Microsoft buys 800 patents from AOL covering search, ads, more

@dino: There's a problem with caring about the environment: it reduces the profits of certain big companies. So anyone who values corporate profitability (particularly ones which donate a lot of money to "campaign contributions") will naturally oppose any kind of environmental laws. Also, anyone who opposes government regulation will oppose such laws out of principle. But then both of these factors don't really fit into "liberal" or "conservative", and can be argued both ways. At the heart of it, "liberal" is supposed to mean "wanting change", and "conservative" is supposed to mean "opposed to change", but again, that's not really what we actually see from people claiming these labels for themselves.

Anyway, I think this is headed pretty far off-topic now, unless you want to talk about how such things affect FOSS licensing and such, if you want to give the mods fits about the rules in the TOS (on one hand, if a discussion is political, it should be against the TOS, but on the other hand, if it's also about FOSS licensing, that goes to the very heart of what this forum is about: this yields a paradox; the mods are going to have a terrible time if some political candidate adopts public stance on FOSS!).

My favourite American pundit, Molly Ivins (from Texas, would you believe it -- no longer with us, alas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ivins argued that the terms (and defined spectrum) of "left' vs 'right' had become meaningless and outdated.

She proposed that these days, the more accurate and useful terms "screwer" vs "screwee" define a much more politically relevant spectrum.

@khamul --

You make a fundamental error -- presuming that all corporations have the same interests beyond making money. Companies who make "green" things, or perform "green" services have a profitability interest in the environment. The trick is getting both people and providers on board, and there are millions of tiny little things that work that way.

For example -- my family likes carbonated beverages. Used to go through cases of the stuff.

Now we make it. We drink less, but the real win is that syrup and carbon bottles take up a lot less space and use a lot less packaging than the stuff we used to buy. Cheaper for us, easier for us, and better for the environment. A million little things like that will make somebody a bundle --- AND help leave a better place for the grandkids. Hard to go wrong that way...AND...it doesn't matter what you call your politics. Making money while making the world a better place? Who can hate that?

@dino: Yes, there are corporations that make profit with "green" things, but there's other corporations that are older, more established, and with bigger pockets to give "campaign donations", which are the opposite, and anything "green" hurts their profitability.

Do you make your beverages with cane sugar, or that HFCS junk? I won't even drink the latter any more; the former is harder to find, but actually tastes like soda used to taste decades ago.

@khamul -

Old and established corporations always fight the new ones, and yet we have Microsoft and Apple in spite of IBM and Amazon in spite of Barnes & Noble and the now-defunct Borders. And even reigning giants can ride the wabe :the Prius is now a whole family of cars while the Hummer is extinct and General Electric is a major supplier of wind turbines.

When all is said and done, supply meets demand, not the other way around. Just ask the folks at Eastman Kodak.

Oh ... cane sugar.

Quoting:supply meets demand, not the other way around.

What a nice campaign slogan that would make, it has a nice ring to it and gets the message through some thick heads. May be it might help to sink in.

Good one @Dino.

Dino,

I agree that supply and demand always meet, or in the economics parlance, "Markets Clear".

Oh, a T-shirt already exists with that on it: https://mises.org/store/Say-T-Shirt-White-P315C43.aspx

One change I would make, maybe it's just a change in "order of operations", is that in order to be "consumed" something must first be "produced". No one could install Linux until Linus wrote it, for example.

Price also tempers demand. Everyone wants a Ferrari, not everyone can afford it, or afford the cost of maintaining it, etc.

So while people will dive in to make more of something, thus increasing the supply when they perceive a demand that is not being met, the famous "profit motive", there is no certainty (except if you're Apple) that if you come out with something new anyone will want it at all.

On "Classical Liberal", since the subject came up, an article posted today which goes into it:

http://lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon96.1.html

Cane sugar! Good on you! Tastes better, too. (I will not go into a diatribe about sugar quotas, tariffs, corn subsidies, etc)

Quoting:...is that in order to be "consumed" something must first be "produced"

@Rob,

Let's not forget that demand for the basic essential necessities is always there.

Food, energy, medicine, booze/moonshine, etc. will always be produced because of the constant demand that will not cease to exist as long as there are human beings on the surface of the Earth or unless robots take over after.

Now for a very uncharacteristic message and forking the thread back to the topic title:

[serious (I think)]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ICringely/~3/l_cfRSovx2U/?utm...

This link gives a very different interpretation to the sales of these patents. However, I cannot see MS foregoing the opportunity to spread unease and effectively monetizing (despite having other reasons to make the purchase).

[/serious]

So unlike me to hew to the topic.

YBT

Fettoosh,

"Let's not forget that demand for the basic essential necessities is always there."

Indeed, but what constitutes "basic essential necessities" is not static, nor the same for any two people. I'm certain that my demand for alcohol is very different from Caitlyn's or Dino's, and is even very different from the demand of most everyone I know due to my dislike of beer.

Energy? Prior to electricity there was no demand for electricity. Before John D. Rockefeller cut the price of petroleum to consumers, Whale Oil was was in such huge demand that whales were in danger of being exterminated.

The Flemish painters of the early 1600s were painting images like the "Fruit Stall" and "Meat seller" because the new abundance of food created by relatively free trade was overturning what had been established eating patterns.

http://mises.org/daily/5980/Plenty-by-Competition

I'm not saying you're wrong that there will always be demand. Only that what constitutes a product that is +in+demand+ constantly changes due to what is available to be demanded.

Something cannot be consumed until it is produced. Production of a thing must precede its consumption. One cannot eat an apple until the apple exists to be eaten.

@Rob,

And I am not disagreeing with your point that something has to exist before it can be consumed. That is a Duh, even for Homer Simpson. :-)

Like the saying goes, "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". i.e. demand is what triggers and drives manufacturing a lot more so than manufacturing and existence does.

What I was trying to say is, Dino put it in a better and more accurate form than the usual popular "Supply & Demand".

@CB and @Fet --

Such a lovefest, that I hate to add one teensy little point that should have been obvious, especially to a free-market type like @CB:

In a free market, demand creates opportunity, and entrepreneurs (eventually) tend to take advantage of opportunity, leading to production that, ahem, meets demand.

So -- even if everybody would like a Ferrari, but lack the means, they can still get a pretty darned sweet Corvette/Mustang Boss/370Z/Miata/Mini Cooper/Fiat Abarth, etc.

Fettoosh,

"What I was trying to say is, Dino put it in a better and more accurate form than the usual popular "Supply & Demand"."

Yet his addition, "not the other way around" is not accurate. Sometimes it is the other way around. In this case it was one way, in other cases it is the other way.

Markets clear.

Quoting:Apple, Google and Microsoft might enter into a huge legal battle now but I don’t see it happening.

Just like in the Cold War, mutually assured destruction will probably keep them safe.

That sums it up pretty well, but doesn't say anything about the little guys, who will be suffering the most from this unwritten détente and hidden cartel.

This scenario is most likely to happen and will assure the continuation of the current corrupt patent system.

Quoting:Markets clear

According to Wikipedia

Edited: Corrected link to go strait to Wikipedia.

Quoting: In economics, market clearing refers to either

a simplifying assumption made by the new classical school that markets always go to where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded; or

the process of getting there via price adjustment. ...

To me, that sounds like demand not only the driver of supply, but also pricing, not the other way around. :-)

Besides, when a product is made available without any preexisting demand, it is actually an attempt at creating demand for a supply, which might or might not be successful.

My point is, demand exist with or without supply, while supply won't or continue to exist without demand.

Fetoosh, I'm fascinated by the "or" in your Wikipedia quote.

It's an interesting twist, making it seem like adjusting prices is independent of supply/demand. Yet raise the price of something, demand goes down. Lower the price, demand goes up.

HP demonstrated that last fall. The dropped their tablet price and they sure did clear!

Arguing simple semantics, which is all I see remaining, is not beneficial for anyone. Be well.

Quoting:Arguing simple semantics,

@Bob,

I am not really arguing your point, I am just trying to get to the point that, Supply & Demand principles these days work beautifully with luxury items, but fail miserably in the case of necessities. Oil, health care/medicine, food are good examples (booze was just a throw-in before).

The issue we have now is that, cartels found a way, and governments (I know you dislike them) allowed them, to game the free market system. So people/consumers/customer are no longer in control as used to when Supply & Demand were being balanced by competition. Cartels gotten rid of the beautiful competition that is needed and necessary for S&D curves to intersect. They live in high havens these days reaping high profits because of what we are unable to live without any more.

Fettoosh,

"but fail miserably in the case of necessities."

I couldn't disagree more.

The "failures" you perceive are because markets in those necessities are actively intruded upon and interfered with. That's why the "cartels" are able to flourish, they leverage the regulatory system to their own advantage. Competition is being crushed BY the very regulatory regime that is telling you they regulate "for your own good", or to "promote competition".

The problems you see are real. On that you and I agree.

I was distracted by your comment about S&D curves, since they always meet somewhere. Thus, "markets clear", Say's Law. It's not like they can ever "not" cross, save if there is no supply, or no demand. Forgive me for not getting what you meant quickly enough.

Quoting:I was distracted by your comment about S&D curves, since they always meet somewhere

OK, they do meet, but only where the producers/distributors of the products and services want them to be. Take for instance oil, and byproducts o, healthcare, and such, they can set and raise the prices as they wish and no one can do anything about it but the consumers taking a very drastic action. That, in my opinion, most likely is not going to happen.

About the government and regulations, I believe government does have a role to play. But corrupt government/regulation is even worse than government without a role. It is up to the people to make sure to elect good officials, and if the people can't even do that, they deserve what they get.

I believe good government should have a role in keeping S&D working. they can do that by having agencies to act as corporations to make supply and services sufficient and enough to keep prices reasonable and fair. I know this is going raise havoc, but I will leave it at that.

@Bob_Robertson: You're wrong when you say I agree with you about anything at all, and we are 180 degree polar opposites on basic principles and issues. At best your political views induce extreme nausea.

To me this thread is a giant TOS violation. I have three choices: argue in kind and make this a political debating board (which it is again as of now anyway), two, leave, this time for good, or three, complain to management and hope for a repeat of last time when the TOS was enforced. I choose option three.