Slashdot Mirror
Champerty and Other Common Law We Could Use Today
pevans writes "Over on Red Hat's Opensource.com I found this neat summary of a few old laws that could really help us today with the patent trolls. The article 'What's wrong with champerty?' is brief, but full of legal goodness that seems to have fallen by the wayside: 'Let's bring back barratry, maintenance, and champerty for patent lawsuits. Combine that with a limitation on the assignment of patents and a lot of patent trolls would be out of business. ...do patents have to be freely assignable? And why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?"
All that needs to happen is to make it so people can't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income. Reform the laws so that people can't cash in on something they did not contribute to, no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.
Software patents stifle innovation.
Yet they are still around.
Many of us hate software patents. (myself included).
They limit what we can do, so we have to find innovative ways to avoid them.
Meanwhile we are happy when some large companies get bitten by patents.
Besides litigation, how do software patents benefit their holders?
Immoral? I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.
In an ideal world, people who enjoy an artists work would be able to pay the artist directly for their enjoyment. That way the artist is supported, and people who aren't interested don't have to support what they consider 'junk.' That is how it should be.
In the real world, copyright is a pretty good way to get that done. Are there problems with it? Yes, and the law is a little behind the latest technology (big surprise). That doesn't mean everything about copyright is bad.
Usually people I see who consider copyright immoral are people who are too cheap to pay a dollar for a song. Copyright for a reasonable length of time is not immoral, it's a good system.
Qxe4
I'd be perfectly fine with legalized dueling so long as there were set rules and the major players were above the age of 18 and mentally fit.
If things get bad enough that you would want to kill someone, as it stands now the attacker might miss a few times with his handgun and hit innocent bystanders. At least it would remove that risk to a degree.
Makes me wonder if any of the states with their silly old archaic laws still have a dueling law on the books.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)