Slashdot Mirror
A Look at Technology Legislation for 2006
segphault writes "Ars Technica provides some insight into technology legislation scheduled for congressional review in 2006. From the article: 'Congress plans to cover some important tech issues in 2006 [...] like digital communication, intellectual property law, and computer security. [...] Patent reform is also on the menu. Industry groups have requested that the government allow them to participate in the patent review process, and some legislators have discussed imposing stricter constraints upon patent related injunctions..'"
It's nice to know that congressmen are considering legislation to prevent ISPs from restricting third-party services and patent reform. It will be interesting to see what happens after the lobbyists get their hands on whatever bills get introduced.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"Industry groups have requested that the government allow them to participate in the patent review process" While I suspect that this is letting the fox guard the henhouse, there is away to make it work:
When applying for a patent the applicant would split it into 2 parts. The first states what he can do, but not how. The second says how he can do it. The first part is made public a year before the second. If during that year, someone else can show how it is done, than the patent is denied on the basis of failing the nonobvious test. ( It need not be a year, maybe a month or two would work better ) If nobody can come up with something in that year, then the patent review process begins.
Although the situation in Iraq is sure to monopolize a big chunk of their time, they also want to spend time on issues like digital communication, intellectual property law, and computer security.
What's frightening is that the majority of congressmonkeys in office are either completely oblivious, or they consider orwellian DRM to be a "solution". I mean, honestly, can you expect a solid understanding of technology issues from a generation that doesn't even use direct deposit?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The first would be to disallow any blocking of others. IOW, it is status quo when it comes to packets going over a network. This would allow services to really build, but it could curtail future build-outs.
The second is the libertarian way. That is, we could allow anything, but we could also prohibit exclusive monopolies. Right now, govs. do a give away by allowing exclusive monopolies to various large companies. In my area, comcast has the coax rights. Qwest has the twisted pair rights. Comcast is now trying to stop Qwest from carrying iptv, by getting local legislation to block it, even though comcast has the right to offer phone and internet. By prohibiting any gov. from entering into a exclusive monopolies (or just allow very short-term ones), we would encourage huge build-outs, with the possibility of curtailments of services.
Personally, I prefer the later, but either should work. What I do know will fail, is if we give exclusive monopolies like we do now, AND we allow the companies to control services. That will prevent build-outs (why would the big players peer with you?), and would kill services that were not developed by a company.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"...enforcing anticompetitive monopolies based on patents is, dare I say, socialistic and not at all capitalistic."
Please dare to say it! Say it to everone you meet, shout it from the rooftops!
I keep saying this, and I want to use this chance to shout it louder again.
Patents are unique in being simultaneously anti-capitalist and anti-social. They screw business and they screw society equally. They are a very devious form af anti-progressive thought, skillfully sold as the exact opposite.
"What is to be gained from damping progress?" you may ask. Work that one out for yourselves.
So what would it take for the EFF to write some legislation and get it passed? (With the support of the Slashdot community.)
If it was well written and important legislation, I'd pledge $50. Who's with me?
Reality has a liberal bias