Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 4 Apr 2010 17:56 On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:27:59 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:58:51 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:26:43 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:08:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> What's a fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? >>> >>>Development costs, amortized over the quantity of product sold, plus >>>overhead and profit. >> >>Ok, you've defined profit, but I'll ask Larkin's question again. What's a >>fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? > >What people are willing to pay, of course. That's my answer, but I thought you were asking Fred. >If you had a rusty VW beetle up on blocks in your back yard, and >somebody offered you $200 for it, and somebody else offered you >$24,000, would you sell it to the $200 guy because that's a fair >price? Me? Nope. Because $200 obviously isn't a fair price ($24,000 is now the fair price). OTOH, if I had sold it for $200, whether or not someone came by tomorrow willing to pay $24,000, $200 was a fair price.
From: Andrew on 4 Apr 2010 19:25 "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:W6ydndXx5v9eLyXWnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >>>>>Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright >>>>>laws? >> >> World would be a better place. > > They would have to send bandits or use whatever other non-economic means > of competition. Problem is not in the patents, problem is with the people. "They" could do it right now. It is not related to the patents. >>>The idea of patents is to make it attractive for people to disclose their >>>trade secrets, and that makes the art advance. >> >> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. >> 17 years in US, for starters, is way too long. Patents often used to lock >> competitors out, thus artificially decresing efficiency. > > Write a complaint to the World League for sexual reforms? Patent laws is not the biggest problem US is facing right now. As for the options: - Use technical means to keep trade secrets rather than legal and sell you product outside of US. - Elect someone with at least a crude understanding of the economy. - Write a complaint to <put one's favorite place here> if it makes one feel better. - Wrap oneself in white sheets and slowly crawl to the graveyard. -- Andrew
From: Andrew on 4 Apr 2010 19:31 -- Andrew <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:9behr5571kmjiidrg3rqs6so5h0ql1q5uv(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 21:44:12 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote in message >>news:4BB520B9.2010101(a)electrooptical.net... >>> On 4/1/2010 1:34 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: >>>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:31:32 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright >>>>> laws? >> >>World would be a better place. >>Patents often used to lock competitors out, thus artificially decresing >>efficiency. > > That's their *purpose*. For a legal monopoly the inventor trades > education in > the art. Without something to gain there would be no reason to publish > details, rather keep them as trade secrets. This approach didn't work out > so > well in the early industrial revolution. It's a good idea to research the > alternatives before condemning the existing. Yes, it would be a good idea to research alternatives. http://blog.mises.org/7880/patents-and-innovation/ === In Industrialisation without National Patents, published in 1971, the economic historian Eric Schiff tells the story of the emergence of some of Europe's biggest corporations. They came into being in Switzerland and the Netherlands during the period (1850-1907 in Switzerland; 1869-1912 in the Netherlands) in which neither country recognised patents. Some of them appear to owe their very existence to this exemption. In the Netherlands the old patent laws were clumsy and poorly drafted. The government decided they were unreformable, and simply scrapped them. In Switzerland, the confederation developed without them, and decided to keep it that way. Contrary to all current predictions of what the impact of such abrogations would be, in both nations they appear to have contributed to massive economic growth and innovation. --- See also Petra Moser, How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World Fairs (SSRN copy). Its Abstract states: This paper introduces a new internationally comparable data set that permits an empirical investigation of the effects of patent law on innovation. The data have been constructed from the catalogues of two 19th century world fairs: the Crystal Palace Exhibition in London, 1851, and the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, 1876. They include innovations that were not patented, as well as those that were, and innovations from countries both with and without patent laws. I find no evidence that patent laws increased levels of innovative activity but strong evidence that patent systems influenced the distribution of innovative activity across industries. Inventors in countries without patent laws concentrated in industries where secrecy was effective relative to patents, e.g., food processing and scientific instruments. These results suggest that introducing strong and effective patent laws in countries without patents may have stronger effects on changing the direction of innovative activity than on raising the number of innovations. ===
From: krw on 4 Apr 2010 20:47 On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 07:31:58 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Clueless.
From: Andrew on 4 Apr 2010 21:40
<krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:2pcir5p9qc741bnhuh13blhtdoom8ptm7h(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 07:31:58 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Clueless. I am humbled by the depth of your arguments. 8=) -- Andrew |