Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I said above, the doctrine is not necessarily obsolete because there are more media.

It's not only more outlets. It's that plus the rise of user gererated and published content, which is still in it's infancy, but will, at some point, have a very large share, if not a majority, of all content.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it's the same issue that was brought up with the TV pay satellite services went through the process.

Alright, I know a few more facts. It's similar, but not the same. The principle difference is that in directv/echostar, a number of customers had no alternative way to get tv--there's no cable out in the sticks. On XM/Sirius, the alternatives--broadcast radio, CDs, iPods, etc., are available pretty much everywhere as well (or at least there's much less of a problem with rural customers).

[Gattigap]

South Carolinians look at Fred Thompson, and they like what they see:

• "To be honest with you, it seems to be a personality thing," said Wyndham Owens, a 57-year-old builder from Wagener, S.C., who votes Republican. "From what little I've seen, he seems to be conservative, yet not stupid."

He's a double-threat!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
National TV is not a problem because there are so many cable stations, and while cable would not be subject to the Fairness Doctrine (IIRC) because it doesn't involve the airwaves, it provides diversity. I thought local TV was the problem.

Print media has nothing do with the Fairness Doctrine.

FCC regulates cable tv as well. So they could seek to apply it there, just as they seek to apply obscenity rules to cable tv. That said, the rationale for regulating content on broadcast tv is different for cable.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
South Carolinians look at Fred Thompson, and they like what they see:

• "To be honest with you, it seems to be a personality thing," said Wyndham Owens, a 57-year-old builder from Wagener, S.C., who votes Republican. "From what little I've seen, he seems to be conservative, yet not stupid."

He's a double-threat!

I'm glad that's the standard Rs have sunk to: Not stupid.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The state antitrust enforcers say it too.

one of my clients was gun shy re. antitrust boomeranging from filing a patent complaint. So when we were tapped to sue a company on an automotive patent we had to meet with DC antitrust counsel. The guy was probably billing twice what I did, and was completely full of hot air- BUT his point was that my patent was itself the relevant market, or could very likely be. so what he said was different from what everyone has said to GGG or you or burger.

after about an hour of showing him existing alternatives he still was not ready to green light us. So i told him I was going to write the client that if Antitrust guy's opinion was right, the company should just stop patenting anything becasue it was circular that the patents could never be used. He backed down a little bit then.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one of my clients was gun shy re. antitrust boomeranging from filing a patent complaint. So when we were tapped to sue a company on an automotive patent we had to meet with DC antitrust counsel. The guy was probably billing twice what I did, and was completely full of hot air- BUT his point was that my patent was itself the relevant market, or could very likely be. so what he said was different from what everyone has said to GGG or you or burger.

after about an hour of showing him existing alternatives he still was ready to green light us. So i told him I was going to write the client that if Antitrust guy's opinion was right, the company should just stop patenting anything becasue it was circular that the patents could never be used. He backed down a little bit then.

Let me know next time you're in town. I'll give you an antitrust primer for the price of a beer.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one of my clients was gun shy re. antitrust boomeranging from filing a patent complaint. So when we were tapped to sue a company on an automotive patent we had to meet with DC antitrust counsel. The guy was probably billing twice what I did, and was completely full of hot air- BUT his point was that my patent was itself the relevant market, or could very likely be. so what he said was different from what everyone has said to GGG or you or burger.

after about an hour of showing him existing alternatives he still was ready to green light us. So i told him I was going to write the client that if Antitrust guy's opinion was right, the company should just stop patenting anything becasue it was circular that the patents could never be used. He backed down a little bit then.

Why were you arguing with him when he was green lighting you?

And why didn't you call Ty?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why were you arguing with him when he was green lighting you?

Double-reverse psychology. These fucking antitrust guys, they'll never outthink a good patent lawyer.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm glad that's the standard Rs have sunk to: Not stupid.

They're ready for a change.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why were you arguing with him when he was green lighting you?

And why didn't you call Ty?

i dropped a "not." i have tried to meet Ty but he lives to far from where i am all the time.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one of my clients was gun shy re. antitrust boomeranging from filing a patent complaint. So when we were tapped to sue a company on an automotive patent we had to meet with DC antitrust counsel. The guy was probably billing twice what I did, and was completely full of hot air- BUT his point was that my patent was itself the relevant market, or could very likely be. so what he said was different from what everyone has said to GGG or you or burger.

after about an hour of showing him existing alternatives he still was not ready to green light us.

The guy sounds like an idiot.

And this meeting may have occurred before some clarification from the appellate courts that, e.g., a patent does not itself confer market power. Filing a good faith patent infringement complaint won't give anyone a serious antitrust action against you.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm glad that's the standard Rs have sunk to: Not stupid.

It differentiates us from the Democrats

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It differentiates us from the Democrats

It's a big tent, damnit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's not only more outlets. It's that plus the rise of user gererated and published content, which is still in it's infancy, but will, at some point, have a very large share, if not a majority, of all content.

My concern re the Fairness Doctrine is not with national TV, given the proliferation of cable channels, not to mention the interwebs and other sources of info. My concern is with local markets, where the decisions of individual news outlets may make it hard to get other views. Suppose you live in Dubuque, and the only local TV news is on KCRG and KWWL. If they decide to cover only one side of a story, that could have a huge impact.

More generally, I've posted again and again over the years how the free market can result in crappy news reporting. The airwaves are a public resource. If we're interested in having a robust exchange of ideas, then we don't need to simply auction them off.