Slashdot Mirror
Responses from Consumer Advocate Jamie Love
1) Politician's Reaction
by dexter1
From my perspective, it seems that all of the politicians in congress seem to be firmly in the grasp of big business ......... or intellectually aware of the issues and responsive to viewpoints other than those of big business? Are there any particular politicians that seem more receptive (that could potentially campaign and convince others)?
Jamie Love:
Politics have gone downhill ever since the US Supreme Court decision in
Buckley v. Valeo. By making campaign spending a constitutionally
protected form of speech, and essentially legalizing bribery, we created
a system where the average member of Congress spends most of his waking
hours trying to raise money, just to compete with some other person who
might do the same thing. Now the new members of Congress are people who
excel at fundraising, or have money to begin with. Once they get on
this treadmill, the spent all their time socializing and speaking with
the lobbyists who can raise more money. It isn't so important that a
politician be genius, or have deep insights of their own into problems,
but if you hang out too much with lobbyists and make friends with people
just to ask for money, you get a warped and fairly limited view of the
world.
That said, I have my own favorites. In the Senate I like John McCain, even though I hate what he does maybe half the time. Patrick Leahy is smart and has his moments. Paul Sarbanes is a decent guy, as is Byron Dorgan. All of these guys will make you mad part of the time, but not all of the time. In the House, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Browne, Jan Schakowsky, Jessie Jackson, Jr. and some others have helped us a lot on our work on access to medicines in developing countries. I think Barbara Lee is very good, and independent -- she was the only member of the House that voted against the bill to give the executive branch a blank check in its war against terrorism. She is one of a small handful of members of Congress who are focused on the tragedy unfolding in Africa over AIDS.
2) Consequences for Patent Breakers?
by Bonker
I believe it was Brazil(? Please correct me) who recently ordered pharma plants to start manufacturing AIDS drugs in violation of U.S. patents. What are the consequences for countries who violate patents like this? Can we take this as a sign that violating a patent in this manner, 'for the public good' so to speak, is going to become more common and acceptable?
Jamie Love:
The Brazil case was poorly reported. Yes, Brazil has threatened to
issue compulsory licenses on some patents on AIDS medicine, which has
forced the price down, and yes, Brazil manufactures a number of AIDS
medicines itself. Brazil only included medicines in its patent Act in
1996, after considerable pressure from the US government, so the earlier
AIDS drugs are not covered by patents in Brazil. Now what else has
Brazil done? It spends more than $300 million per year to buy AIDS
drugs, provides universal access to triple therapy for every person in
Brazil who needs it, regardless of their income. Brazil is the only
country in the developing world that makes triple therapy available to
any significant number of patents. Without triple therapy, most HIV+
people will die within ten years.
Brazil hasn't "violated" any patents. Brazil didn't issue patents on pharmaceuticals before 1996, and now it issues patents. Patents are a grant from the government. If the government wants to limit that right, it can, even here. We recently pushed a report that provides examples of compulsory licenses on patents in the United States, to provide a better understanding of how often this is done in richer countries. It makes no sense for the government to give unlimited power to patent owners. Patents are instruments of public policy, to achieve public purposes. People can't do whatever they want with regular property, and they can't do whatever they want with intellectual property.
We have global trade rules that determine what countries can and cannot do in terms of patents. The most important of these agreements is the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement on intellectual property. Articles 27, 30 and 31 of that agreement give governments the right to limit patents in important ways, including cases where governments can create either exceptions to patent rights, or step in and authorize third parties to use patents. In September of this year, the US Department of Justice required 3D Systems Corporation and DTM Corporation to license 178 patents to competitors. I didn't see screaming headlines all over the world announcing that the US was violating patents. Also in September, the US Federal Trade Commission announced it was considering a request for compulsory licenses on Unocal's clean fuel patents, at the request of Exxon. There are lots of circumstances under which the US government can limit patent rights in the United State. But there is often a big international trade crisis when a poor countries wants to issue a compulsory license for a patent on a pharmaceutical drug. This is the case for example in Africa, where infection rates are astonishing. We are working on a compulsory license application in South Africa. Right now more than half of pregnant women in their 20s are testing positive for HIV. They will all die without access to medicines. What type of government would put the interests of patent owners above the interests of half a generation of mothers?
The Clinton Administration was very friendly to the pharmaceutical industry in trade disputes involving medicines, having brought dozens of trade actions against countries all over the world. On January 11 this year, a few days before he left office, President Clinton filed a WTO case against Brazil, claiming their "local working" requirements in the Brazil patent law violated free trade rules. After a great deal of opposition by the public health community, the Bush Administration withdrew the case. Although Clinton actually filed the case and Bush ended it, Clinton is now touring developing countries as a champion of AIDS patients. For eight years Clinton and Gore placed incredible pressure on poor countries to adopt very high levels of intellectual property protection on medicines. President Bush started out with a fairly moderate policy on this, but seems to be increasingly captured by the big pharma companies, in terms of trade policy, and is opposing every effort the poor countries to make the WTO agreement more friendly to the poor, in terms of access to medicine issues.
3) How to communicate issues?
by Sinistar2k
Obviously, the big ticket item is getting the citizenry involved in making changes at a legislative level regarding the liberties that have been traded in
the interest of corporate domination. The problem, however, is finding a way to communicate that without spending three days pointing out cases of
encroaching corporate control.
Do you have any tips/suggestions on how an average technology enthusiast such as myself can best go about conveying to the every-day public the sense of urgency surrounding technology issues and the reason such issues should be addressed?
Jamie Love:
The Internet is an amazing showcase for creative ways to call
attention to various issues and causes. I would barely know how to
start. But I can give what I think are some basics.
- People who take the time to be informed are taken more seriously.
- It helps to have some idea of who the decision makers are, and how you can get in touch. Writing a member of Congress an email probably has some effect, but probably not much. Writing a Congressional staff member who is working on an issue is likely to have a much large effect.
- It is rather amazing how much impact public comments have on government bureaucrats, particularly in formal rulemaking and requests for comments. Something more interesting than you might think would be to spend some time searching the federal register on topics you find interesting.
- Letters to the editor in newspapers are underrated, particularly if you target key papers in a member of Congress' hometown. That's a letter they will read!
- If the issue is getting press attention, lobby the press. What reporters or columnists say and think is pretty important.
- For the non-amateur: during the 1996 Telecom debates, $1,000 apparently would buy about 10 minutes of face to face with the Chairman of a key subcommittee. I don't know the current price. We don't do this, but some small businesses might want to, it costs money to elect a Congressman, and it may make sense to support members who support you. I'm only half kidding.
4) Patent Issues
by michellem
It seems that the patent office has, in the last few years, lost their collective mind. Patents are incredibly broad, or amazingly misdirected, like in the case of the patents on human genes. They currently seem to protect only litigious patent holders, not the consumers or anyone else, for that matter. What is your organization doing to change this current patent landscape? Is there anything that can be done?
Jamie Love:
Well, we are doing what we can. We spent a lot of time communicating
with the patent office, and dealing in particular with the international
dimensions of this. One issue that needs more work is documentation of
the costs of the patent system in various industry sectors. It makes no
sense to have patents issued for software or business methods. The
American Medical Association (AMA) told Congress that "thanks but no
thanks," they did not want patents on surgical methods, and Congress
provided an exception. One problem here is Article 27.1 of the WTO
TRIPS agreement, says that
patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial applicationThe US government has been pushing a very aggressive interpretation on this, and some people at the World Trade Organization or the World Intellectual Property Organization claim that this requires every countries to patent software, business methods and just about anything else. So the USPTO isn't just issuing patents on everything under the sun, it is lobbying the whole world to do so. For example, Jordan is now required by the US government to issue patents on business methods and software.
Another very important international fora concerns the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. I have written a lot about this, and this is our main e-commerce project right now. I can't think of a bigger threat to the Internet than the Hague Convention. The Hague treatment of patents is a nightmare. Everyone would be liable for infringement of foreign patents, and the Hague Convention would give exclusive jurisdiction for both validity and infringement in the county of registration. Every country who signs the Convention would agree to enforce both money judgments and "protective and provisional" measures, such as injunctions, across borders. Companies like Microsoft can find or even rent member countries to adopt and enforce bad patents, and harass the free software community or competitors. In the end, every country will try to tax the Internet through overreaching patents. It presents a huge problem. The US government is actually the most progressive delegation on this issue, and the problem now is convincing Europe to take patents and other intellectual property out of the Convention.
On medicines, we are working with Representative Sherrod Brown, who has introduced HR 1708, a bill that would create a stronger compulsory licensing authority in the US, to deal with such issues as blocking patents, or refusals to license on reasonable terms. This bill is limited to public health, but could be expanded.
One thing the average hacker could do is to communicate more with the Judges who make policy, and by this I mean the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which really makes patent policy in the US. These Judges hear from patent owners all the time, but not from the public.
5) Free Speech
by Nexus Maelstrom
As a University student currently involved with a student group called the Campus Democracy Collective, what is the best way to inform both my peers and government representative that the fight for speech, liberty and freedom from oppression will be fought over bits and bytes, and not how many miles per gallon their car will get?
Jamie Love:
I would start by thinking a bit about what types of freedom you
think are being threatened. Certainly you can find a lot of free
speech on the Internet. What you may find less free are some other
media, such as television, which features a remarkably narrow range of
views, or the new limits on liberty by expanding concepts of
intellectual property. I also think there is a big relationship
between privacy and freedom, this is an area where the role of the
government is complicated, because on the one hand, you want the
government to protect the public from invasions of privacy by businesses
and other institutions, and on the other hand, you want the government
to leave you alone. After September 11, all of this has become much
more difficult to manage. The world has changed, and we have to have
a new strategy to protect privacy and human dignity and freedom in a
world that wants more surveillance and less liberty, in order to be more
safe. How do we enable the government to protect us, while having some
protection against the government?
6) Neverending Copyright
by oddjob
The entertainment industry appears able to get copyright protection extended as long as they wish. While not as directly related to technology as patent law, copyright law is becomming more of a concern, especially with the recent mess with the DMCA. Is your organization making any efforts to convice congress to return copyright duration to a sane limit, and if so, is there much hope for success?
Jamie Love:
Our proposal is to have short terms for works for hire, where a
corporate entity owns the right. This would put movies into the public
domain much sooner, for example, as well as much of the archives of
newspapers. More generally, we need to have a much stronger public
domain lobby, and an international dimension too, to address the WTO
requirements for copyright term.
7) Patents and the cost of development...?
by tenzig_112
How does CPT balance fighting patents on drugs (and other technologies) with the cost of developing those technologies?
Surely, the cost of life-saving medications should not be prohibitive. And dozens of ridiculous patent disputes cannot be good for any industry. But without some means of recouping the often crippling cost of development (for example, 1000s of drugs begin the development process and only a handful make it to the consumer) what incentive is there to investigate new ideas?
What will happen to the fields of medicine and information technology if the market for invention dries up?
Jamie Love:
I spend a lot of time on R&D issues, for example as a member of the
MSF working group on Drugs for Neglected Diseases, and also proposing
various approaches for R&D treaties. It does cost a lot to develop a
drug, but not as much as one might think. If you look at the Orphan
Drug Tax Credit, for example, you find that in 1998 drug companies
spent only $8.6 million on clinical trials per approved orphan product,
a major development cost. Of course for some drugs this can be much
more expensive, running into tens of millions of dollars. The most
difficult and risky part of drug development is the pre-clinical stage,
where there is less data. In general, the US pharmaceutical industry
spends about 7.5 percent of sales on R&D, according to its tax returns.
This amounts to a lot of money, but even here, a lot of this is fairly
low priority stuff, such as "me-too" drugs.
We have proposed R&D mandates for the drug industry. Specifically, we think that every firm that sells drugs in the US market should make mandatory contributions into R&D funds, as a cost of doing business. Companies could manage all or part of this money, for their own benefit, under whatever conditions the government wanted to impose in terms of transparency or public health priorities. This would give the US government new policy tools to increase R&D, if other policy tools, such as compulsory licensing, reduced private incentives.
If you knew how much crap the drug companies get away with now, in terms of ripping off the public on government funded inventions, or "evergreening" patents beyond 20 years, you too would be looking for ways to avoid the constant blackmail over R&D that you get every time you try to introduce some fiscal discipline to the system.
The story on the information technologies side is different, and patents play a much lesser role in protecting investment. Software gets copyright, trademark, trade secret and contract protections. It doesn't need patent protection.
8) The public cost of copyright
by underwhelm
It seems to me that because copyright is intangible, that the public domain is immeasurable, and because expanding copyright takes no money out of
the budget, that IP laws are the pork barrel legislation of the Digital Millennium. Senators and legislators see no problem with enlarging copyright
beyond its traditional boundaries, past fair use and first sale, because there is no means of accounting for the theft. Is there a sense in Washington that
wrapping new copyright restrictions with a bow and handing them to entertainment conglomerates has no downside politically or economically?
If this is the case, how can we change the climate in Washington to make our representatives accountable for diminishing the public domain and enlarging copyright?
Jamie Love:
This is tough, because the entertainment companies really invest in
Congressional campaigns. I would have to say that consumer interests
are weak, as a movement, on the IPR issues. Larry Lessig and others are
trying litigation, raising constitutional arguments. Maybe one
exercise would be to ask members of Congress to estimate the loss to the
public domain for all of these new claims for privatization. One of
the issues is who will pay for the lobbying to protect the public
domain? It helps to have money to fight these battles. We have to
figure out where the money will come from. It isn't easy. I worked
on various IPR issues for a long time before any foundation would fund
this aspect of our work. No one understood what it was about. Very
few groups work on these issues. We do. EFF has been doing some useful
work. Public health groups have been doing a great job on the global
medicines issues, and librarians are pretty well organized on issues
that directly impact them. The ACLU is beginning to think more about
IP issues. Sun Microsystems used to be more active on these issues, as
did a few other firms, but really fairly minor. Bill Gates is very
involved, but not on the side of the public domain. Richard Stallman
seems to have engaged some lobbyists on issues more directly related to
free software.
I guess the best answer is to get organized. In 1996 we formed a group called the Union for the Public Domain (UPD). Richard Stallman, Mickey Davis, myself and several others are on the board, but due to my poor leadership, it isn't active at the moment, and we are looking for a new board chair. Suggestions would be welcome. The main problem was that I couldn't even raise the money for a single full time staff, which is really needed. If someone wants to pay for this, it would be a very good investment.
9) What's your job really like?
by Masem
Whenever I hear the word lobbyist, I think of someone carrying a bag of money to a Congressman, and expecting to get legislation passed; the image
is most likely a result of hundreds of political cartoons and editorals. Obviously, this image isn't 100% true, but from what we as citizens hear on daily
events in Washington, this doesn't seem like an overexaggration.
Can you describe what a typical day is for you - for example, do you see Congressmen, how do you influence their voting (financial or otherwise), and what do you do when you are NOT on Capitol Hill?
Jamie Love:
I spend almost no time on Capitol Hill. I spent a lot of time
outside of Washington, DC, and a lot outside of the United States. In
August I was in Pakistan, the Dominican Republic, Zimbabwe and South
Africa. Tomorrow I leave for Berlin. These face-to-face meetings
are pretty important. We use the Internet a lot, but it is quite
important to build some confidence first, particular when dealing with
international issues, where cultural differences take some time to
understand. I also spent a lot of time writing and sending email,
managing email lists and posting stuff on our web pages. Our typical
contribution is to get fairly technical on policy issues, and share
information fairly widely, via the Internet, trying to build a broader
movement on this or that. In terms of Capitol Hill, I personally talk
with staff more than members, and the same is true with the federal
executive branch agencies -- I talk with middle level staff quite a
bit. Every once in a while I participate in a meeting with the
President or a high level official, but not often, and rarely do I have
much to show for it later. But if you do a good job convincing a few
key staffers, or the general counsel of an agency, or a lead negotiator,
you have really done well. As a practical matter, one of the main
things you also need to do is talk to the press. When I travel a lot,
reporters get a bit tired of trying to track me down. But you can
always call reporters. They play a pretty important role in
government.
10) Why do you use Microsoft Windows
by Anonymous Coward
If you are so anti-corporation, and so anti-Microsoft, to the point of publically criticizing them and their practices, why does the Consumer Project on
Technology, and specifically you, Mr. Love, choose to use Microsoft Windows on your office and home machines?
Jamie Love:
Well, our office uses just about everything. We have Windows boxes,
Linux boxes, Macs and Suns. For a while I moved the CPT unit entirely
to Linux, to have a Microsoft free environment to see how that would
work. We did this for more than a year for everything. Recently I
switched some machines back, and now I use an IBM lap top with Windows
as my main machine. I decided to switch back for several reasons.
First, I had lost touch with what Microsoft was up too, and I needed to
know that. Second, I wanted to use a large number of new devices that I
couldn't get to work on my Linux box. Third, I was having trouble
sharing my Linux documents with colleagues using MS Office, due to the
typical Microsoft anticompetitive practices. And I was pretty unhappy
with the progress in the various GPL office productivity tools, with
the exception of the GNOME spreadsheet program, which was pretty good.
I didn't see much work by AOL in improving the Linux version of
Netscape, and wasn't happy when Microsoft invested in Corel and they
seemed to be dumping the Linux apps. Recently I went back and tried a
few current Linux distributions, and am deciding what to do on that
front right now, wondering why Sun can't make Star Office an easier
install. I've used lots of different computers over time. My first
one didn't have a monitor, only a printer, and my first personal
computer was a Commodore 64, which I used to dial into an IBM
mainframe. I like computers and computing, and I like Linux a lot, but
I am not that happy with the current state of client applications, and a
bit frustrated tying to use various PDAs, scanners, cameras, printers,
etc, with my Linux box.
11) Outside the US of A
by bfree
I'm not American, but in recent years I have been boycotting many American corporations due to the influence they have on the US legal system and
their seemingly inexhaustable ability to gain any IP law they require. I am seriously concerned by the aparently relentless push by US based
coporations to bring an American style Intellectual Property regime to the rest of the world. As a Free Software advocate I find few ideas as repellent
as "Software Patents"! My question to you is how do you see the International Intellectual Property arguments going, and ultimatley will we reach a
system where everyone is under the thumb of software patents or where the US is forced to give up on this terrible idea?
Jamie Love:
As I noted above, the most pressing current danger is the proposed
Hague Convention. We have a lot of information about this on our web
page. Also, by all means file
comments in the EU consolation on the Hague Convention, which can be
done by electronic mail.
I think the second major issue is the WTO TRIPS Article 27.1 language, which is quite expansive in terms of what countries must patent.
The third area to watch out are the various bilateral and regional trade agreements, which are basically out of control. In the US, USTR is the lead agency, and is largely captured by a handful of large corporations. But things are really pretty bad elsewhere too. Some European trade officials and bureaucrats have patent envy, and can't wait to get Europe to become even more aggressive than the US. On the Hague negotiations it is the Europeans who want intellectual property in, and the US that wants it out. So sometimes the problem is in Europe more than here. Look too at the mess caused by the EU decision to create these rights in data under the database directive.
12) Effective technology lobbying and activism for DMCA
by melquiades
I'm part of the group that's organizing the DMCA protests in Minnesota. We're passing out fliers and staging protests, but haven't managed to get any
press. We're also trying to get a face-to-face meeting with our senators...but no luck so far -- their offices haven't even called us back, despite both
written and phoned requests for a meeting.
The problem is, we're technology people, not activists, and we don't know how to lobby effectively. What's your advice? How can we get the attention of our senators? How can we attract media attention (in a respectful way, that is)? Are there other activities we should be undertaking that would be more effective than what we're doing?
Jamie Love:
What worked well in the struggle to change US policy on patents in
AIDS drugs for Africa were people doing some brave things, like
participating in demonstrations, chaining themselves to office furniture
in government offices, getting arrested, and doing lots of civil
disobedience. Today everyone seems a bit spooked by the September 11
events, and I don't know how well this will work. But I believe many
of these older direct action tactics are quite effective. Why not
just find out where the Senator is going to speak and disrupt the
event? That seems to get attention. And maybe some good attention if
you can show that he meets with the other side, but doesn't get your
views. Does he take money from MPAA or RIAA members? And won't meet
with his own constituents? Will the local papers take letters to the
editor? There are ways that you can get a Senator's attention, and
show him that it is in his interest to give you the time of day. Call
me and we can talk about this.
13) consumers and quality
by tim_maroney
Ralph Nader's consumer advocacy has always been first and foremost about quality, of which safety is a subset. Given that the commercial operating
systems (MacOS and Windows) are much more user-friendly than the current slate of Linux offerings, and that even many Linux advocates have
now come around to admitting that fact, how does Linux advocacy benefit the consumer? Isn't it strange for a consumer advocacy organization to be
advocating a lower-quality product over a higher-quality one?
Jamie Love:
I think you have to look at the longer run. Where is Microsoft
taking us? Where is AOL/TW taking us? What will it take to get a
paradigm shift away from Microsoft, and what would be the benefits?
One thing that is unacceptable are actions to undermine the Linux or other alternatives. We think the USDOJ should stop Microsoft from undermining dual boot PCs. We think that remedies in the Microsoft case should make it easier for rivals to be interoperable with Microsoft products, that Microsoft should be restrained from using file formats as an anticompetitive weapon, particularly against its installed base, in order to force unwanted upgrades. Every OS has its strengths and weaknesses, and we favor more biodiversity in the OS space.
What a telling comment on the state of Linux. Same boat I'm in. This guy is no newbie, yet it still gives him fits.
Easier, people, easier!
It is wonderfully ironic that someone who is head of the CPT and should be strongly opposed to microsoft for both business and philosophical reasons sites those same reasons for using microsoft products. If people like Jaime Love cannot be convinced of a choice other than microsoft, then there is little hope of the general public doing so.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
we favor more biodiversity in the OS space
I always knew that operating systems were people, too.
My dingo ate your honor student.
Simple answer: None
Reason:
Acting with the genuine intention to save somebodys life is (under any legal system) is a legtimimate mitigation for any crime, up to and including murder.
Illegal manufacuture of lifesaving drugs isn't going to bother any judge (or any right thinking person) :-)
Making cheap viagra on the side may land you in a spot of trouble though
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Jamie's answer to "Neverending Copyright"
Our proposal is to have short terms for works for hire, where a corporate entity owns the right. This would put movies into the public domain much sooner, for example, as well as much of the archives of newspapers.
OK, this seems a bit vague. A corporate entity holding the copyright? I do not think it would lend itself to a short copyright term. Also, what defines this "short term". How long is "short"?
It was an excellent question but the answer was quite vague. Disappointing.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
Which, you might say, is another example of how this powerful monopolist has throttled the competition.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I noticed that the lobbyist suggested actions like chaining oneself to desks and disrupting events.
One of the more effective methods myself and friends had at the WTO was not to protest, but to go to the restaurants and hotels the delegates were staying at and talking reasonably (while dressed nicely) about all the issues, and engage the delegates in discusssion of these issues.
For a Senator or Congressmember, the action I would suggest would be to get four or five people to go to the normal boring "coffee talks" in the home district and have each person have a short question about an issue one wanted to discuss. Then have other members react typically to the response.
E.g. "Do you think that the DCMA should be changed so that we can make backup copies of our software as is our constitutional right?" Response: "No, Microsoft told me it was cool" Audience: "I thought you worked for us, not for them."
This really zings them.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I wonder how many times he gets called a communist/socialist/radical/luddite for advocating for the public domain..
Also, anyone know of any newsletters, good websites to keep track of IP stuff? The best place I've found is james-boyle.com.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
You never answered my question (though you did point out some items I may not have been so aware of). I was curious as to whether Jamie with his "inside track" would be in a position to provide his own speculation as to whether the anti Software Patents lobby has a hope, or whether we have already lost the battle. I am concerned that it appears my quadrant of the world (Europe) is as stupid as Jamie suggests and I now ask Slashdot for any good sources of information so I can start to educate my local politicians (in Ireland). I recently enjoyed the experience of stumbling into a Eurpoean Patent Office stand at a conference here in Dublin though unfortunately I the person who could even begin to address my concerns was a patent examiner for chemicals and I only got about 15 minutes of his time because it was the end of the day. What he told me left me seriously disturbed for days and to be honest I still am. The only reassuring thing he had to say was that they realise the USPTO are idiots and that if someone doesn't register for a patent in a way that covers Ireland within one year of applying for the patent anywhere it is fair game!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
One thing the average hacker could do is to communicate more with the Judges who make policy, and by this I mean the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which really makes patent policy in the US. These Judges hear from patent owners all the time, but not from the public.
At the risk of sounding like a babe in the woods, How do I talk to a judge? Do I call up the clerk of the local US Court of Appeals and ask to take her honar out to lunch? Or do I have to sue Micro$oft to get face-time with a judge?
just my $0.03 - adjusted for inflation
As a result it isn't too surprising that Love isn't spending much time on Capitol Hill. He doesn't have a constituency there.
Love's slam of Microsoft on the patent front is somewhat unfair. Unlike Apple, Sun, Rambus, Entrust etc. Microsoft is one of the few major computing companies that has played the IP game with a straight cue. (That is not to say they have played every game with a straight cue). But Microsoft has not sued to prevent others using the Xerox windows GUI as apple did, sued to prevent extension of an 'open' language standard as Sun did, or steer standards bodies towards a technique they owned an undisclosed patent on.
After the 9/11 attack it is unlikely that there will be a great deal of political capital that the US can expend to further extend its idea of Intelectual Property and errect more barbed wire accross the plains.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
(SDR, VIC, RAT, WBD and NTE are some of the best videoconferencing tools available, IMHO, and some of the easiest, since you can drive everything from SDR.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Sorry, you've been miseducated.
No, apparently you've been miseducated. Sorry to say that, but you seem to have a problem with reading. Nowhere I did talk about "bearing the blame".
I also didn't imply any blame for things like bhopal.
But - and this is just a matter of fact - our countries could do a lot more to help, our industry could do a lot more to not amplify suffering. If you don't believe this, go and reread the above interview, esp. the part about patents for drugs and the role of the WTO.
This is probably true. So what has gone so horribly wrong with the citizens of the US that are so shallow?
I think there are real 1st Ammendment issues when barring issue ads -- not just real issues, but huge issues... how can you tell someone they can't express their opinion, just because that opinion agrees with a certain candidate (isn't that supposed to happen?)
Probably a significant part of the problem is that, with no other real difference between candidates, ads are the only thing to tip the balance. One way to fix that would be to bring some real democracy to the parties, instead of having candidates simply be anointed by a party committee. The other solution, of course, is the very hard path of a third party. Or maybe the option of a "I don't like any of them" vote to demand an election with all-new candidates.
Still, we're all a bunch of losers to let our votes follow the money. OTOH, the other option is not to vote at all -- which is, unfortunately, mistaken as nihilistic apathy (which I don't think it is). No one mentions that Bush wasn't elected with 49% of the vote, but actually less than 25%. Pathetic.
Events over the past month seem to accord the US a sort of most-hated nation status in the world. While this does not justify taking of innocent lives, and those doing the hating ignores many of the good things that the US does, any solutions that do not address the hatred and its causes will have problems over the long term.
From what I can see, globalization of IP looks like a means to allow the haves of the world to 'tax' the have-nots. This situation is not good for long-term peace or stability in the world. It will only increase the hatred.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
One thing I've discovered is that beyond civil disobedience, politicians love help more than money. Volunteer and get in their face. Find a local politician with some influence and tell him or her that you'll do the research for them on some totally unrelated issue they're working on. Become a volunteer staffer somewhere with clout. Get involved so that your face is seen and you willingness to help out is known. Then make sure your views are expressed every step of the way -- you'll get heard inherently.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Mr. Love's first sentence of his first answer is flat-out incorrect, which makes me wonder about the rest of his answers.
Ruling that campaign spending is protected free speech is not what forced politicians to become full-time fundraisers. It was the stupidity of allowing limits on campaign contributions that caused the problems. Before limits were in effect, politicians had a range of techniques for funding campaigns. Some raised money in small increments. Others got big contributions from organized labor. Others got big contributions from corportations. Others got big contributions from a few rich folk.
We ought to remove all restrictions on donations and simply insist on full and immediate disclosure. Then politicians could get plenty of money without attending 300 fund-raisers per year, and voters could see exactly where it's coming from.
I love the _evolutionary_ overtone of the final phrase of Mr. Love's post:
"[We] favor more biodiversity in the OS space."
Exactly! Let the software industry/environment evolve, without artificial, commercially driven restrictions. I'd like to see developers compete for whatever motivates them (eyeballs, downloads, dollars, etcetera), with quality, instead of semi-transparent deception.
The problem is they don't realize this is the end result of these originally well intentioned laws.
Unfortunatly we can only trust Internet and independant papers on this issue, mainstream media cannot be trusted to cover this, they have to much at stake. That said, at true news sources attacking "Works for Hire" in the headlines is a good way to seperate the industry from the artist in the public eye.
I believe the duration of copyright overall is the problem, but this proposed battle against unfair "Works for Hire" makes it harder for the MPAA/RIAA to argue. The fact that little money goes to the artists is semintuitive with that phrase(although that intuition may be flawed.)
Artist writes song -> Artist records song -> artist gets paid flat fee and never gets paid for song again -> all profits and control go to industry.
So copyright protects the artist, ehh?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
This point has been all but neglected in the government's case against MS. There was a good Be View in the August Byte Magazine that talked about this subtle topic. No matter what the outcome is with the current DOJ vs. MS Harmful Monopoly case, this dual-boot concern should form the base of the next case against Microsoft. Perhaps it would be helpful to start lobbying officials in the states that are poised to press their own cases against MS once the current federal action is complete.
... yet another suicide bombing occurred today, just outside a trendy LA nightclub. Eight people were killed and 19 more wounded. The wounded were immediately rushed to Cedars-Sinai Medical center, where 14 were treated for minor injuries and released. Most of the injuries were caused by flying shards of dozens of copy-protected DVD movies the bomber had attached to the explosive device.
Investigators say that the perpetrator was a 27-year old man with a Master's degree in Computer Science from Stanford University. According to one official, he "really wanted to watch movies on his Linux computer. Why can't these people just use Windows like everyone else does?"
The MLF (Media Liberation Front), a radical, extremist offshoot of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) immediately claimed responsibility. According to the press release: "The violence will never stop until the DMCA is repealed, all media is freed from the chains of IP law and corporate control and Disney Corporation is abolished."
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The point of a lobbyist is to know what works. He knows (as does everyone) that money works - it's a short-cut to get their attention. But he also lists other ways of getting their attention - letters to the editor that could influence public opinion, protests, etc. Pick your option.
Grab.