' 'em.
One could be for Kristdemokraterna or Folkpartiet Liberalerna and have no particular bias or prejudgment about the Pirate Party.
Lastly, it is my opinion after having worked in Sweden, and with numerous Swedes, that they are not really very much into polarization like Americans are. So again it is not likely that the entire country of Sweden is either for or against the Pirate Party. Much of the country is probably observing with interest, and waiting for a consensus to emerge (that is more Swede-like IMO).
Just one word... (as Adam Wasserman)
Massive post Mike. Massive.
Godzone and dissemination of innovation (as Adam Wasserman)
Bully for them, but I hold faint hope for spreading the word.
I seem to remember that they have one of the most eminently rational balances between regulation and deregulation of telecoms (I could be wrong, it is an old memory) that no one else adopted.
The way I remember it... (as Adam Wasserman)
was that in about 1996 the patent office was begging and beseeching for more (and qualified) staff to deal with the onslaught of software patents. When they were denied, they seemed (to me) to adopt the attitude of "what the hell - we'll approve 'em all. Let God sort em out."
Re: (as Adam Wasserman)
Whether or not this is more accurate depends upon the definition of what constitutes a right.
I am waiting to see what one of our anonymous cowards has to say about that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights (as Adam Wasserman)
I guess you are really reluctant to answer a simple question. Why? Why not just answer my question?
As you point out: rights and who has them are at the center of the post and of your comments. It seems to me entirely reasonable to ask for your working definition of rights.
It seems very disingenuous and strange that you would avoid answering.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights (as Adam Wasserman)
Are you avoiding my question? It is a simple one.
You are making assertions about rights under Title 17. It is entirely pertinent to ask for the definition of rights that you are using.
I am wondering if you believe that the only rights that exist are when the word "Rights" appears in a legal statute.
I am interested in discussing your assertion that "No rights are conferred to anyone else" but I am sure that the discussion will be more productive if we can arrive at an agreement on the definition of rights.
Re: Re: Rights (as Adam Wasserman)
You did not understand my question. I am asking you for a general legal definition of what "rights" are.
All rights, any right, not just those created under Title 17.
Only by defining what IS a right, can we understand what is NOT a right.
Rights (as Adam Wasserman)
Curious: what definition of "rights" do you use?
Re: Trolls (as Adam Wasserman)
But what about those of us who enjoy WH? Personally I delight in people who are so easy to set off.
FWIW, I would not call WH a troll. Truth is: *I* was trolling *him* with my comment (fairly successfully too I might add).
Trolling implies a certain capacity for irony, a self-awareness that one is posting an inflammatory comment for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone, preferably from just one or two people who are so wrapped up in their neuroses that they fail to pick up on what is obvious to everyone else: that the troll is a joke. For example see Boursy and the "Usenet Global Killfile".
I am under the impression that WH takes his or her self quite seriously, that would disqualify him/her as an accomplished troll in my books.