Posts by Don Jefe

Re: Scary

A big problem at the USPTO is that 85%+ of the staff are generic lawyers. There used to be a strong industry practitioner element within the agency, but they've faded away over the years. The worst part is that those lawyers are mostly the shitty ones who couldn't find private sector work after the bar. All that wrapped together is a disaster.

But the judge/jury part has always been the case. The USPTO is not, nor has it ever been, the supreme arbiter of uniqueness. Being granted a patent absolutely does not guarantee your thing is original/unique. A patent means the agent reviewed their pre approved information sources and didn't find anything overly similar. There are no warranties, express or implied, when you receive a patent. The judge has always had the final say.

Re: Seems ok

I've always loved that line about companies needing stricter IP controls to recover R&D spend. Any time you hear that bandied about it's either coming from a lobbyist or from some dipshit who has no idea what they're talking about.

Research and development is always an NRE. You spend the money and it's gone and you have no intention of ever recovering it. R&D costs are their own thing and aren't figured into any non-R&D segment of the business. If the costs of R&D were figured into product pricing or core operations it would cost you about 1.5 unborn children every time you upgrade your mobile phone.

Re: "My invention"

Patent protection expires and gives anyone interested the ability to reproduce your 'thing'. Patenting something can also expose parallel internal processes that your competitor doesn't need to know about.

Some things are good for patenting, but lots of things have more value as secrets. Secrets tend to hold longer term value better and serve the wonderful purpose of acting as a ridiculously expensive barrier to entry. Good industrial secrets can be reverse engineered to a point, but once you cross that point you're basically flailing in the dark and throwing tremendous resources at something that you can't actually verify as an accurate reproduction.

Things that change quickly are good things to patent. You're squeezing as much value as you can out of your 'thing' before the goalposts move and your thing no longer has value. But other things, like I mentioned in my first post, don't change very fast and a patent would greatly reduce the ultimate value of your thing.

Lastly, patents do not provide protection for your ideas. Patents provide a mechanism to pursue alleged infringers. It's expensive, time consuming and rarely worth pursuing. The ginormous settlements you occasionally see in the news are extremely uncommon. If you cover your legal fees and get a licensee out of the deal you're lucky.

No, no they wouldn't come to you. But let's pretend they did. What's the point in having them in your country? If they came just because one set of laws changed, they'll leave as soon as somebody else offers them something more attractive.

It's a race to the bottom and only the consumer gets screwed as they absorb the costs, through taxes and utility rate increases, of upgrading infrastructure to support the businesses. They came to you because they didn't have to give back to move to your country, but you've got to give to them or they'll leave again. It's kind of like letting your girlfriend sleep around and paying for her drugs, then marrying her and signing a pre-nup that gives her lots of your stuff then being surprised to find she's screwing all your buddies and they've been paying her too. It's just a bad deal.

People get scared that businesses won't do business with them if you don't cater to their desires, but that simply isn't true. We're talking about the greediest people on the planet. If there's a dollar to be made they'll take it. Don't think for a second they won't.

Besides, paying taxes is built into the business. Getting out of some taxes is a bonus. They already planned on paying taxes when they started doing business in your country. Not having to is a laugh all the way to the bank. Lowering tax burdens is why CFO's get massive bonuses. That money was already allocated to tax and if you don't have to spend it then bonuses all the way around.

The roads in the UK I know nothing about, but every single other item on your list was piloted and underwritten by governments. Big outside investment eventually came along, but only when the technical issues were understood and governments had agreed to assist with governmenty issues.

Railroads in the US were only partially funded by private investors, and then only when the government made the property issues go away, overlooked insanely bad work conditions, funded 'work ships' full of Irish and Chinese disposable labor and used the army to move the pesky Indians out of the way. The government also completely underwrote the expansion of steel mills and saw mills and timberland purchases for track building. The mill owners committed to certain quantities of output and funded the labor, but the capex was 100% government.

Even the SpaceX project is only feasible because they've got a financial commitment from the government as well as 60 years of government funded research to build off of as well as guaranteed loan underwriting at great rates (you didn't really think Musk was risking his own money did you?) If the project succeeds it'll only be making incremental improvements to existing, proven, processes (cool yes, but without government subsidies it would never happen). The project being discussed here is hugely unique and will require unbelievable amounts of never before tried infrastructure.

Now, I'm the first to say governments everywhere are the single most inefficient organized bodies on the planet, but they are also the best suited to absorbing the costs of huge programs that benefit all of society. It's actually what governments are designed to do, gather resources and redistribute them where the greatest good can be had. I am not saying they currently redistribute those resources the best way, but programs like this is what they're structured to do.

I'm not a huge fan of most government activities, but at the same time it is foolishness to ignore the massive contributions they make to big projects. Everything from the research of the core principals to subsidizing the infrastructure is taxpayer funded and has been for a very, very long time.

Re: Lies, damned lies . . . and what was the other one again?

It's always really easy to tell when laws are passed with absolutely no knowledge of the people they are aimed at. Nobody goes up to a retailer and selects their first cigarettes after a review of packaging: "I really like the traditional look that the narrow serif fonts create on this package. Combined with the use of flat colors and creative framing of white space with simple linear shapes makes this the brand for me ".

The fact some people think that's how smoking works is hilarious to me. Every smoker has a 'getting started' story and you won't find any who just strolled into a store with the intention of trying a cigarette then deciding which cigarette to choose based on the package. Once you're at the purchasing your own stage you've already been smoking and you're going to buy what you've already been smoking.

When little Timmy gets busted smoking and rats out the 7-11 clerk it's just because he didn't want to rat out his buddies or your nutty sister/brother, etc... Timmy's been smoking for a while before you ever catch him and he's smoking what someone you know is giving/getting for him. It has exactly nothing to do with the package. The fact you think it does means you've just been out maneuvered by a kid and the kid knows it. The kid is still smoking too. He's just more careful.

Re: Could try harder

I'm sure they would if governments would lower the minimum sales prices accordingly. It's insane to expect any company to pay more to deal with arbitrary laws, no matter what industry it is.

Re: Hmmm

I smoke 2+ packs a day of the same brand of cigarette as the first cigarette I ever smoked. Over all the decades since I've given exactly zero shits about the package they came in. If there was a way to care less than zero that's how much I would care.

When I lived in Canada I used to collect all the graphic warnings and stick them to the refrigerator because I wanted the whole set. The only time the packaging has had any relevance at all is if I'm in a foreign country where I don't speak the language. I just show the clerk what the pack looks like.

I didn't start smoking because of the packaging. That's always been the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. Does any significant portion of the population buy their regular consumables based on packaging? No. I buy the brand of toilet paper that my ass likes and I buy the brand of toothpaste my mouth likes and I buy the brand of bourbon my wife hates.

Cigarettes fall into the same category as any commodity consumable which is widely available and nobody knows anything about nor is any information provided about. From tampons to cologne to toothpaste to gasoline to crayons to dish soap and cigarettes the overwhelming majority of people buy the same brand as their parents (my parents didn't smoke. I started smoking the same brand the girl I wanted to sleep with smoked) and if that's not available it's a crap shoot. You buy a random product based on some wildely illogical premise you created on the fly and if it doesn't work as desired you buy something else.

Its been pretty well established that smokers will be smokers if parents don't step in and put a stop to it. Smoking decline has stopped in most countries and is on the upswing in some demographics. Like so very many other things, smoking falls under the parenting heading, nothing else. Nobody really likes that though. It's got to be someone else's fault, parents are as bad as banks at assuming responsibility.

Re: coming to netflix...

You know, you've actually hit on a good idea. Netflix should have a 'Critically Lambasted' or 'Genuinely Awful' category. Some of the funniest things and/or interesting ideas are hidden in terrible movies, but it's too hard to go looking for them, too much selection. A reverse star rating system would be nice.

It should be illegal everywhere. Over here it's how manufacturers got around some States that passed legislation restricting MAP pricing. The slimy legal angle being that the reseller doesn't own the product while it's floating therefore can't dictate the price.

The entire MAP scheme artificially increases the price to the consumer and the worst part, in my mind, is manufacturers tell you it's to keep the value of the products higher so all the retailers can make money, but in reality they've been turning the screws on retail margins at the same time.

Computers and related accessories have always had crappy margins (compared to other non-grocery retail) anyway, but between the fixed pricing and ever shrinking margins it simply isn't worthwhile for anyone but a big box entity to deal with. The consumer is screwed on price and they're screwed on getting useful purchase information from an educated salesperson. It's pure crap.

You're correct, purchase commitments at retail are near universal, but the article is overweighting the pressure from Apple, or any other manufacturer and is not paying enough attention to the insidious part of sales commitments.

When you're negotiating a big resell deal the manufacturer will have a pretty good idea of what you're capable of pushing and will toss that number out there along with other breakpoint numbers for increased incentives. As an easy numbers example lets say you've got to do $1M annual to be an authorized reseller and you'll get 30 net 0 float but if you commit to $1.5M they'll do 60 day net 0 float. If you commit to $5M they'll do 90 net 0 with 5% price reduction, free shipping and $100,000 of POP. If you commit to $10m you'll get all that and they'll agree to take 1/3 of your 'dissatisfied customer' non-warranty returns. They've already got break points custom designed for you to get you to the next level of commit.

So while the repercussions are harsh, resellers, especially larger ones, often back themselves into a corner by over committing to reach greater levels of incentives. Not excusing the manufacturers, but they manage their supply chains and financials based on those commits. If somebody falls far short it has big implications upstream.

That being said, it's almost the exact same scenario that occurred in the mortgage mess. Manufacturers are willing to let resellers hang themselves with insane commitments and resellers are far too willing to take on excessive commitments to get that better deal. As long as the ball keeps rolling it's fine, but sooner or later it's guaranteed to snowball and somebody is left holding a shitload of useless contracts.

The manufacturer (Apple) can book the committed sales and count them towards revenue and the reseller (Verizon) uses those commitments in sales forecasts that affect stock prices. Just like with the mortgage mess though sooner or later the music stops and a whole bunch of people are left out.

It's all a huge mess and personally I don't think there's enough disclosure in public company reporting and too many people have their retirements riding on things nobody outside the industry understands. Traditionally these sorts of things have had minimal risk for the average person. The retail market, while enormous, has always been so fragmented that implosions in one corner didn't impact anyone else. But the sheer scale of a largely unified retail element is a big, ultra nasty, problem that's brewing. About 2/3 of the US economy is in retail sales and the financials as a sector make housing look like an incidental line item. But it's being run the exact same way as housing was...

Re: Couldn't they just spend the 14 billion Dollars on.

Rolling your own OS is insanity if somebody else already has one that works well and is popular. Reinventing the wheel has killed more software companies than shoddy business plans and fancy office furniture ever has. It's simply bad business to take a tool that can be customized to fit your needs and toss it out.

The marketing also carries a greater direct return for a company like Samsung. They've got an enormous product catalog outside of mobile phones and every ad with their name on it increases the strength of their name and increases the likelihood you'll buy products in their other categories.

The fundamental difference between Samsung and other mobile phone manufacturers is usually overlooked in these discussions. Samsung is a titan in electronics and phones are just one category they're involved in. It's also one of their lowest profit per unit categories. Most other mobile phone manufacturers are fairly focused in their mission and will not realize the same marketing benefits a hugely diversified company like Samsung will. Every dollar spent advertising a Galaxy S4 is also a dollar spent on the thousands of other products they offer. You can't compare Samsung marketing strategies to those of a Googlrola or Apple or Nokia, they're vastly different things.

Spending the money on marketing on top of an already well received OS is going to be far more effective than creating their own and still having the costs of marketing to deal with.

Why do you think people know and want iPhones? Some kind of dormant biological mechanism that Apple products activate?

Apple spend a pretty penny on marketing too. They're just more targeted in their efforts, they have to be. There's nothing in their catalog at the price points where Samsung has tons of other products. Samsung has a far, far broader user base and to appeal to that massive section of people of course they're going to have to spend more. Granted they are spending a lot more, but that won't be sustained.

No one strategy is better than the other, they're two different ways to accomplish the same ends. Just like their business models.

Re: Not necessarily

Why would they be skeptical? You've been affected by a major marketing campaign and now you're furthering that same campaign. Skeptisim itself hasn't been benificial...

If you're reading product reviews you are participating in the marketing campaigns and your opinion has already been swayed by what you perceive are Samsung product issues. You've already compared at least one other thing to Samsung and now you're online talking up the advantages of not using Samsung. You may think you're doing it independently but you've been convinced to become so emotionally invested in a product that you'll participate in the marketing and do your part to turn other skeptics.

You did exactly what you were supposed to do. What the marketing campaign intended for you to do from the beginning. All the tools were handed to you and you've used them to their intended effect. It's tricky stuff. As the subject of this article billions and billions of dollars are spent every year figuring out how to get people to do what you want but feel like they arrived at the decision themselves.

Re: Branding

The problem isn't Samsung being bad at branding, it's Google being better at branding. People know Android, not Samsung Galaxy S4 so much. Everybody and anybody who sells an Android based device benefits from Google's sideways data collection campaign as well as the mega dollars Samsung has to spend to change the situation.

Google could care less who is using Android, as long as it's being used. It's a fairly weird situation which you don't see very often where a secondary product is better known than the primary. Almost like people buying a set of Michelin tires and they just happen to have a Lexus attached to them.

That's not remotely correct. No one is immune to marketing, even if you don't know where you fit in on the chain. The fact you've included a swipe at a particular company's offerings indicates you are not only among the more inquisitive customer, you are highly desirable as an unpaid evangelist for the product(s) of your choosing.

You've been exposed to marketing efforts from at least two companies and have chosen the product you liked best. The fact you were exposed to the efforts of more than one company indicates everyone's marketing was successful, regardless of the option you chose. The final purchase decision is sales, not marketing so someone's sales strategy didn't pan out, but everyone's marketing succeeded.

None of that to say you're weak minded or easily influenced, but to attempt to place yourself out of the reach of marketing is foolish. You're getting messages but failure to acknowledge them makes you more open to efforts which you don't recognize as marketing.

Re: Wondering

Emoticons?

Re: !Subtle under tones

Sarcasm is an art that was never practiced in this country. Approximately 49% of US inhabitants couldn't correctly identify sarcasm if their lives depended on it. About 49% of the remainder have a severe humor deficiency all the way around, due to the fact that they're in over their heads regarding life in general.

Most problems can't be shot or eaten so they feel helpless, thus humorless. The remainder are the weird people who had too much school and foreigners who can't speak English. The foreigners are assumed to only be discussing drug smuggling, impregnating white women or their massive campaign to take all the jobs, so it doesn't matter what they say.

Irony is something the women do when they're bored. Alternatively, irony is kids with wealthy parents advancing a corporate beer marketing campaign by eschewing corporate marketing campaigns.

There are advantages though. When party guests have overstayed their welcome you can start a run of Flying Circus and within 20mins everybody is gone. You can also deliver devastating insults and have no fear of repercussions as they'll believe you've just paid them a huge compliment.