Re: that's a pretty difficult thing to achieve
I think you may have lost track of the reason for this discussion.
42029 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
OTOH they have a massive incentive to rubber stamp them because of the fees.
The way to reverse this would be to make them liable for all the challengers' costs on successful challenges.
There might even be an argument for making them liable for the holder of the failed patent on the grounds that is the patent had been refused initially they wouldn't have made the failed attempt to assert it. However covering the costs of trolls ought not to be supported by public policy - best just to return their fees.
“personalized information push service technology based on data analysis"
Based on the sort of "your might be interested in" garbage the usual web souks* push at me I'd not expect the absence of this to make it any less valuable.
Perhaps this "valuable" technology could just be licensed. The licensing terms and audits could be based on those used by the successful purchaser for their own business software.
* to use standard el Reg terminology
face-to-face meetings may be the "gold standard" of interaction
My recollection of face-to-face meetings to start projects would be to look around, spot the two or three people you'll end up working with to deliver the project (i.e. those you've worked with successfully before), those who will get in the way, those will sit there doing neither and wondering about the new faces. The ones you'll work with you can work with by any means of communication. The oxygen-consuming obstructions will operate mostly through other meetings. The inert ones will get their time wasted by the previous group assuming they do stuff when they're not in meetings. The unknowns are only of value if they turn out to belong in the first group.
Gold standard? You can keep it.
"Many more people lose jobs. (Aside: do office workers realize how many people even a smallish restaurant employs?)"
I live in the country. I don't need to go into a city to help give employment to workers in smallish restaurants. I was about to say I can't remember the last time I went into a city other than to ask awkward questions at a Building Soc AGM - then I remembered. Summer of 2018 we took the grandkids to the Titanic exhibition in Belfast; even that's not really in the city centre. Before that? Must be years.
The reason cost of living isn't the same everywhere is because the notion of cramming thousands on office jobs into the same small area raises the cost of living for all those who work there. Commuting costs and the cost of housing because everyone wants to live as close as possible to cut down commuting time are the main drivers. Take out that distorting factor and cost of living can even out.
In city centres income per square (unit of choice) for commercial purposes will be far greater than that generated by using the same building for residential purposes, particularly if there is a stipulation for "affordable" rent.
You're assuming there's still going to be a market for all that commercial square footage. The essence of this entire thread is that there might not be. In that case those who change tack quickly will lose less than those who continue to base there policies on the assumption that income per square for commercial purposes will be far greater than that generated by using the same building for residential purposes.
"when the mass evictions and foreclosures start,"
If people are being evicted or foreclosed because they can't afford rent or payments because of COVID 19 where do the landlords and lenders think they're going to get new tenants and buyers once the limited amount of slack has been taken out of the market? From other people who also can't afford rent or payments because of COVID 19?
Those who are able to afford to rent or buy will be in the driving seat. They'll be able to drive property prices down.
Landlords and lenders would be far better off, assuming the tenants/borrowers have been OK before, coming to arrangements and being prepared to write off some lost income.
"If rent dropped to say mid 90s levels and they've bought or refinanced a building in the past 25 years they are still going to be in trouble."
Whatever they do some of them are going to be in trouble. Call it overshoot, call it a property bubble, whatever. It's taken this to start bringing home to people what should have been obvious for years now - the growth of big cities has exceeded rational limits. Their time has gone.
"Fewer people will want to live in the big cities if they're working from home and commute time is no longer a factor. You can live just about anywhere so long as you have decent broadband."
Not everyone will be working from home. Mixing residential and business would make it easier for those whose employers are dedicated to presenteeism to avoid commutes.
AFAICS the growth of cities has been in overshoot for a good while now. Simply getting people into work in big cities has been a major headache for years, not helped, at least in the UK for town planning policies which, for more or less the whole of the post-war period, have been dedicated to separating residential end working zones. Just to add insult to injury for those condemned to long commutes, they were then blamed for causing congestion.
It's time to rethink. Don't build more offices in cities. Look at the possibility of shared work spaces in the peripheral towns. Move as many of those who continue to work in cities and are prepared to live there into converted ex-offices. And accept that even then there will be redundant space there.
"some people simply don't have the space to be able to do that"
Enforced home working is serving to demonstrate a bigger issue: that the big office in the big city isn't necessary for any business that doesn't have a vested interest in big city property and services. A more practical idea might be the provision of shared workspaces or smaller offices closer to where employees live.
I hope that at some point, for instance, it might dawn on banks that they could start opening small offices in small towns and villages where employees who live locally could work instead of commuting into big cities to expensive offices. They could then cut down on that city office space and - who knows - they could actually open part of those small offices to offer a service to the public. It could even be competitive in helping them to attract more customers.
"Added to which, many jobs simply cannot be done remotely."
This is true. After all I spent half my working as a lab. scientist. But the other half was spent working in IT where one of the major challenges has the hell of the open plan office and a good deal of it could have been done using my own equipment at home.
I often agree with Bob but usually give up under the barrage of caps lock.
However you've triggered me now. The lady in question was a talker. On the phone. Incessantly. In an open office. In the next pig-pen. And despite working for a phone company hadn't realised that with a phone you can talk to people a long way away without shouting.
Sometimes that, getting it in the media or emailing CEO* is the only way to get things done. With automated systems - including those with call centre drones in the loop - things aretoo often handled by repeatedly retrying what's failed. Surprise, surprise, the same thing happens again. Publicity is a way of breaking out of that loop to get the problem escalated.
* Yes, it can work, been on both ends of that although it might only apply to some companies.
"The practice of threatening people who make responsible disclosures of security cockups has long passed out of the IT industry in favour of bug bounty schemes and proper pentesting; perhaps other industries are still playing catchup."
Well it has in those parts of it that actually take protections of customer data seriously as opposed to just stringing together some words they'd heard.