Slashdot Mirror
More Calls for Patent Reform
ibi writes "On the heels of the PriceWaterHouseCoopers report about the threat of SoftPats to innovation, comes a book by a Harvard B School and Brandeis economics professor about how broken the patent system is in general. In short their book argues that the entire system is a (stunned silence) scam. (They actually call it 'a creator of litigation and uncertainty that threatens the innovation process itself' instead but that's cause you don't get tenure for using words like 'scam'.) Interesting to see that its gotten so bad that a professor of Investment Banking at Harvard even thinks something oughta be done."
People like this are exactly who need to get involved for things to take a positive turn. Technical folks can bitch and moan all we want, but until the non-techincal start to understand, no, care about, the implications, things just plain won't change.
Wealth creation and true creation are two completely separate things. Creators, in the inventor sense, need to protect themselves from others who would take their ideas without recompensating the creators for the time and effort involved in the invention process.
Investment bankers know how to carve up a company into itty-bitty pieces, charge a fee for that, then move on to dooming the next bright-eyed startup company with two contracts to rub together.
So you are getting the opinion of a destroyer of wealth on how and why to dismantle the mechanism of protecting creators of wealth.
I understand we all hate patents and don't believe in IP, but this is just about the worst you can do in getting a spokesman.
Dancin Santa
At least he used "that's" correctly.
This comes across as more of a litigation problem, not really a patent problem. If I invent something, I don't think it's out of like for me to expect to be compensated for it. The problem is, there are too many damn lawyers. We are a litigious society, and that's really the root of the problem here. Why else would there be a warning on the Windex bottle warning me not to spray it in my eyes?
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
This may be obvious, but it seems Linux provides the best case study for considering the argument that patents are required for innovation.
I don't follow - wouldn't a professor of investment banking at harvard be among the first people to realize that something oughta be done?
I would patent sex. What an empire I'd build. Plus all your kids are belong to me.
Schools have to tear down playgrounds because of fears of lawsuits. My kids can't go on field trips without a 4 page medical release. My kids can't attend GYM CLASS without a waiver where we acknowledge that gym includes strenous physical activity.
OB GYNs can't sneeze without ending up in court. People injured in car accidents get millions in settlements.
Coffee cups have "Attention: Hot" printed down the sides of them. Radio ads include a "high speed small print" ramble at the end of them. There is an asterix and small print on everything around me. Half the price of football helmets is to pay for the companies lawsuits and insurance.
The patent system is just another example. The copyright system is just another example.
As a society we need a rework.
Does the Patent System Need an Overhaul?
By SABRA CHARTRAND
Published: September 27, 2004
SINCE 1793, the federal government has issued patents to inventors, giving them exclusive ownership of an idea as well as the right to prevent others from using it. Now some experts argue that achieving those rights stifles innovation. Two professors conclude in a new book that a couple of unrelated and seemingly innocuous administrative reforms of the patent system have caused a shift away from encouraging innovation in favor of exploiting patents largely for lawsuits. Josh Lerner and Adam B. Jaffe have written a book with a title: "Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What To Do About It," to be published in November by Princeton University Press.
Mr. Lerner, a professor of investment banking at the Harvard Business School, and Mr. Jaffe, a professor of economics at Brandeis University, trace this breakdown to the early 1980's, when a single federal appeals court was established to hear patent lawsuits, replacing 12 regional courts of appeal. Then in the early 1990's, Congress changed the patent office's financing, so the agency could pay for itself with user fees. From his home outside Boston, Mr. Lerner last week described the patent system, 20 years after the reforms, as mired in "the land of unintended consequences."
"Again and again in the patent system, we see people set out to do reforms with one thing in mind, but that have quite an unintended effect," he said. "The easier it became to get patents, the more people wanted to apply for them, and that led to a situation where examiners grappled with more patents to review, which led to them being pressed to do quicker reviews and a degradation in quality of patents issued." The patent agency has often struggled to keep up with the times. In recent years, the agency has confronted entirely new areas like biotechnology, software-related inventions, financial and business methods, Internet-based inventions and other information-technology innovations. Some of the changes designed to deal with these occurred amid extensive public debate. Others got little attention because they seemed like innocuous administrative reforms - like the ones that made patents easier to get, Mr. Lerner said.
But many of those patents caused a secondary reaction, he added. "The ability to litigate and expect to get substantial award from litigation increased," Mr. Lerner said. "So as a result we've got somewhat of a vicious cycle. Once you get one firm in an industry beginning a strategy of aggressive patent enforcement, it creates an almost inevitable response - an almost arms-race dynamic - where everyone else in the industry says, 'We better be doing the same thing.' " He suggested that these changes for the worse occurred because "there's a relatively small group of people in the D.C. patent bar, and they have a very powerful influence on how patent policy gets decided. There is a powerful incentive for them to keep a patent system that is complicated, and one that involves protracted, costly litigation." Also, Mr. Lerner said, businesses often fail to understand the importance of subtle changes in patent law.
"It is perhaps because of the complexity of patent issues, and because there is no long tradition of work by economists in this area, because a lot of corporations see it as second order relative to tax policy changes, for example, which directly affect their bottom line," he explained. "Patent policy has an indirect affect." The book lays out a strategy. "Our idea is that three things will potentially make a big difference," Mr. Lerner said. "First of all, this idea which may well have made sense in 19th century of a patent examiner being able to sit and in few hours figure out what a relevant technology is, and then go out and make a decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not, that really doesn't make sense in an era like today. "Second, to see the patent revie
the summary. I read the article(admittedly I haven't read the book), but the following statement seems to miss the point entirely: In short their book argues that the entire system is a (stunned silence) scam.. Um, no it doesn't. What the NYT article states is that the authors see a lot of the changes made to patent law and how the patent office is funded since the 80's has only rewarded trial lawyers. /., I'm expecting too much I guess.
They don't say that patents should be done away with entirely. They recommend some serious reforms to the system such as a much stricter patent review process where 3rd parties are allowed to have input. They also say that most businesses are more worried about tax reform than they are about patent damage. These are good ideas, and a start to reform.
Gah, I really, REALLY wish people would stop putting bias into their summaries, but this is
Monstar L
There is nothing wrong with software patents, except that when the average product lifecycle is three years the patents are too long for software. I think everyone could be kept happy by limiting patents on software to some shorter term (say 5 years) ... The inventor gets a licensed monopoly for the life of the product - then it becomes public property. This seems to be the easiest way to address the patent imbalance without the costly process of changing the mechanism...
"...that's cause you don't get tenure for using words like 'scam'."
And they told me it was because I didn't have the necessary education, experience, publications, or ability.
OK, there is a very important difference between copyright and patents, you know. Copyright only applies to direct copying. Patents apply even to independent reinvention of the same concept, which is a little dubious, morally speaking, if you ask me.
It is amazing that in the year 2004 there is no real IT department that is competent enough to head up the reforms of the patent office. Everyone who understands enough about software that is involved is looking out for the interests of someone or something other than consumers and people. A search for the keyword "patents" on /. returns so many hits, new stories abound, it is perfect illustration of how hot a topic it is, but who can we trust to have our best interests in mind when writing legislation? I, for one, do not trust the current administration to get it right, but who then?
But will it help?
Even if the patent system is reformed, who's going to make sure a new system isn't dictated by the robber barons who own congress.
I bet the a system would favor the current corporate patent holders with large patents portfolios, while reducing the power of smaller IP-only parasites (EOLA, bellboy etc.).
- Ost
---- Sig. gone.
I do not understand how patents can be bad for some technical fields and good for others. They work just fine for machines and medicines then why not for software? In fact, medical research thrives on patent protection. We have no problem with patented golf club and toys, then what is the problem with software? Perhaps, the nature of software is unique and needs different kind of system. While OSS looks a fine idea today and the community momentum is great, there is no guarantee that it will last forever.
Probably, but that's copyright and has nothing to do with what they are talking about.
Never confuse volume with power.
There exists a point where economic interests, given a political system which can be bribed, become so powerful that they effectively have total control of the system. As far as the downward spiral of individual liberty at the expense of corporate profit, this is the Point of No Return. Yes, on the books they don't have the power, but practical realities and what the books say are often very different things.
Realistically, the power of the people to speak louder than money is only felt if a) said people are interested in exercising that power at the expense of personal convenience and b) they are willing to think for themselves. This seldom happens, and only when things get Really Bad. I'm not talking about IP laws, I'm talking about not being able to get the basics of life. Abstract economics doesn't get people excited, because its not important enough. Tomorrow's meal or the kid's latest cold is what's important for most people.
As long as powerful economic interests are able to keep most of the people relatively comfortable, they will never have to deal with popular uprising about MP3 downloading or stupid patents. People ignore these things unless it impacts them personally, and it seldom does enough to hurt.
Beyond the Point of No Return, corporate power is able to use the statistics of democracy to run the country. Barring the crumbling of their power due to total economic collapse, they control the media and can use it to influence and placate people as they see fit.
So brace yourself geeks, because we don't have a Voice. We are without economic or political power, and we are so small a minority in the democratic whole we can be ignored no matter how loud we yell. Because most people don't care about what we care about. In a two party system, massive numbers and middle of the road are the order. We are neither.
Which doesn't mean we should just go gentle into that good night, but bear in mind the patent system being profitable to the people abusing it is more politically important than the little (relatively quiet) guy being squashed. If we fight, we need to fight smart and not charge at the problem head on. Because we might as well be a flea going head to head with a rhino.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
1) These high profile people will convince congress that the system needs change.
2) Business interests will direct the changes.
3) The system will be worse than today.
Profesors of Investment Banking have opinions just like the rest of us. One of the fircest opponents to soft patents that I know is a lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property. Interesting? Yes, but not surprising.
The thing is, having an strong opinion and announcing it loudly causes publicity. Both for the opinion itself, and fhr the one announcing it. Publicity for the one announcing it makes their other opinions noticed too, as well as their ideas, services and books.
I'm not saying that they've got the opinion because it's a means to get the public's attention, but it certainly doesn't hurt their exposure.
That much said, I applaud their stance. The patent system is totally broken and needs to be either thrown out completely or severely reworked.
If it were such that patents could only cover a specific implementation of a concept and not simply the concept itself that there would be a lot less impetus to change the system. As it stands now, anyone with a couple bucks can come up with some broad, sweeping general concept and get a patent on it and then pwn anyone who comes along with an implementation of that idea.
It happened with the BT hyperlink problem. It is happening again with the Amazon 1-click patent. Even the almighty Microsoft is not immune to this kind of thing as Eolas and their lawyers showed us with their "plug-in" patent.
If a company wants to apply for and get a boatload of patents covering specific implementations of a concept, more power to them. But screw them if they think that something as broad as "Interaction with user through visual experience" is going to fly.
Before your panties get in a twist, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I think ownership needs to be redefined in both the copyright and patent space. I just see patent reform as an uphill battle because of the simple to understand arguments against it.
The current patent system allows the holder of the patent to have a monopoly on the supply of its holdings for a period of roughly 24 years, with the ability to renew. After that the patent expires, and the information covered by the patent becomes, more or less, open source. Unfortunatly, a company can hold a monopoly on a very vauge idea, stifiling development in a field, and for roughly fifty years. This is just unacceptable.
Should the system of patents be obliterated? No. Without a patent system, industry has no point to develop a product. Now true with our system of consumerism there is brand name importance, and a loyalty to those that produce a superior product; many executives feel that innovation without a garantee of being the only suplier of a nich market is unacceptable.
What could be a simple solution?> Limit the length of a patent to seven years, with eligibility to renew for another seven if a product is developed.
Why seven years? For most products, it takes seven years for the idea of the product, or a compound for medical research, to be aproved to reach the market. With this system a company cannot hold a patent of a vauge idea for decades, hoping for someone to develop a patent in the field of the patent, and deman royalties. It would also prevent a company hindering the development of a field that would render their product obsolete.
This would give the drug companies an incentive to keep developing new products, quickly, and for other companies to patent products that they have already developed. This would also stop companies like Amazon and Microsoft from patent-whoring. Its pretty win-win, and allows more technology to eventually reach an open community, where others can innovate on the ideas, improve the product, and compete with their "better" products.
And they say Leninism is dead.../i?
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
I didn't see any recommendation for shorter terms for exclusive monopoly rights that I think would help cure this problem on many fronts.
The 17 year term might have been justifiable in the 18th century when trading ships took many weeks to cross the Atlantic, but now, overall progress would be improved if the terms were reduced to something more like 2 years.
And, while we're at IP reform, copyrights should be cut down to a shorter period as well. This 75 year mouse extension is ridiculous, especially when Disney mines fairy tales in the public domain (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.) for their cartoon movie ideas.
But, once the artificial market is created, the vested interests (owners of IP, litigators of IP) don't want to see it go away.
So just reduce terms of exclusivity gradually, a year at a time, until things become sane again.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Direct all interested parties to the /. IT section and tell them that that color scheme was patented. It will show them without a doubt how wrong and dangerous patents can be with the current system.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Not to mention the fact that for some reason, the poster thinks it's outstanding that a professor of investment banking at Harvard knows something about patents. What point are you trying to make exactly by implying that this is shocking?
Investment bankers typically help perform valuations on private companies wishing to go public. They underwrite the company and sell shares back to the owners of the company. Then with the remaining shares, the company is taken public on one of the many stock exchanges.
What you are talking about are fund managers and loan officers. They are the ones who work at the bank and invest the bank's money. Investment bankers, for the most part, work at brokerage houses and do work far removed from what their title would suggest.
"Asterisk" is a little star used for notes.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
my sig always has the last word:
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
One way to make a significant improvement to the system would be to reverse the way vagueness is handled. At the moment it seems that ideas described in vague and general language are considered to be covered by the patent, and the idea is considered new enough if it is not a blatant direct copy of something that has already been described (which is usually interpreted to mean patented).
If the assumptions were reversed, the vague and general patents that are close to things that have already been done should be eliminated. It seems to me that those are the ones doing the most harm, so this would be a big step in the right direction. If there was a penalty (no protection) for any part of the idea hidden in obscure language, it would make the whole process much easier to use, and harder to abuse. Clear and simple descriptions would be much easier to relate to existing ideas, so you would need real novelty in the idea rather than a novel way to create a convoluted description of the idea.
The sales pitch apparently refers to RAMBUS without saying their name. Cute. What does allegedly "secretly manipulating an industry-wide cooperative standard-setting body" have to do with the patent system? Zippy. Must be that it's a "modest 15 year old invention?" Okay, that's not too sublimated. What is this about? Let's tap that sweet little thang?
By his using it as a mantra, most average people have come to believe that Microsoft actually does innovate. They're unaware that almost everything is prior art, or that the patenting of software is a relatively new phenomenon; nor the inherent dangers in allowing 17 year exclusive protection in a field which relies on incremental, evolutionary changes, rather than "big bang" discoveries like the drug companies.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Maybe, but if someone else wrote a book on the same subject without copying it, they wouldn't have a case.
Major open source groups should patent everything they can get their hands on and then when Microsoft goes postal, lock down all of those patents. Basically it should be a simple game of "if we can't do what we want, then no American company will be allowed to make software products without our permission."
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
This is not a one way trip. We are not "doomed" or "fucked." We overcame monarchy. We overcame slavery. We have dismantled patriarchal sexual customs that have 40,000 years of tenure. The progress of our civilization is highly dynamic and we are sitting on a 100 year winning streak.
This did not happen just by sleepy proletarian mobs being occasionally jolted awake by famines and wars. Our progress is the result of small groups of dedicated, intelligent individuals who overcame their own cynicism and defeatism and got their hands dirty. These are not people richer or more powerful or luckier than you that you imagine really take care of everything. This is you. Right here, right now, posting on this stupid website.
Frankly the biggest enemy you have to face after ignorance is helplessness. You are not helpless. Reading recent history is often the best cure for that feeling, and I urge you to read it.
Unhealthy intellectual property policy affects our entire society, through its economy and its quality of intellectual and artistic life. Our patent regime is especially pernicious; software patents in particular are obviously, prima facie unjustifiable.
Oh, we have hot button poltics, and bread and circuses like always. But never forget that money is what really moves politics in this country. And software patents are very, very bad for business, at all levels.
Everyone wants to make money, to push growth. The problem is the prisoner's dillemma; software patents are bad if everyone has them, but they're theoretically good for me (if I'm one giant company). All that has to happen is lining the natural opponents up and letting them work. It will take time; the community needs to develop the conventional wisdom that with software patents everybody loses.
Just be smart, and be willing to work. Once tension builds, it often takes a dramatic event to tip the balance. Say, a bunch of tiny upstarts suing Microsoft for billions over patents and any of them winning?
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Wear the same blinders the corporate lawyers put on their drones. Don't research patents up to the point where innovation becomes second nature to you. "It's much safer that way because you probably have no talent and hopefully your command of English is atrocious and selective" is the logic.
Last night I attended a talk by Richard Stallman entitled The Danger of Software Patents in Luxembourg. He made a convincing case as to how the patent system when applied to software ideas was poorly executed (a legal mess, scope defined too widely, etc.) He concluded that the patents system on software ideas stifled innovation and hurt Joe Developer while making "the Mega-corporations" (his word) richer. (I won't list his arguments because I'm sure you're all familar with them.)
I accept that the patents system as it stands is far from optimal, or even fair. But could someone please clarify this for me: how could it be an alternative to abolish patents on software ideas altogether when this would remove the financial incentive for someone to protect their software invention? We'd all like to live in a world where financial gain meant less than it does, but is it really a realistic option? What IS the alternative without making the patent system even more cryptic and complex? What am I missing here?
---- scrm
Commoner: Aye! Look, the Patent' system es Brooken! Patent's arre given uut like candy to chil'ren, and onleh those wit' moneh' can enferrce their pa'ent's or defend themselves from large mul'ehnationals.
Media, government, stupider people: Bah, that's hogwash! What do you know about economics? (translation: We don't want to think, we just want to fallow someone who does the thinking for us and refute you so you can't challenge him.)
Now, lets see what happens when a professor says something about it.
[insert important sounding title here]: Well, the patent system is broken, you see, patents are filed and given out like candy to children with no checking against older patents, and those with money are able to hire lawyers to enforce bad patents against companies, and vice versa.
Media, government, stupider people: Whoa, he's so totally right.
The only amazing thing here, is the level of utter stupidity on the behalf of lawmakers, people, Harvard, and the government judges in general. Like they couldn't have sat down for 10 minutes, looked at the law, and thought "hrm, now, what's wrong with this?", and then once seeing the problem, looked at, oh, I don't know, some large companies getting taken on by smaller guys for rediculous patents and winning? I'm not saying I'm smarter, I am wondering how someone couldn't figure out the relitivally obvious, however.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
What the fuck is with the investment banker digs? While many bankers are assholes, it's true (and it's true of any profession), bankers keep the economy liquid and make sure that everything is priced as fairly as possible. That means that if a company has the best technology or provides the best return for its investors, it will fetch the highest price. Pure meritocracy.
Read jack phelps dot net
Solid comment coward! I'd like to add that there is another way in which wealth seems to grant the wealthy a special logic that disconnects them from the world of work: the way 99% of us "create wealth" is by going to work every morning. Russell Roberts a frequent contributor to the library of Econonmics and Liberty whose interview with Lawence Lessig has been reported in /. also had this to say about sending that work abroad. I don't give a s__t about some fat capitalist's theory of wealth creation, even while dreaming of being rich myself, if it means I am out of a job. In the disconnect that you describe, I am seeing a connection: The same minds [Roberts] concern themselves over a corporation's rights to a person's ideas as concern themselves over obtaining cheap labor regardless of social costs which are not born by the corportation.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
First, no business patents. Can you imagine if such patents were around in the 1800s?! Someone would have patented horse and buggy repair shops, grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. These examples seem ludicrous, but they would all be perfectly legal now.
Second, no software patents. There will be a time when no new company will be able to innovate as any new idea could somehow be construed to impact on a patent. Old companies won't innovate because that's not what old companies do. Technological innovation will come to a stand still.
Third, the granting of a patent should be a very rare instance.
Fourth, even if a patent is granted, it should always be the patent holder's burden at any subsequent trial or hearing to prove the patent's validity.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
they keep the rich rich, and the poor, poor.
We could keep the number of ambiguous patents at bay by requiring a WORKING VERSION of the PRODUCT before a patent is granted. That way if you have a GOOD IDEA and can IMPLEMENT it you get protection to be rewarded for the fruits of your labor.
This would eradicate the conceptual patents that are causing most of our pain. "A method to increment the value of a positive or negative value in a given number space" patents would be thrown out, thus keeping 'n++' free to use by all.
"Straddling the sword of technology..."
Um, is there a "spam" moderation category? The parent obviously didn't even read the headline, much less the summary, much less the article. Please penalize people who use slashdot like this.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
you have a lot of stupid clients and stupid laws.
The point the book was making is that patents now wind up in courts [where 12 people who don't know how to get out of jury duty or a judge who doesn't like trying drug dealers get to decide the novelty of some technology claim they are very unlikely to understand] instead of being adjudicated by the PTO [which hires experts and has tons of relevant personal and organizational experience in such matters] and WHY? because the solution 20 years ago to the percieved backlog at the PTO was to speed it all up by granting claims without adequate review. Putting more money into the PTO would not have been kosher Reaganomics. I'm surprised they didn't also save taxpayer's money by cutting power to all the stoplights.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Not only does USPTO not receive any tax money, since 1992 much of the money collected in fees by USPTO has not been available to it. From fiscal 1992 through fiscal 2001, more than $675 million has been diverted. Because of the economic damage cause by invalid patents, this is no way to save money. USPTO's ability to conduct meaningful examinations is already compromised. Last year, USPTO Director Q. Todd Dickinson warned of an imminent "reduction in patent quality" resulting from yet another inadequate budget.
Inadequate USPTO budgets benefit only one group of people -- those who get invalid patents. Everyone else suffers. Fund USPTO so that it can afford to attract and retain highly skilled examiners, as well as maintain a world-class library of international patents, journals, catalogs, and other information. A patent office without full funding is the economic equivalent of a fully loaded B-52 bomber with no maps, no compass, and an untrained navigator.
2. Stop and reverse patentability creep
Would the economy be better off if Bruce Springsteen were allowed to patent rhyming "back" and "Cadillac" -- and sue any other songwriter who did so, even if the new song was nothing like "Pink Cadillac?" Would the economy be better off if the Green Bay Packers were allowed to patent the best defense against a particular play, and sue any team that used that defense against them?
Would the economy be better off if a high-priced defense lawyer were able to patent the use of a legal argument, and sue any other defense lawyer who used it on behalf of his client?
Clearly, the answer to all three questions is no. We're all better off when we can hear new songs, watch good football games, and get a fair trial without getting several patent licenses a day. Unfortunately, several court decisions in the 1980s and 1990s have resulted in the patentabilty of mathematical algorithms and of business methods, which is for programmers just as ludicrous as the above three examples.
Software and business methods patents are examples of "patentabilty creep" in action. Federal judges, legislating from the bench, are expanding the scope of patentable content to not only overwhelm USPTO, but also to do grievous economic harm.
3. Fix USPTO's incentive system to reward quality, not quantity
The Department of Commerce should populate USPTO's advisory committee with members from outside the patent bar, with a view to helping USPTO work toward the economic health of the nation as a whole and not for any special interest group. Employee incentive programs within USPTO should be tied to patent quality, not quantity.
This book completely ignores the most obvious reforms, instead concentrating on tired historical arguments, impossible-to-implement schemes, and irrelevant proposals.
First, the patent office runs at a huge profit. However, the rest of the government takes that profit. If the PTO were to be made completely self-sufficient, it would be able to add a large number of new examiners.
Second, remove the presumption of validity. Validity is effectively re-argued in most patent suits anyways, and the evidentiary presumption seems too strong in light of the inadequacy of certain prior art databases (like for business methods and software).
The article is a little thin, but I will try to address the authors' three suggestions.
I have no idea what his first suggestion actually is. The article expresses a problem, not a solution.
Second suggestion - "There has to be way to figure out how to devote more resources..." I'd be interested to see how he proposed to implement this one. The authors sound like they are proposing some incentives for third parties to take part in the examination process. However, third parties already can take part (in reexam procedures).
Third, both judges and juries are almost certainly going to be clueless about the technology. I think it's irrelevant who actually decides the case.
most medications are developed with government funding or in universities; even in the US.
A friend of mine who does system analyst stuff in the health care field told me:
Complex systems eventually end up worsening the very problem they were created to solve.
This is pretty obvious in (American) health care, where it's more about extracting as much money as possible, throwing some pills and forms at the problem, and generally taking a more costly reactive approach, rather than being focused on life-long patient wellness.
We've got too much money here in the USA, with all these middlemen wanting to get their cut, it's an incredibly unwieldy system. The thing is, even with the squeeze on the middle class over the past 20+ years, we're still quite rich. You won't see us rioting in the streets any time soon.
My belief is that the Patent system and Healthcare will play out the same: Both will chug along, rewarding the monied interests who have a stake in the status quo, until it collapses under it's own weight. In Health Care I think that will be brought on by a major epidemic, like 25% of the nation getting the flu and 2% dying from it. I'm not sure what's going to cause the patent system to buckle. Honestly, with patents still at 17 years (or 20 years?) this issue seems much more contained than what we see over in Copyright. Maybe it will break this way: After all high-tech manufacturing ceases in America, and we have to import all our electronics from Asia, and then the Asians just start ignoring US patent law, and we cant' hold up all the goods in customs because people here need the stuff.
Systems this big, tied to corporations whose lifeblood depends on maintaining a false economy, aren't responsive to market pressures. About the only thing that could change anything would be the legislature, but that's unlikely to happen. Partly because the legislature is in the pocket of the big corporations, but also because huge inefficiencies "create jobs" and anything that creates jobs must be good for society.
> People like this are exactly who need to get involved for things to take a positive turn.
> Technical folks can bitch and moan all we want, but until the non-techincal start to understand,
> no, care about, the implications, things just plain won't change.
Patents mean two things:
(a) Organizations with extensive patent portfolios and spare litigation money can lock out competition, and
(b) More money for lawyers.
Well, nowadays "big business" can pretty much dictate what laws get passed and the lawyers become judges that interpret these laws.
Therefore, things will never change.
"Intellectual property" is neither about "rewarding the inventor/creator" nor about "enriching the public domain" anymore. It is about "Them that have, get" and has been for quite some time.
Copyright applies to:
* Reproduction
* Distribution and importation
* Creation of derivatives
* Some public performance and display
And more.
You mean to say that copyright only protects an expression of an idea, whereas patents protect an invention however executed.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
As for medical malpractice, here's a better reform: Get doctors to screw up less. No screw ups = no malpractice. What a fucking concept.
I'm not saying things don't need to be reworked, but blaming lawyers is like blaming a band-aid for hurting because it is sticking to the scrape on your arm. Lawyers are an attempt to solve the problems a complex life deals to us. They are not perfect, and they are not the end all answer, but you wouldn't have pain if you didn't scrape your arm. And when you do scrape you're arm, you'll want a band-aid. And if you don't want a band-aid, because you're a tough guy, then don't deny others the right to their band-aids.
"99% of the people that regurgitate it have never bothered to read about the real damage done to this woman because McDonald's DID keep their coffee too hot"
Yes, because no-one could have guessed that driving along holding a cup of hot coffee between their legs might cause 'real damage' to them. In any rational country the whole case would have been thrown out on grounds of stupidity.
There are some cases in which being able to patent something is the only way a company will invest the time or resources to develop. Take as an example Esperion Pharmaceuticals, who developed a drug that will save me from all the cheeseburgers I've been eating.
Scientists have known for years that merely injecting someone with "good" cholesterol could help ease congestive heart failure, but because it's something we all produce anyway, it couldn't be patented and nobody was willing to spend the money to manufacture a low-margin commodity.
Somebody noticed, though, that residents of a small town in Italy died with baby-smooth arteries and almost never had heart attacks. A researcher found that they produced a mutant form of cholesterol that functioned like "drano for the arteries." Because it was a mutated form, it was patentable, and the researcher sold out to Esperion, which Pfizer bought within months for more than a billion dollars.
I think people on here, understandably, are coming at this from a software background. There is really no other industry, though, where innovation comes as cheaply and easily. MS et al. have definitely abused the system, but it might be a better idea to militate for software-specific patent reform than for patent reform more generally, as 20 years is not a lot of time in some industries (the airline industry comes to mind, where it takes more than a decade to produce a new passenger jet) to recover the costs of innovation. Another benefit is that the longer the patent lifespan, the longer the period a company has to amortize its R&D costs, and the less they have to charge up-front.
Always a godfather; never a god. -Gore Vidal
The problem is, there are too many damn lawyers
Due to the law of supply and demand, the more lawyers there are, the less I have to pay for one when I need it.
We are a litigious society, and that's really the root of the problem here.
Exactly... behind those lawyers are gready clients
Why else would there be a warning on the Windex bottle warning me not to spray it in my eyes
A middle-aged lady was walking on the _public_ footpath and slipped an broke her leg on the ice. She looked around to find the nearest building and sued the owners for not taking care of the side-walk.
The ice/snow is almost impossible here, with the narrow streets and really quick changes in weather. Everybody knows that (who lives here).
The warning on that Windex bottle is not because of lawyers, but because of the 1% of the population who seek to profit from their stupidy or accidents, and an insurance company has to foot the bill. (Either that or someones life is destroyed).
It's a cultural problem - a culture of non-responsibility (for yourself).
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Now, I grant that not everone will agree that all of the above is patentable. On the other hand, the current bar for US software patents appears to be the 'one click' patent.
Most of the above focus on transpency of clever behaviour - as befits an OS. Most of Linux is not particularly surprising, but the above are some of the more unusual features, or unsual apsects thereof.
1. Patents are for inventions, not ideas.
2. What is the difference between software, and an idea?
3. The idea behind a patent is that you have a secret invention that you would not reveal to the public. And that in exchange for a monopoly on it for a limited time, you disclose it to the public for the benefit of society. Most software patents fall into one or morte of the following several categories:
A. Obvious.
B. By the time the monoploly wears off they will be outdated. This is the biggest difference. With a regular invention, like the cotton mill, for example, when the patent wears off, it could still be useful. With a software patent, however, when the patent wears off, it is unlikely to benefit anyone. Hence, what is the purpose of a software patent? It is supposed to benefit society by allowing us to use the innovation since the person would not have otherwise disclosed it. But, in fact, in all cases, we would have figured out their so called "inovation" anyway, and they are just abusing the patent system.
C. Stupid.
D. Better off as trade secrets.
E. Part of a scheme to amass a large patent portfolio to negotiate with other large companies like IBM, Sun, or Microsoft, for rights to their large patent portfolios.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
There you go, patent the GPL:
A method for getting various people to work on your software projects of their own free will and without having to pay them for their time or efforts.
Also a method to get them to assign their copyrights to you without your having to pay them.
A Nony Mouse
I see them setting up some sort of bulletin board system, using slash code, then all the previous inventors or IEEE members or professors from accredited universities, I don't care, just as long as the crappy work can get modded down and the cream rises to the top.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Didn't RTFB, but:
"First of all, this idea which may well have made sense in 19th century of a patent examiner being able to sit and in few hours figure out what a relevant technology is, and then go out and make a decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not, that really doesn't make sense in an era like today."
What is their proposed alternative then?
"Second, to see the patent review process as 'one size fits all' is again a mistake. There has to be way to figure out how to devote more resources to those patent applications which are really the important ones, and less to the unimportant ones."
Okay, so who gets to decide what's important and what's not important? How is it that that person can tell what's unimportant now won't be important in the future and vice versa?
The two professors say one solution is to get more information into the hands of patent examiners.
Examiners are already, mostly, very adequately supplied with information. It's a question of finding relevant information from such a tremendous resource.
"Our recommendation is that we create very real incentives to third parties to contribute information to the patent-examining process," Mr. Lerner said. "There should be one level of review before and after the patent is issued, but within the patent office."
That's a good idea, one that I've thought of as well. The USPTO is moving towards a publicly accessible database of patent application prosecution information. Since it can be accessed by the public, the public should also be able to contribute, if they wish, to it's examination, to contribute relevant documents. However, I think it also opens it up to potentially harmful uses (such as spamming the disclosure so as to obscure useful documents). But not a bad idea.
However, having multiple levels of review is already implemented, just not necessarily on every single case. The amount of manpower required for such an operation would be absolutely crushing for the USPTO as it is now. I mean, there aren't even enough examiners to get through the backlog as is. Can you imagine DOUBLING their workload?
The authors' third remedy is to reverse the trend toward jury trials for patent lawsuits.
"Over the last 30 to 40 years, there has been real replacing of judges by juries," Mr. Lerner said. "Patent disputes by and large tend to be highly technical disputes, and in many cases a lay person without much training in the area is hardly an expert."
Okay, and this magical source of learned professionals is gonna come from where now?
Before you know it, the makers of armagadeon will be sueing the makers of deep impact because they patented the idea of a movie maker of meteors destroying the planet first!
Ok that has to do more with copyrights but still same thought applies. How much of this must go on before a change is made?
Wait for more info. This is premature.
It's still a frivilous lawsuit. Unless the employee actually dumped the coffee on the woman, she should have had no case.
What's the first process in making coffee? You boil water! Jesus fucking Christ, of course it's going to be hot! EXPECT that coffee to be up to 100 degrees Celcius and act appropriately or you suffer the consequences. End of story.
All the apologists on here who blame McD's for the temperature of the coffee should hang their heads in shame, take a good look at themselves, their responsibilities, and hell, even their own intelligence. You consider yourselves a smart bunch, yet don't fault a woman who put a cup of hot liquid in her lap and got burned when it spilled.
I would think that the patent sytem and excessive litigation (of all types) are an important factor in making Americans more expensive for capital. Is it not within the realm of possibility that the patent system prohibits growth in a variety of ways?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
A scam is an arrangement that pretends to be one thing (generally a mutually beneficial arrangement) but is, in fact, something quite else. Just reading the introduction indicates that the authors are arguing that there a large and increasing gap between what kind of arrangement the current patent is and what kind it pretends to be.
Is that gap large enough to make it a "scam"? The authors wouldn't use that word because in the social context they occupy it would undermine their credibility. On Slashdot folks tend to use slightly stronger language - so IMHO my use of "scam" seems an entirely appropriate translation of the gist of their book.
And if it doesn't reach your definition of "scam" yet, just give it few years. Lots folks are working really hard to get it there.
this company BOUGHT a patent that what they claim covers any sort of streaming video or audio.. come on.. bah.. they have set their sites ont he adult industry as a testing ground to see who would cave in. However they thought wrong, a few of the bigger companies have been in the courts fighting against this silly patent and are coming out on top..
.. Acacia is on Eff's top ten most wanted list.
c ac ia
anyhow some more info
http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=a
man this has got to stop.
Pocket Girls. Mobile Adult Mini Mags for your Phone.
First: The Problem with the UPSTO is that it now uses patent fees to make money. They now issue as many patents as they can. They know that the courts will override what ever they do, so they have stopped trying. They issue patents and let the courts do the work. Pull the court costs back out of USPTO's budget! Second: The courts need to simplify jury selection. The lawyers cull all those with brains from the jury. The bigger the case, the dumber the jury. That is how O.J. is free and everything else is expensive.
Sure programming is a form of math, and math shouldn't be able to be patented, as doing so could really stiffle innovation in many fields. But, here is the really odd thing. A patent protects a process, not an idea. And math is really a lot of processes combined with rules. So there is this wierd sort of exemption. You can patent a process, unless you can put it into numbers.
I personally think that the goal of patents is a worthy idea, you grant a limited monopoly and in return when it expires, society as a whole benefits. The other option a company has it keeping an invention a trade sceret. The coke formula is a trade secret, for example. Coke could patent it, but then they would have to tell everyone exactly how they make it.
My complaint about software patents is they are really cheating. They patent some process, but then when it eventually expires, they don't give anything back. I woudl have no problem with software patents if ALL the source code that they were used in was released open source after the patent expired. (The length would have to be shortened to something like 5 years, too.) As it stands, Amazon.com will have it's one-click shopping patent, and when it expires, it will have given nothing back to society in return for it's temporary monopoly. So it gets the benefit of having a trade sceret and a patent at the same time.
Let a company decide: Trade secret and keep the source code as long as they want, or Patent for five and open source the program afterwards.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I will patent the concept of patent reform, and stop them!!!!BWAHAHAHA!!!!
Mr Clueless,
She wasn't driving with the cup between her legs. She (stupidly) placed the cup between her legs to get the lid off, because the lid had melted onto the cup due to the extremely excessive heat. McDonald's had been warned it was much, much hotter than anything a human should drink.
She was found partially responsible due to her stupidity. But, as McDonald's was warned repeatedly to turn down the temperature and ignored the warnings, they were partially responsible, too. And then all she wanted was help with the medical costs. It was the jury that added the big extra award (which was taken away on appeal).
Thanks,
Cluebat
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
and with the process of developing medicines, therapies, and diagnostics in general, is that only patentable (or more accurately 'monopolizable') methods are sought, developed, and promoted. Natural or inexpensive compounds and methods are not investigated, are not promoted, or are suppressed. There is no happy medium here. An 'open source' method of investigating medical treatments and diagnostics without patents would make available a whole range of more economical treatments and therapies. Once again, there has to be a happy medium, because you wouldn't want to pull the rug out from under expensive methods that do have a benefit. Until this happens, we are stuck with a system that guarantees that costs will increase and restricts benefits to those who are in the money chain.
It used to be that patent applications had to include a prototype model of some sort, I say we bring that back.
[o]_O
The US has to be careful with patent reform, perhaps because of the lesser used part of the 5th amendment. Ie.
... [No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
For the same reason that copyright reform may be difficult to bring about, as postulated by Mr. Lessig, Mr. Knopf, and others, it would literally cost the government a fortune to deprive owners of patents their due value, for a public purpose, as the 5th amendment guarantees them just compensation.
The lackadaisical politics is in essence digging its own grave, ensuring the continuation of a terrible intellectual property system, as the government will be unable to afford to compensate the existing privileged in the name reform for the public good.
*sigh* If only GNU/Hurd had been viable, we would have had all that stuff (and more) about 15 years ago.
Patent duration, originally, was based on a manfacturing cycle from the Industrial Revolution. It took a lot of time to build a manufacturing process and produce enough product for the inventor/creator to recoup her investment.
It is more correct to recognize a market domain (e.g software) as a determinant of patent duration. I believe it even more correct that the R&D cycle be recognized as well, along with market life cycle. So it could be a function of the three; R&D cycle, development to market and market life cycle.
Which would make software patent duration about 18 months... Pharmacueticals might be 15 years or more. Things change too quickly to have *everything* locked into a 17 year cycle.
The weighted average of three components would give a much more equitable patent life span.
FPO
A shorter duration is a good start. But if software patents are to be truly valuable, I think they should include a few more restrictions:
1) Owners of such patents should have to demonstrate that they are actively working on an implementation of the patentable claim, whether for profit or not. That is, they should not be able to use the patent to stifle others, unless they themselves are making the technology available. Thus someone like Unisys or Forgent could not just sit on a patent for years until the technology becomes an industry standard, then start charging license fees.
2) Such patents should be non-transferrable. This would prevent patent-hoarding to some degree, and at the same time would cut down on companies whos sole purpose is litigation (e.g. Rambus or Forgent).
Copyright already protects programs. Copyright protection is appropriate: it protects independent invention, so that even if you copyright a trivial piece of code, you can't stop me writing the same thing without ever seeing yours. A patent, OTOH, prevents me from INVENTING THE SAME THING MYSELF. Patents are therefore only appropriate for _significant_ inventions, not the sort of small, incremental and obvious advances typically found in computer science.
Who else read this as "Moore Calls for Patent Reform" ????
This morning I saw an article in the SD Tribune touting how benificial patents were to the biotech industry from the perspective of a lawyer. I wrote this reply to the author before I even saw this on slashdot .... must have been a psychic thing! :)
To: michael.kinsman@uniontrib.com
Dear Michael Kinsman,
After reading a recent article you wrote in the Union Tribune, I really think you should consider the "other side" of the Patent system. I found it ironic that the article I'm thinking about referred to a lawyer, because of all people - a lawyer is probably the least qualified to understand what's good for technology industries and what isn't. In fact, even in the article, the lawyer referred to, defended against patents in one case and imposed them in another. Lets face it, when all is said and done, the people that benefit the most from this two way milking process is lawyers and not business. I don't work in biotech, but I've worked in allot of other technology companies and this is the way I see it:
In the tech industry I know, most people get patents not because they are some glorious protection, but rather a glorious hassle that is necessary to use defensively against frivolous lawsuits. They are also used to get into cross-licensing agreements that would have otherwise made it impossible for the small innovative companies to compete against entrenched patent and lawyer filled giants. This is hardly the patent system that helps the small inventor working in his garage that everyone talks about.
In the tech industry I know, the entire industry is defined by people who defied patents. For example, the IBM compatible PC was a drastic success for the computer industry, because it was a drastic patent failure where anybody could make an IBM compatible PC even if they weren't IBM. Silicon valley, wouldn't exist without the engineers who routinely revolted against companies who wanted to patent off their innovations, and created new startups in defiance.
In the tech industry I know, the overwhelming majority of patents were issued for innovations that were incremental, and were going to happen anyhow with or without patents. The patents didn't help anything, they just got in the way time and time again. Even worse are the thousands of patents issued for things that were obvious and could be made by any competent high school programming student, like a cursor that blinks!
One time I worked for an innovative startup that got bought out by a huge global multinational corporation - whose only motive was grab some key patents and lock out competition in an important area of the market. This didn't benefit the consumer who got gouged, it didn't benefit the employees who mostly got laid off, it didn't benefit the tech industry who was cut out from using the technology, and it stopped the innovation that was going on cold in it's tracks. But, on the bright side, it did benefit greatly a large staff of lawyers on hand!
However the most revealing patent issues didn't happen in the IT industry at all. It happened when American pharmaceutical companies tried to sue the daylights out of dirt poor African nations who wanted to make generic AIDS drugs on their own. And then how pharmaceutical executives went to the papers and said how they had no incentive to make pharmaceuticals without these lawsuits, that their patents were property, and they were very generous to Africans. Of course when it was pointed out that those points were very similar to the incentive/property/generosity arguments used by plantation masters in the 1800's - they backpedaled in a hurry and got the government to put 13 billion of my tax money towards fighting AIDS in Africa instead. (buying patented pharmacutical products, of course)
So the questions you should be asking is not whether patents are beneficial to the industry or not, or whether they will secure venture capital, bu
She (stupidly) placed the cup between her legs to get the lid off
"Stupidly" is right. And regardless of any other condition, the fact that she did this makes HER responsible for anything that followed. Blaming it on McDonald's after the fact is ludicrous.
She was an idiot, plain and simple.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
That's the theory. But in practice, software patents typically cover very obvious inventions. Society shouldn't be willing to pay anything at all for these dime-a-dozen inventions, much less yield a 17+ year monopoly for the "inventor" (not the real inventor, just the first group to spend the money/time to get the patent).
Furthermore, typically, companies use what I'd call "landmine patents" -- simple little worthless patents whose purpose is to trip up their competitors (especially little companies without resources to fight wealth destroying legal battles), while keeping the good stuff secret.
Unless society gets a benefit, it should wise up and stop paying the price. And make no mistake -- society certainly pays a price.
... the lid had melted onto the cup due to the extremely excessive heat.
Bullshit. Styrofoam is an INUSLATOR, and polyethylene has a higher melting point than the temperature of the coffee.
Harvard is a safety school. Yale is much better. You'd have to be crazy to go to Harvard...
We should tear it all down and replace it with Old Testament law.
--
make install -not war
Have software patents. However, make them good for only 5 years from the date of filing and on a first come first serve basis.
Entire fields of technology come and go in 5 years time, so that seems like more than enough time to "profit" from a patent. Also, it reduces the incentive for filing patents for "ideas" that allow a lock on said "idea" with no intent of using said idea. If the "idea" is suitably ahead of its time, well, then you could attempt to hold off on filing it...then again, mere ideas aren't invention. (See flight as one idea that was around for ages, but the actual invention didn't occur until 1908, I believe it was)
Additionally, the shorter time span would prompt immediate use of said patent, or it would be no longer useful to the patentee. Bad patents such as the infamous "one click" patent would go out the window in a reasonably short period of time.
I'm willing to bet the simplicity of such a solution is also the reason it would never be adopted, as companies wouldn't be able to profit from the current system (like SCO's attempts, for one)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
He got "-2, Offtopic" which guarantees that the majority of readers won't see his link. What else do you want?
Since software *is* a useful art, that sentence makes no sense.
Software patents have not caused an increase in the amount of software being written.
Unsupportable. Much more software, in fact, *has* been written since software became patentable -- although not all of it was patented.
Software patents have harmed some software developers by forcing them into costly litigation.
Perhaps true, perhaps not. Please give examples of software deveolpers which have been harmed by software patents.
Software patents have a chilling effect on developement. Knowing that a piece of software you are writting might be patented makes it less likely that you will work on it.
Completely ridiculous. It is exactly the other way around -- knowing that my software *will* be patented makes me *more* motivated to work on it. However, I don't work for a big corporation -- I'm an independent.
What good thing has happend as a result of software patents?
Knowing that my intellectual fruit is worth something in the open market and that it *is* protected better than by copyright. Furthermore, *all* software patents expire eventually, and then the software is in the public domain.
Software patents should not be allowed to start, and in countries where they've already started, they should be abolished.
Absurd. Poster gives no rational reasons in this post for that.
-- Should you question authority?
Ummmmmmm -- shouldn't *you*? All of your so-called arguments here have been made better by other people. Why, precisely, *are* you so dead set against software patents?
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Interesting that it's PriceWaterhouse that put this out.
...which caused the developer of Groovy Java Analyst to abandon his open source project.
Would this be the same PriceWaterhouse with this patent: "Method for electronically recognizing and parsing information contained in a financial statement"
Though he doesn't say that he received any correspondence from them, just idea of getting tangled up with a corp. over a patent was enough to send him packing.
I'm sorry, but software patents as well as BP patents are blatantly wrong.
Just imagine someone had managed to patent "Method for looping over an range of integers to control algorithm execution".
Nowadays, they could probably patent "Method for serving fast food with customer still in their car"
What do you expect from a guy who think Bush is doing a good job? The facts smack him in the face, and he resists the truth.
C'est La Vie.
Kids are kids, they (well most of them anyway) do not have the mental faculties of adults. Suggesting that a child is "stupid" for sliding down a metal slide in the summer is just that... stupid. Children are for the most part very trusting and naive, and if there is a slide on the playground of an elementary school they will play on it until they get hurt. Only after the painful experience will they realize that it is not a good thing to do.
Now, putting a metal slide in the playground of an elementary school in my opinion is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. It would be the equivalent of replacing your nice leather car seats with a bright and shiny sheet metal. "Yeah, those adults that burn themselves on their metal car seats are stupid! Don't they know that you can't drive in the summer?!!"
I do agree (I think) with the theme of your argument that lawsuits have become outrageously frivolous and common, but I must part ways on this particular example.
Sounds like copy & paste from RMS himself, not that I would want to accuse the author of intellectual borrowings, but the quote has that certain unique air of doctrine about it... ;-)
On a more serious note, I hope he gets listened to by some politicians. Maybe the activists of the FFFI can bring the guy together with some decision makers...
--
Try Nuggets , the mobile search engine. We answer your questions via SMS, across the UK.
King James of England And Scotland:
.
Looked at the patent laws and said start again
Try looking up Sterling Engine, pick 5 patents at random and tell me its a technical argument and not a legal one.
Kind of a bias task I know, but try it if you please and Im sure you will find as I did, assuming you know bullshit when you read it.
How long will this go one? when will it end the injustice! etc? Try Judge Jeffierys and the bloody assizes
Power emits from the end of a long stick
There are two kinds of people in the world, those with long sticks and those without.
Did you miss the part about what we already accomplished with our two party system and our "apathetical electorate" (let alone a hostile one)?
Our procedural details are just details. No system is perfect and you don't have to wait for a perfect one to come along to start working to fix things. It's nothing you can't work around, frankly. If you are interested in the practical details of American political activism, there is a wealth of information available to you.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Stop putting carriage returns in your posts. It's very annoying. The text entry box automatically wraps text for you; you don't have to do it manually. If people want to read your post in narrow-column format, they can resize their browser windows.
Stop putting carriage returns in your posts. It's very annoying. The text entry box automatically wraps text for you. You don't have to do it manually. If people want to read your post in narrow-column format, they can resize their browser windows.
Q: why give someone a $100 drug that will cure the problem they have when you can get $1000/yr out of them to treat the symptoms?
A: Because then another drugs company can get $100 to cure the disease.
You're willing to setting for 100% of a low profit market which will immediately die out due to your success(maximum $100/person, total), rather than sharing a market which is ten times more profitable, and remains viable over years ( at say 20% market share, $200 every year)?
In the words of Donald Trump, you're fired!
--
AC
The post anonymously option you are [not] attempting to use is one that isn't available to your user.