Instead of developing ever more intrusive technology, why don't we just stop behaving in ways that make people want to kill us? That makers assure us this device has little radiation danger... why should we believe the people selling a product that the product is safe? Thoreau complained about (referring the Mexican War) how few people it took to get a democracy in war (and then, all the more true in the war between the states.) We were formed as a republic, to in fact make war difficult to initiate. So sad we changed.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Claudius Starts Patent War
Paul Allen is financially quite lucky, having been a part of the start of Microsoft. Nothing he has worked on since Microsoft has panned out, although billions have been invested by Allen. Through one of his failed companies he has decided to try to sue just about anyone who has been successful where he has failed.
His vehicle is patent trolling, a process where you acquire a patent and try to use it to shake down someone successful.
Paul Allen is quite wealthy and plans to give it "all away." Of course, as I blogged here, the rich never really give it away, they just require we pay to keep them rich. Allen is adept at making taxpayers pick up the tab for his toys. When Washington state taxpayers rejected building him a stadium, he paid for another election, off cycle, that guaranteed he would win. He got his stadium, taxpayers got the bill. When he had gathered substantial real estate in one part of Seattle, he had a toy trolley of 1880s technology built from downtown to his property at a cost 4 times what China pays for maglev, again at taxpayers expense, and now, since it is a huge moneyloser, at taxpayer's perpetual expense.
With Allens activities being charged off to taxpayers, and his exploitation of the inherently restraint of trade IPR laws, Microsoft itself is becoming a net deficit for the Seattle area.
IPR makes our management cost more than other places, so it puts us at a disadvantage. The crazy law promoting IPR requires we pay to provide means for billionaires who want more to somehow improve their legacy.
Oh... Claudius was the accidental Roman emperor who is portrayed by Latin scholar Robert Graves as so dispirited by his failures in the world around him he positively worked to destroy the society that raised him up.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Fear of Raw Milk Is a Conditioned Reflex
Your fear of raw milk is a conditioned reflex. Tha bad guys learned from Pavlov how to keep you in line. You were told over and over, to the point extremely few people will disagree, that raw milk is dangerous. It is not, any more than eggs or spinach. Government never catches an disease outbreak. Much of wht we eat, carries disease. In almost all cases, the cook eliminates any risk.
Raw milk from small dairies is quite safe, and far more healthy than the pointless whitewater you buy from mega-dairies. Hence it is becoming ever more popular. It is not possible for megadairies to keep raw milk safe. To eliminate the competition, the megadairies, and the "safety inspectors" and the police departments destroy family farms. Not only in Wisconsin, but all fifty states. Here is an example. WE need more of this kind of reporting.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Thesis, Antithesis: Synthesis
Pax has improvised a solution to the risk question, and not the very important point that she is doing the supplier a favor limiting their risk as well...
Hi John, Thanks so much for your quick feedback. All three suggestions forced me to think the thing through from a different perspective. I see now I wasn't thinking very creatively about how to manage the risk. I'm going to go with option 2 -- splitting the order into several smaller shipments. The smallest order I can do for this product is about $10,000. But what I can do is order the goods, paying 30% or $3000 down, as per the manufacturer's terms. I'll have the manufacturer send me a sample by Fedex to test myself (much cheaper than SGS, I think). If the quality is good, I can proceed with the final payment and shipment to my client with confidence. If the product doesn't work out, I'm only out $3000 -- not the end of the world. The total amount of the order, if done all at once, is about $60,000 so by comparison this is pretty minimal risk. Then I'll gradually increase the orders until I'm satisfied the manufacturer can consistently deliver a quality product. Nice thing is , after thinking over your options, I approached the manufacturer with the idea of starting small and building successively larger orders and they seemed happy. This is a new product for them too, so it helps them minimize their risk, too. Thanks again for your help! Now I can quote my client without worrying about spending months tossing and turning at night, worrying about blowing $60,000 that I don't have. Cheers, Pax
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Pax Has An Urgent Question
Dear John, I read your book over a year ago and it has changed my life. Thank you. Toward the beginning of the book, in the section "Protecting Yourself," you discuss how importers "have full product liability on the legal fiction the importer is the manufacturer" (p. 38). I have a question about product liability that's especially pressing. Until recently I have been importing goods and wholesaling them at my own risk. I have suffered some troubles as a result of defectives or improperly packaged goods but I was prepared for such setbacks and simply wrote the shipments off as losses as I had nobody to blame but myself. However, I am now in the position to source a large quantity of one product for a client in my country. The supplier is reputable -- I have dealt with them 3-4 times and have found they ship quality goods on time and to spec. My Terms & Conditions of Sale state that I will replace defective goods or refund invoice value for damaged goods. If anything goes awry with the shipment, under these terms, it is probable it will ruin me and my business completely. On the other hand, if things go well, it will be the boost I really need right now. I have asked the overseas manufacturer to guarantee the goods against defects. They have agreed to accept a contract stating such terms. I know there's no legal recourse should the manufacturer decide to renege on the contract, but I thought it would be good to set the expectation prior to placing the order. I am thinking to ask them to ship replacements or refund invoice value of any defectives. If I get a refund from the manufacturer, I'll only be out shipping + duties -- still not good but I can probably take that hit and survive. Does this approach make any sense? I wonder if there's a better way to handle the risk of receiving defective goods and being sued / destroyed by my domestic client. Anyway, I don't have anybody to talk to about this kind of thing because importing is such a solitary trade. So any advice you might have would really help!! Thanks, Pax
Pax,
Rock and a hard place! You need the benefit of the large sale, but if it goes bad you will be ruined. So you can buy insurance, in various forms:
1. By going to the 3rd party like SGS, and having them QC the shipment before it leaves as a condition of sale by the supplier... but that might cost too much...
2. Does your customer need the entire shipment at once? Say it is $20,000 worth of goods that he plans to sell over five months... will your buyer accept one shipment a month for 5 months, thus totalling $20,000? If so, no one shipment can break you, and the cost of the extra freight is a form a insurance.
3. Can you afford the $1200 to travel to the source and QC the goods themselves as they are made and packed and shipped?
Let us know if any of these will work...
John
Monday, August 23, 2010
Biodiesel Hazards
The Europeans have caught Americas trying to smuggle biodiesel into Europe to get rid of it at super-low prices. It takes more oil to make a gallon of biodiesel than we get from the process, and we have to pay huge subsidies at that. Since biodiesel ruins engines, nobody wants it. So, we are stuck trying to get this hazardous waste outside of USA, and one way is to dump it on the European market. Nice work politicians... no wonder we are broke.
Holly Checks In on IPR, Design and Lawsuits
Holly sent me this .pdf of legal filings regarding copyright infringement of designs of one small business, by another. It appears to be a small import business otherwise doing everything right. And yes, it appears to be direct rip off of designs, likely the "rip-off" artist bought the product directly form the supplier of the original designer. I see some very expensive lawyering going on, for product design infringement. Now I can also see by going to the "owners" website the "owner" of the design no longer carries the item. No doubt the rip-off artist no longer carries the item either. So what was the point of the lawsuit if the item is not very valuable, what a waste not making money off the rip-off artist, without lawyers!
We can also assume since there is a lawsuit the "owner" never persuaded the factory to go ahead and sell the item to 3rd parties, at a higher price, remitting the extra to the "owner," as I recommend.
Since we compete on design, and develop our own, we will never infringe on anyone else's designs. So the only question is what to do when someone else rips off our designs. if you took my class and read my book, you know you will encourage people to rip off your designs, since you automatically make money when that happens. In real life, there is absolutely no reason for "Intellectual Property Rights."
Nosing around the sight, I see you can discover all of the importers customers by using their lookup feature on their website... check it out.
http://www.designideas.net/Consumers/Buy.aspx
A Call For Violence
The neocon dem/repub project is based in violence, hence all the damage around us. There are people openly calling for violence to fight the bad guys. They will be far worse than what we have now. Self-employment is the only non-violent effective avenue available to peace and prosperity loving people.
IN Missouri:
Sunday, August 22, 2010
"Public Health"
On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Anthony wrote:
The Chinese were vaccinating with powdered scabs from people infected with smallpox as far back as 200 BC.
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu saw the Turks vaccinating people in a similar way back in 1718, had her own children vaccinated, and tried to push the idea on the medical community at the time, but she was a women and the practice was "oriental" so it wasn't accepted by the medical establishment.
Edward Jenner found cowpox worked well as a vaccine back in 1760.
So, the world had known about vaccination for centuries, yet it was not until 1979 that smallpox was eradicated, only after mass vaccination efforts by the quasi government UN sponsered World Health Organization (WHO). Now, no one has to be vaccinated, which is a risk in itself.
So why didn't the free market erradicate smallpox? Why did it take efforts by WHO?
You work in a top ten hospital, so this info is easy for you to gather: Ask an epidemiologist how many diseases we have lurking in us... and the answer will be countless, all held in check by our immune systems. It is when immune systems breakdown that diseases move up and take over. A disease is generally limited to the the individual because the group immune systems are not compromised.
In times of war, when mass swathes of humanity are suffering, there is mass swathes of immune deficiency, and then diseases really spread... bizarre and nasty things. After war, it is quite a task to stamp out the polio, flus, beri beri and nasty things war was able to spread. One theory of AIDS is lifestyle brought on war-like immune deficiencies, which allowed the disease to spread.
If we were to eradicated mumps measles small pox leprosy, and we should let the free market do it, next war we would have an emergence of some other nasty killer we did not know about. In Flu alone we never know what its next version will be, and since we do not have a free market in medicine, we do not have corner apothecaries whipping up vaccinations like hamburgers.
Mass vaccination is bogus social engineering, and likely bogus science. First of all, absent war, vaccination is not necessary. Second, given war, if Biafran kids do not die of a disease for which WHO happened to vaccinate them, then they will die of a disease no one saw coming.
WHO offers vaccine (of doubtful quality) as a political act, where free markets have been suppressed by political action. WHO charity is not necessary in places of free market, peace and prosperity such as Hong Kong, Switzerland etc. Free markets keep disease in check. War, the state in its ultimate form, destroys markets and immune systems. If you care about eradicating disease, necessarily you must be pro-peace, and thus cannot vote for Obama or Bush or ... hmm...I guess anyone.
This isn't pipe dreams, there are pockets of peace and prosperity and health all over the world. We need to emulate them, not promote WHO.
It is extremely important to avoid any vaccination program, according to the various doctors I have consulted. People are realizing this, but the problem is we do not have enough doctors left who can provide proper medical care aside from state-mandated paint-by-numbers voodoocare. Sure let an emergency room set a bone, if you don't mind risking a little MRSA, but otherwise have an oldtimer on call for internal medicine.
John
Anthony
Duncan Queries On Design
On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Duncan wrote:
Which part of the rug was innovative..what didn't exist before?The rug in your video... I don't know enough about the sector to see what was new when you touted this to retailers. It's nice subjectively, but what was unique? Was it the pattern, or the way you combined wool of different color? Or was this a follow on product from a really unique product you had previously introduced? I'd have difficulty telling a retailer exactly what is new.. but maybe speciality carpet retailers would see something different in this rug.
***Right...***
I've nailed down what's confusing.. I'm not deep enough into my industries to see the problems that can be solved by products that are just a little (7 or 8%) different. When you're on the outside you only see the big obvious problems. For example, anyone might think that flying cars is potentially a good idea, but an engineer or buyer working for Ferrari encounters little problems every day that could be the genesis of an import business selling anything from accessories to security products.
With the glass candle you can articulate what's new. "an oil table lamp... in the shape of a candle". It's putting table lamps which have always existed into a candle that makes it new.
I assume for the bread baskets (correct me if I'm wrong please) it was producing it for an individual, single serving, that had never been done before?
Can we say the following? If you can't articulate to the designer what is different, then it isn't different.
And the corollary would be that if you can only look at the product and say 'that's nice' but not explain why it is different than what already exists, it is not new? You can say the glass candle is different because it is an oil lamp in the shape of a candle, and that's never been done before. Converesely, a bread basket that's is made just a bit fancier by a few decorative flowers, or one where the reeds have been weaved in a slightly different way, is NOT NEW.
The product that seems to contradict everything is clothing and fashion. For this they just go in with a theme or look in mind. Since fashion comes in cycles and everything is a mish mash and rehash of the past, whether a collection or individual piece of clothing is 'good' or 'new' basically comes down to a feeling. You can't put it in to words. Whereas, on the contrary, with your glass candle you certainly can.
It doesn't seem like we do a lot of work.. we just notice the problem then turn it over to the designer to fix. The suffering is in finding a suitable problem that's within our means to solve in the first place.
***You must have passion (suffer) and find joy solving the problem. Then you can work with great designers. It otherwise does not take much... this is another reason why I find it so frustrating as to why more people do not get started.***
Dunan
***If it were within your means to solve, then the suffering ends. Do not mistake the ability to imagine for the ability to produce. I have been having tailors make my clothes since the 70s since only I can design clothes properly, for me anyway. the fact that I know what I want does not mean I know how to make it. Hence, I go to designers, tailors who have production capability. Trade is because of division of labor and the fact that although we can find a suitable problem we do not have it within our means to solve in the first place.
John
Big Design, Inexpensive Equipment
Well, one thing leads to another... never heard of this group, but clearly they are using inexpensive equipments to make a business in music, and filming...what you can do with a $300 camera and a mac today!... nearly 5 million hits for this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meT2eqgDjiM&feature=channel
watch this to the end....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xycnv87N_BU&feature=channel
Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-4ZwiW1cPs&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)