Hardware Hacker Proposes Patent and Education Reform To Obama

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hardware Hacker Proposes Patent and Education Reform To Obama

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday February 17, 2013 @04:47AM from the listen-up dept.

ptorrone writes "In a welcome turn of events, President Barack Obama spoke directly to the patent troll problem and the need for more comprehensive patent reform yesterday in a 'Fireside Hangout' — a live question and answer session (video) hosted in a Google+ hangout. The President was responding to a question by the prominent electrical engineer and entrepreneur Limor 'Ladyada' Fried of Adafruit Industries, who in 2009 won an EFF Pioneer Award for her work with free software and open-source hardware."

134 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Blablabla by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 04:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Good question, but the answer was way too evasive, without any real committments.
1. Re:Blablabla by game+kid · 2013-02-17 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That, to be clear, is because (like the last Obama-Google+ copout that I remember hearing of (and seeing, in that case)) this is a mutual promotional vehicle for the President and Google's social network.
  If it were an actual exercise in journalism or even executive-branch outreach, there'd be more tough questions from the people, more focused answers from POTUS, and less "Look at us, we're YouTube and this is a Google+ hangout! GOOGLE PLUS!!!"-ness. It's grand puffery all around, even by propaganda standards.
  Perhaps that was the only way Obama and Larry Page would let YouTube get the former to say anything, but I suspect that I didn't miss much when I missed this.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
2. Re:Blablabla by socceroos · 2013-02-17 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Modders, why is he modded troll?
and he proposed what... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 04:58 · Score: -1

did he propose taxing hte rich? More welfare? Whatever the fuck gets his party votes? Sorry, no faith in Bush3
1. Re:and he proposed what... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, he's basically just Bush plus gay rights minus gun rights. Same economic and military policies, just a few changes in "culture war wedge issues" to give the illusion of choice in the elections.
2. Re:and he proposed what... by ColdWetDog · 2013-02-17 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah, he's basically just Bush plus gay rights minus gun rights. Same economic and military policies, just a few changes in "culture war wedge issues" to give the illusion of choice in the elections.
  Minus gun rights - Hell, Obama is the best guns salesman, ever.
  Try to find a new gun, anything. They're back ordered. Everywhere. I was trying to find a replacement for a 1960 era 12 gauge shotgun which has a cracked stock and a wonky barrel (too many dings on the rocks). Ended up buying a replacement 'military' stock and a new barrel. Fortunately the receiver looks OK. Even the .22 caliber AR 15 clones in pink and black pattern camo sold after a couple of weeks at the local gun store. Bizarre.
  And good thing I'm not trying to buy any ammo for it.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:and he proposed what... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-02-17 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  Minus gun rights - Hell, Obama is the best guns salesman, ever.
  Nah, Clinton sold more guns with HIS "assault weapon" ban.
  That may change, once we get a new "assault weapon" ban - then I really expect to see guns flying off the shelves....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
4. Re:and he proposed what... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  No kidding. I wish he and congres would just stop already. I need to get parts and ammo would be a bonus. Right now... forgetaboutit. This is crazy.
5. Re:and he proposed what... by ColdWetDog · 2013-02-17 08:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  While I would agree that Clinton 'helped', I think that Obama's 'better'. That appears to be for several reasons - there seems to be a groundswell of pro gun opinion in the country. People that don't hunt, don't target shoot, were not particularly gun oriented have, for some reason (and despite every objective bit of evidence to the contrary) decided that they need firearms. There was a recent Christian Science Monitor article on that (too lazy to look it up), but it jibes with what I hear - people wandering into the local gun store looking for things explosive ( a neighbor owns the store).
  Unfortunately, THOSE people are going to be really dangerous. Literally half cocked. Buy a gun, shoot it a couple of times and then more or less put it away.
  But that, coupled with the recent end-of-the-world angst seen in the popularity of survivalist 'reality' TV, the Zombie epidemic and just general Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt has, I think, increased the desire for people to feel that they have some control over their lives. If they're looking for it by having some cold steel in their warm hands, I think the feeling of security is misplaced, but nobody asks me..
  And for the record, I've plenty of firearms, spend quality time out at the range, used to hunt but gave that up after finding out the local deer population runs about the size of a medium dog and the ducks taste like seaweed. No elk and I just can find myself shooting a bear. They're perfectly nice creatures, most of the time, and they taste horrid. But guns, along with cars, Clorox and kitchen implements are dangerous and there are a lot of people out there who should not be entrusted to anything more deadly than a straw.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:and he proposed what... by drinkypoo · 2013-02-17 08:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But guns, along with cars, Clorox and kitchen implements are dangerous and there are a lot of people out there who should not be entrusted to anything more deadly than a straw.
  See, this is my problem with this whole argument. We're arguing about how we can best prevent assholes and idiots from doing shitty or stupid things. Why aren't we even talking about how we can best make more assholes into people who give a fuck, and more idiots into people who think occasionally? Instead of finding new ways to prevent citizens from themselves, let's make citizens better people. Not by some bullshit subjective measurement either; let's just give them more facts and more tools (logical ones) so that they can make better decisions on their own.
  Oh shit, we can't have that, they might refuse to run the maze...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:and he proposed what... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  You are actually the most dangerous type in this country. Disturbingly ignorant yet self-assured that you are wise. *shudder*
8. Re:and he proposed what... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Some people simply can not measure up. We could do a study of this with the American black community. Given a tiny bit of opportunity many black families and individuals have made stunning progress since the bad old days. Yet some simply can not change ancient attitudes or meet modern expectations. It should not be a blame issue. Regardless of race or economic status there are quite a few people who simply can never adapt. I'm not so certain that education can make a dent in many cases. It can make a very big dent over generations and lift entire families who in turn lift individuals within a family. But that does little for the many tens of millions who have not stepped into the light that already exist. It is also an issue for society to deal with. When we reach the point, which we already have, that prison is a much better choice than freedom for many citizens and compound that by not being willing to admit that the individuals really are making a good choice by going to prison then society itself has to absorb some of the guilt.
  I could almost split a gut over the nonsense about getting good mental health care for the masses as the expense makes that a non starter. Good mental health care is rare even for people with substantial money and is almost unheard of for the poor. If you have a prison with 5,000 inmates you would need at least 150 highly skilled psychiatrist working full time to treat those inmates and you can bet your last penny that almost 100% need serious mental health care and will leave prison in worse shape than when they arrived.
9. Re:and he proposed what... by buybuydandavis · 2013-02-17 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  Minus gun rights - Hell, Obama is the best guns salesman, ever.
  Prohibitionists are the marketing arm of the dealers.
Obama talks a lot but never delivers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is exactly the same thing he promised in 2008 .... and NEVER delivered. He didn't even discuss it for 4 years.
1. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by hcs_$reboot · 2013-02-17 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  3 AC comments in a row saying basically the same thing.. I suggest /. to display the (large) area from where come the AC comments based on IP ... I know, proxies and co, but most ACs won't bother switching proxies in between the posts.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's astonishing that people are panning Obama for his total neglect of patent reform.
  This must be due to some terrible conspiracy amongst ACs. Buwhahahahahaha!
  (or it could be that Obama .... you know .... hasn't done anything to reform patents ....)
3. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by tqk · 2013-02-17 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  3 AC comments in a row saying basically the same thing.. I suggest /. to display the (large) area from where come the AC comments based on IP ...
  I'm in Canuckistan (the Western part, but not too West). I saw nothing wrong with what they wrote. Obama's always talked a great game, but they're always platitudes. He's never shown the least lick of intention of actually carrying through on stuff that he says.
  I'm sure he does have a personal agenda, but you'll never learn what it is just by listening to him.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
4. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  that's a great idea! that would certainly stop me, i mean, us, from taking over the US by spamming /.
5. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by smpoole7 · 2013-02-17 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  > 3 AC comments in a row saying basically the same thing.
  And if I had some mod points, I'd bump them up. Even if it is the same guy/gal posting three times.
  This is healthy and it's time and PAST time that people began to realize this. Democrats and Republicans differ on some philosophical points, but when it comes to the Great Game (and all the monopoly money involved in same) there's hardly a stitch of difference between them.
  "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Daltry and Townshend were ahead of their time. :)
  I've said it before and I'll say it again: whether you're liberal or conservative or libertarian, the place to make a difference is in the primaries. YOU might run for office. Make a difference. Stop reelecting the same crooks from the same Country Club over and over again.
  
  --
  Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
6. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by letherial · 2013-02-17 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  Not that i care about defending Obama, but clearly you do not understand how our system works. Congress needs to do patent reform and the president needs to sign it, The presidents power is very limited and so read the constitution and you can figure it out. If your going to blame anyone for it, then you need to blame everyone for it, not just the president.
7. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by guises · 2013-02-17 08:54 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Obama said he had a priority to reform heathcare and it has been reformed. Are you complaining about the lack of a public option? That's valid, but that's ignoring some substantial gains in the Affordable Care Act.
  
  Obama said that he wanted to push civil rights for gay people and already there are gains in the military. That was a significant step forward and it looks like more is coming. Are you complaining that it hasn't been moving fast enough? I can understand why that would be frustrating, but these things never happen overnight.
  
  Obama said that he wanted to close Guantanamo and failed at that. Not only did congress block him, they added language to the must-pass defense bill that would make what was going on there legal. This was a loss for everyone of course, but not for want of effort and that effort has prevented the issue from fading away. A small silver lining.
  
  I don't see where you're coming from with this "he doesn't do anything" nonsense. He's accomplished as much as anyone could have accomplished, and more than most, given his extraordinary circumstances.
8. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 11:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  oh you naive child. Nothing has been reformed in healthcare. NOTHING has been reformed in healthcare. what has changed is that now people with children still can't afford healthcare, but the insurance companies are going to go from filthy rich to filthy richer with their state enforced kleptocracy.
9. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Government transparency
  No lobbyists in the white house
  Not coming after our guns
  End to Afghanistan combat before the end of his term
  Deficit reduction
  
  Need I go on?
  
  Oh, and that "Affordable Care Act" is only going to be affordable to those in the upper earning brackets. The rest of us are going to get screwed by it. I work in the industry and if you knew what was coming your way you'd distance yourself as far as possible from using ACA as a selling point to anything related to the Obama administration or the Democratic party.
10. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-02-17 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  He's accomplished as much as anyone could have accomplished, and more than most, given his extraordinary circumstances.
  nonsense!
  Guantanamo? All it would have taken was an Executive Order cancelling the Executive Order creating same. Then turn everyone inside loose.
  Civil Rights for Gays? Do you remember how Truman handled integration of the military? THAT was an example of a President doing the right thing, the right way. Letting your SecDef take heat for a decision that you should have made was just a cop-out.
  No comments about Obamacare (aka "healthcare reform" - it isn't really, it's "health insurance reform"), since most of it was designed to not cause problems until Obama was no longer eligible for reelection. We're not going to know for sure how much, if any, good it accomplishes for a long time.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
11. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by tqk · 2013-02-17 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see where you're coming from with this "he doesn't do anything" nonsense.
  "Blinkered, you are." -- Paraphrasing Yoda.
  You've got to be kidding. Have you researched his record? This's Obama's SOP. Talk a good game; period. That has nothing to do with what actually happens. I'm tempted to quote Jane from Serenity here. He's a Constitution specialist lawyer who's sworn to defend The Constitution, and he's backing warrantless searches, drone strikes on USA citizens, and fully approves of the DHS, TSA, and ICE's machinations.
  Wake the !@#$ up.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
12. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by Raenex · 2013-02-17 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Talk a good game; period.
  Except if he hadn't pushed healthcare or gays in the military, then they wouldn't have gotten done, period. There's a lot I wish Obama would have done differently, but to deny him any accomplishments is bullshit.
  
  Wake the !@#$ up.
  If you want to swear, just fucking swear. Hiding behind shit like that is lame.
13. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by sourcerror · 2013-02-18 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not American, so please explain me, how can the president change healthcare laws and give gays the right to serve in the military? Isn't these things that the congress does and the president only has veto right? (sign it or not sign it)
14. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by spongman · 2013-02-18 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't he expressly prevented, by congress, from closing Guantanamo on the grounds that we can't have terrorists on he mainland?
15. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by guises · 2013-02-18 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  The president gets a lot of credit and blame for things that he doesn't do, that much is true, but as the leader of the Democratic party he has some influence over what legislation they propose and vote for in congress. He doesn't have anything to do with most of the bills that congress votes on, but when there's something specific that he wants, usually these are larger bills that get more attention, he can get someone in congress to sponsor it for him.
16. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by aaaaaaargh! · 2013-02-18 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  To satisfy your curiosity, I'm the AC who posted the very first post (and no other AC post in this thread). I live and work in Portugal.
17. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by halltk1983 · 2013-02-18 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  The incredible number of recent Executive Orders says that you're wrong.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
18. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by letherial · 2013-02-18 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  all your really saying is that you cannot disprove my point and therefore your going to distract with other things...its a common way right wingers argue, keep changing the subject till confusion and frustration sets in.
  You could of said "hey look thats shiny" and had roughly the same effect.
  Regardless, my point stands, executive cannot make law, and if they did courts would strike them down, as is the nature of our goverment
19. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by halltk1983 · 2013-02-20 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is that if our government was behaving in a Constitutional manner, you'd be correct. I'd love for you to be correct. However, the President has been ruling via Executive Order, well beyond what it was intended for, since Clinton, through Bush, and now into Obama. Since the early 90's the President has been exercising his powers above and beyond his authority for things that interest and are important to him and his sponsors. What I was saying is that his reluctance to do so on this issue is simply from a lack of desire and support from his sponsors. Both major parties are guilty of it, so don't pull the "but they did it, too". Since I just said that, it would only weaken your position.
  
  The courts are unlikely to strike it down before Congress would enact it into law. That's the thing. He'd rather sign a bunch of Executive Orders about taking away things than giving them back.
  
  /You could have said "could have", but you didn't.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
20. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by letherial · 2013-02-20 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  All presidents exert there power through executive branch, it all depends on how you end up defining the constitution and ultimately we have the courts to stop and define clearly what can and cannot be done. You cant say they are acting or not acting constitutional because the push and pulls of powers and then the final say creates the living constitution. This is not uncommon through out our history, for example Roosevelt ordered all factories to produce things for the war as well as ordered the detainment of all Japanese citizen, these of course where both struck down by the courts.
  You are correct that both party's use executive orders to further there sponsors, its sorta the system as fucked up as it is. Money needs to be removed from politics plain and simple; but to say that obama is going to the point where he is creating new laws and enforcing them, you would need to cite a source on that because i dont know of any law obama has created, only things he interprets, correct or not; but again, we have courts to stop him. To reform patent would require new laws, he hasn't championed patent reform but you cannot truly blame just the president, and that was my point to begin with, blaming just the president ignores how our government works and the true powers of the executive branch. Just maybe, if all the media and hyperbole was on a realistic level, presidents wouldn't attempt to take so much power. I personally despise the fact that obama thinks he can just kill a American citizen just cause he says so, but that is not a law, thats a interpretation and a horrible one at that.
  I am not sure what you mean by 'could have', but i am not paying for a grammar lesson so please spare the effort, thanks in advance.
21. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by halltk1983 · 2013-02-20 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not to turn this into a gun debate, just using it as a recent example, Obama recently signed 23 Executive Orders. Some are within the historical power of the President, but others, such as the interpretation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, are the realm of the courts, and others such as "improving incentives to the states to share information" should be performed by Congress.
  
  I don't blame just the President, I hold the entire government and it's representatives, accountable for its actions and its inactions. I'm just saying that for things he finds important, he finds a way to get them done. If this was important to him, he'd be pushing for it. Same thing for Congress.
  
  /Yes, it was a bit Grammar Nazi-ish, but didn't actually matter on the main point I was making, which is why I put it in a slashie.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
22. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by halltk1983 · 2013-02-20 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Forgot the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/ Sorry about that.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
23. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by letherial · 2013-02-21 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  I agree there, i just dont see how its useful to blame the president and soley him, he is simply one cog in broken machine. Executive branch has gained alot of power over the years but its congress that has given it away, mainly because each party wants there own to have power. Hopefully patent reform will get its day, but its probably going to end up being like the drug war, to many interest involved to change it. One day it will snap though, just might take awhile.
24. Re:Obama talks a lot but never delivers by halltk1983 · 2013-02-22 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  We're in agreement there. Pretty much complete agreement. But, as the President assumes more power from other branches the blame should increase as well. But I blame all of them.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Trepidity · 2013-02-17 05:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Patent trolls are just a particularly visible example of exploiting low-quality patents. The main difference between patent trolls as "non-practicing entities" and practicing entities is that the mutually-assured destruction pacts don't apply to them, because they don't themselves build things which they could be counter-sued over in a retaliatory patent suit. But MAD hardly fixes the problem in the rest of the sector: all it does is turn it into a cartel-like system, where IBM and Intel don't sue each other because of MAD, but Intel is perfectly happy to sue startups that try to enter their sector and compete with them. That kind of anti-competitive, turf-defending patent usage is actually considerably worse than patent trolls imo.
If the patents are high-quality, on the other hand, representing actual non-trivial inventions, then I don't see much of a difference between practicing and non-practicing entities. For example, university research labs sometimes invent some significant things which they then license to a third party to commercialize, which is perfectly fine (and an intended use of the patent system).

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  The problem for me is the granting of absolutely obvious patents that you can accidentally "re-invent" by yourself.. If the patent is the result of legitimate research and innovation I have no problem giving a patent for it because I don't have to worry I might accidentally "invent" the same thing and have to pay out the ass for the privilege. Clear out the super obvious and overly wide "because it's on the internet" and "because it's over wifi" type patents and there would be a lot less patent mines to avoid while developing a product.
2. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by icebike · 2013-02-17 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Clear out the super obvious and overly wide "because it's on the internet" and "because it's over wifi" type patents and there would be a lot less patent mines to avoid while developing a product.
  Easily said, but just how would you propose to do such a thing?
  In fact, how do you propose to even DEFINE such a thing?
  People always dug in the ground for food.
  Then a caveman picked up a handy stick and used that to dig with.
  Does that forever block patents on digging machines of all types, even when new technology comes along?
  So when we invent tractor beams, digging with a tractor beam instead of a shovel is not patentable?
  (after all, its still just digging with a tool).
  1) You need to provide clear an concise guidance on exactly what you consider patentable,
  2) you need to define what is too broad, and what is too obvious.
  3) Then you have to get everyone to agree with you, or at least a majority.
  If any part of 1, 2,or 3 were easy, whores would do it. This is a sticky problem, and blithely suggesting clearing out the super obvious and overly wide patents, without defining "super obvious" or :overly wide" isn't going to cut it. Hindsight makes a lot of things "super obvious".
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Dachannien · 2013-02-17 07:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, patent trolls are fundamentally an artifact of flaws in the law.
  Take, for example, another (short-lived) attempt to exploit the law for unjustified gain: the (now amended) statute on false marking of patents.
  The old law allowed anyone to file suit on behalf of the federal government when a product was falsely marked as being patented, and then the plaintiff would pocket half of the damages awarded. Numerous lawsuits were filed in cases such as products being sold that had been marked with a patent number during manufacture but where the patent had since expired. It was also unclear whether the damages to be awarded were per each falsely marked item or not, which led some defendants to settle rather than pay large attorneys' fees and risk an unknown judgment in court.
  The flaw was that the law allowed a virtually risk-free suit to be filed with a potential for a huge payout. That's the same problem that leads to patent trolls and copyright trolls*, and it's one that is greatly mitigated by implementing a "loser pays" system.
  (* Copyright trolling is further exacerbated by the statutory damages provision that allows for recovery of damages far out of proportion to the actual damages suffered. There is a "loser pays" provision in copyright law, but it is at the discretion of the court and is usually only applied in extraordinary circumstances.)
  Low patent quality does play a role in patent trolling, but primarily by providing more ammunition for patent trolls to troll with. Speaking from experience, the USPTO examiners' hands are tied when it comes to patent quality (sideways swings and cat laser pointers aside), because case law and office policy don't give us the tools we need to say that a set of claims are so far removed from the disclosed invention as to be ridiculous; and in many cases, the relevant prior art is "in use" but the details are not published, which prevents us from making a prima facie case to sustain a prior art rejection.
4. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by blahplusplus · 2013-02-17 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Actually, patent trolls are fundamentally an artifact of flaws in the law."
  Actually you're wrong.
  See here:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
  A moderate person like yourself who "just wants to fix the laws" has history against you. Every time laws like Copyright came up to be 'fixed' it was extended. To be defeated every single time in a row and routed so thoroughly means moderates have no historical evidence that they can contain the beast.
5. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Raenex · 2013-02-17 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  For example, university research labs sometimes invent some significant things which they then license to a third party to commercialize, which is perfectly fine (and an intended use of the patent system).
  I think that's shit if the university received public funding to do that research. Why grant a monopoly in this case?
6. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Trepidity · 2013-02-17 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  If we fully funded universities, I'd agree, but in general taxpayers are stingy and don't, so universities need to find other sources of revenue. Patents are one reasonable source, certainly better than many of the alternatives (like being dependent on corporate donations). They at least tie university funding to production of value for third parties.
  For example, Stanford's CCRMA computer-music research center is largely funded from patent-licensing deals with synthesizer companies like Yamaha. An alternate arrangement could be for the taxpayers to fund CCRMA directly, and not have them patent anything. But obviously that didn't happen, and probably won't. So long as it doesn't, I don't see any reason the private sector shouldn't pay to license their inventions when they benefit from them.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
7. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Raenex · 2013-02-17 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  If we fully funded universities, I'd agree, but in general taxpayers are stingy and don't, so universities need to find other sources of revenue.
  In the United States? Besides the grant money, directly paying for the research that turns into patents, there's tons of money being funneled into universities through government loans and grants to students, which have caused college tuition rates to outpace inflation for several decades now.
8. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Trepidity · 2013-02-17 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  College tuition rates are outpacing inflation precisely because of the huge cuts in public funding of education.
  In 1985, for example, the state of California funded the University of California system with $3.25 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars). It had about 110,000 students at the time, so that funding amounted to about $30,000 per student. Fast-forward to today, and the UC system receives about $3.00 billion in state funding, but is required to educate around 180,000 students. That adds up to state funding of about $17,000 per student. Where do you think the remaining $13,000 per student comes from? Well, the UC system has partly offset the difference by becoming more efficient: it now spends about 25% less, in real terms, to educate each student than it did in 1985, through changes such as larger average class sizes. But the remaining amount comes from tuition hikes.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
9. Re:I don't see patent trolls as the real issue by Raenex · 2013-02-17 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Given the recent and persistent recession, and especially given California's budget woes, using that single example isn't a good barometer of why tuition at schools has risen so fast for so long.
random token gold star winner by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 05:11 · Score: 0

who takes products off the shelf and resells them with breakout boards, never inventing anything herself, is going to save the patent system
yay
prominent electrical engineer? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 05:13 · Score: 0

If reselling existing parts and coming up with cutesy descriptions for them is all it takes to be a "prominent electrical engineer", it's time to remove EE from universities.
"Trolls" Are Misdirection by Bob9113 · 2013-02-17 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

[Obama] describes patent trolls as "a classic example," of the problem, and that "they don't actually produce anything themselves."
Whether a bad patent is wielded by a producer or a holding company does not change the fact that it should never have been granted. If we kill the trolls, we will still be left with the runaway, wasteful patent litigation over bad patents by companies that do produce things.
The problem is not production. The "patent troll" hobgoblin is misdirecting the patent backlash that should be directed at a patent system that is too powerful. We are getting bad patents because we grant them too easily and give too much enforcement power to those who hold them. That is every bit as true of the mobile patent wars between producers as with the network service patent wars of the trolls.
The "patent troll" misdirection is harming our ability to fix the actual problem.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
1. Re:"Trolls" Are Misdirection by tqk · 2013-02-17 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The "patent troll" misdirection is harming our ability to fix the actual problem.
  Yet once you fix that problem, the fuckers sue you in order to break it again. We don't have enough lawyers (preferably politicos) on the ocean floor.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 05:25 · Score: -1, Troll

I guess that's it for the focus on gun problems. Patent problems must be more important than mass elementary school shootings. Congrats on, once again, not even making a single attempt to improve the situation. Good job.
1. Re:So much for the guns by Nidi62 · 2013-02-17 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Most guns will never hurt a single person as long as they exist. Patent trolls hurt millions of people every day.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hey look, you live in the right country for you, have the right president for you, and you have the right issues for you. Oh wait, I mean problems. You have the right problems for you. Glad you're happy with your problems.
  However, as an outsider, I'll let you in on a little secret. With all of the wars, and all of the droughts, and all of the torture, December's shootings remain the most embarassing thing on the planet at this time.
  You're losing what little respect the rest of the world has for you. And this after mortgage problems how long ago?
  I'm looking at your last 13 years. I see terrorism, huge financial issues, loss of privacy, loss of civil rights, enormous expenses, loss of jobs, budget cuts to major exploration, mass shootings, recessions, pollution, miscounts, immigration issues, and mass corporate fraud. Oh yeah, and low-quality education. And also a lousy patent system.
  I don't know what to tell you. I put the patent system at the end.
3. Re:So much for the guns by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-02-17 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  The skill of being a politician involves being able to compartmentalize issues and think about more than one in the same month.
4. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 05:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  "Most guns will never hurt a single person..." but some guns will hurt many people. And I won't let you say that patent trollls hurt people. I won't let you use the word "hurt" to cross the line of physical safetly. There's an order of magnitude between money, liberty, luxury, benefit, and fun versus actually surviving the day. It's a very simple line. You can invalidate a patent ten years later. You can refund money. You can feed the hungry. You can't raised the dead.
  I'm not against guns. I'm against systems that don't try to improve things when certain lines are crossed.
  I don't care when one druggy shoots another. I don't care when a wife kills her husband. These issues don't threaten me.
  Over the course of a year, a few random shootings of innocent people are upsetting, but to be expected from any large society. There's a number that is simply not able to be reduced.
  26 people within an elementary school, being killed by someone outside of that elementary school, is across my line. I'm not asking for gun control. I'm not asking for security. I'm asking for anyone to try anything in an attempt to take one small step in any direction. It doesn't need to work, it just needs to be an attempt.
  And so far, nothing's been done.
  Since 1972 -- when an episode of "All in the Family" had precisely the same discussions. Those are 40 years of absolutely nothing being improved at all.
  Congrats.
5. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:00 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  That's precisely correct.
  And the skill of getting things done is to have a singular focus until the task is complete.
  Checks and balances a system specifically designed to ensure that leaders aren't able to get anything done. That's how you've solved the problem of corrupt leaders. And as a direct result, you can't effect change. Of any kind. At any time.
  Think about it. If apples were suddenly poisonous, you wouldn't be able to outlaw apples. It would take you ten years and still the apple lobbyists and the apple industries, and the apple farmers and the apple black market, who all make money on apples, wouldn't let you make apples illegal.
  Guns, drugs, cigarettes, grafitti, patent trolls, slavery, wars, poor education, wellfare, healthcare. There are countries that effectively have absolutely none of these problems. And do it without a significant military, and without even knowing the names of their leaders.
6. Re:So much for the guns by ColdWetDog · 2013-02-17 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, the Newton shootings are an embarrassment. If you believe they are the "most embarrassing things on the planet". You sir, need to read just a bit more history.
  They're not even close.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Heh. Actually, I didn't say mass-elementary-school shootings, nor mass elementary-school shootings, nor mass elementary school-shootings, so I think syntactically I could probably get away with assigning the plural to the shootings, or to the mass, or to the elementary, without assigning the plural to the school, but that's definitely at the limit of my language skills.
  I'd like to agree with you that one school shooting every 50 years is something of a curiosity, more than it is something to be dealt with. However, it came with a mass theatre shooting too. And correct me if I'm wrong but I think there was a random sniper public shooting of a few people soon thereafter?
  I'm not sure that the mass shooting part of the mass school shooting didn't flow as an escalation from mass shootings in general. And it's hard to argue with the simple number of shootings across any given year in the country. It's a very big number, especially considering the numbers in other countries.
  It's a number that rivals deaths from other causes like terrorism, volcanoes, mud slides, avalanches, and many different illnesses. And yet it continues to go unaddressed.
  That's what concerns me.
8. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Oh, I agree with you entirely. I'm upset that it's been 40 years of the same problems, and that you guys don't seem to be any closer.
  Actually, my country doesn't have any problems that I feel need to be addressed within my life-time at the moment. The trouble is that we've got neighbours. And while I've recently decided to stop visiting, and stop contributing my tourism dollars, and I'm even working on cancelling my business dollars to find suppliers elsewhere, still many of your laws seem to be crossing our borders.
  That's the problem. That's why I'm worried about your problems. Your "solutions" cross the border, often intentionally.
9. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what that means.
10. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  The most embarrassing on the planet -- present tense. Certainly not the most embarrassing in history. No doubt about that, you're right.
  But right now, today, and especially two months ago, very much the most embarrassing.
11. Re:So much for the guns by cffrost · 2013-02-17 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  With all of the wars, and all of the droughts, and all of the torture, December's shootings remain the most embarassing thing on the planet at this time.
  
  Claiming that illegitimate wars are less embarrassing or serious than occasional mass shootings should make you embarrassed.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
12. Re:So much for the guns by phantomfive · 2013-02-17 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  That's a cute post. You start out saying how much you disrespect the GP and then somehow expect him to be interested in your opinion.
  
  Here's a hint for you: most Americans don't actually care what a random foreigner thinks about the country. Lobby to your prime minister/president/whatever to prevent all trade/travel from your country to America. See how well that works.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
13. Re:So much for the guns by DFurno2003 · 2013-02-17 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not being critical here, but I don't understand the connection between this article, the discussion taking place and Gun control, or why you seem to be upset that the conversation taking place doesn't include December's shootings.
14. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly.
  So I'll ask you what I've asked many. Draw your line. At what point is the problem too big for you to accept. My line was 20 young children in school. It was crossed. I got pissed off.
  I don't care where your line is. Just so long as you have a line somewhere. So what's your line? Is it quantity? Is it frequency? is it method? Is it geography? If 200 infants in a hospitals in rhode island were killed every week by nuclear poison gas, would that cross your line?
  Where's your line? What's simply not tolerable to you? When will you leave your country, dethrown your president, insist on change, refuse to pay your taxes?
15. Re:So much for the guns by Nidi62 · 2013-02-17 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  26 people within an elementary school, being killed by someone outside of that elementary school, is across my line. I'm not asking for gun control. I'm not asking for security. I'm asking for anyone to try anything in an attempt to take one small step in any direction. It doesn't need to work, it just needs to be an attempt.
  Which should be done not by banning guns, but by improving peoples' access to mental health testing and treatment. Banning semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines would not have stopped Columbine, or Sandy Hook. To advocate gun control as a method to solve problems such as this is like advocating cutting off my foot because a herniated disk in my back makes it hurt. Sure, my foot will stop hurting, but the underlying problem still exits. Target the cause of the problem, not the method through which that problem is expressed.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
16. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  Irrelevance isn't a problem. It's a solution. We spend virtually nothing on a military, and we're protected from attack. Figure that one out.
  I have money, I have freedom to go just about anywhere, I can purchase from just about anywhere, I'm safe, I'm happy, and as a business owner, my taxes are actually very low -- almost as low as yours.
  Oh yeah, people don't die in our streets, they don't starve in our streets, they don't freeze in our streets -- which is impressive. Our banking system is awesome, and we were barely impacted by your economy collapsing.
  Sure we have issues. None of them affect our fundamental lives.
17. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know anything about him. But I have one simple question. Did he kill 26 young children and teachers?
18. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  You say "There's an order of magnitude between money, liberty, luxury, benefit, and fun versus actually surviving the day", but seem to ignore that the lack of money, liberty, luxury, benefit and fun lead tens of thousands of people every year to choose death over surviving. You seem to think that death is worse simply on the grounds of it cannot be reversed, but clearly there's a non-trivial percentage of the population that disagrees with you rather strongly, having made the decision that death was the better choice. By this logic, the patent troll is FAR more dangerous, and FAR more deadly than any act of violence outside of full blown war.
  The shooting was tragic, yes. But keep in mind, it was done with an assault rifle. Through the 80s and 90s we had an assault rifle ban, and it was allowed to expire simply on the grounds of it wasn't proven effective in having any significant impact on gun violence. I only mention this because you said "It doesn't need to work, it just needs to be an attempt" when there was this attempt, and it didn't work. Obama is pushing for it again when it's really just a feel good measure which has already been proven in the past to be ineffective.
  Keep this in mind as well when thinking about gun violence. In the US there's some 30,000 gun deaths per year. Some 2/3rds of those are suicides. Clearly the biggest issue with gun deaths in this country isn't the guns themselves. Speculation on my part, but when people are down trodden enough, they either become suicidal or homicidal, so if we worked more on dealing with the root cause of the 2/3rds of the gun deaths (which banning guns will do nothing for since there's many more ways to kill yourself than a gun), I wonder how much that will also affect the remaining 1/3rd.
19. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  With all of the wars, and all of the droughts, and all of the torture, December's shootings remain the most embarassing thing on the planet at this time.
  You privileged fucking prick.
20. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that the ideal concept of a war -- one country attempting to protect itself from another -- is legitimate. Mistakenly acting on incorrect intelligence is an error, to be sure. But people making mistakes is understandable. Big people making big mistakes is unfortunately understandable too.
  Illegitimate wars are embarrassing, but to some extent they are a necessary part of a system that includes legitimate wars.
  School shootings are not. They aren't a mistake -- no one thought that the children might be angry aliens.
21. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm upset that the president, who said that something would be done in january, did nothing and is now focusing on something totally different.
22. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  I don't need to. I've cancelled all of my tourism, I've stopped purchasing for your country, and I'm in the middle of switching suppliers away from your country. This year, about $25'000 of my dollars aren't coming your way. Next year, it'll be all $85'000 per year that I have traditionally spent in your country. The year following, it'll be all $200'000 per year for which I am responsible. And I'm spreading that sentiment.
  The problem here is specifically that you don't care what the rest of the world sees. Those are your blinders. You lack that perspective. And you're only making things worse for yourselves.
  We've always seen you as an older brother. But these days, you're a mentally challenged older brother, and it looks like we all need to help you out before you implode.
23. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Cool. Have you tried that? It's been 40 years since the all in the family episode with the same conversation. I've seen no attempt in that direction either.
  That's what makes me upset. I don't care about the guns either. I care about the problem.
24. Re:So much for the guns by holophrastic · 2013-02-17 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Good answer. Now where's your line on the other issue at hand? Again, I won't let you ignore the line between unfortunate and unsafe. Between alive and dead.
25. Re:So much for the guns by ColdWetDog · 2013-02-17 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well you SHOULD know more about him. And many others. It seems like your view of the world is a bit eurocentric and more than a little rose colored. Read up on current events in the Middle East and in Africa. Or even about the issues surround child abuse in Native American communities or the implosion of the social contract in some American cities or .....
  Come on. Humans aren't exactly nice creatures and the world isn't exactly a nice place. We should work on changing that to the extent possible but hyperbole doesn't help.
  "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana, one of the most prescient posts ever.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
26. Re:So much for the guns by Nidi62 · 2013-02-17 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  And yet you are still advocating a solution that does not address the problem. Taking the wrong course of action is just as bad as taking no course of action, if not worse.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
27. Re:So much for the guns by tqk · 2013-02-17 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, yes, I do think it's a larger problem than mass elementary school shootings.
  You must be a patent litigation lawyer; AKA psychopath. I don't think many bad patents have killed any kids. And no, I'm not anti-gun either. I think *everyone* should be taught how to handle and use them correctly from the time they learn to walk. I'm strongly in favour of criminals being surrounded by armed citizens (but I digress).
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
28. Re:So much for the guns by phantomfive · 2013-02-17 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  The problem here is specifically that you don't care what the rest of the world sees.
  And this is a problem?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
29. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know anything about him. But I have one simple question. Did he kill 26 young children and teachers?
  Google is your friend. Suffice it to say that if he'd only been out to kill 26 children entire city districts wouldn't have had artillery fired into them.
30. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 07:20 · Score: -1
  
  You're a fucking retard.
31. Re:So much for the guns by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-02-17 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm asking for anyone to try anything in an attempt to take one small step in any direction. It doesn't need to work, it just needs to be an attempt.
  So, you'd consider it acceptable if Congress passed a law requiring every person over age 15 to own a fully-automatic (NOT semi-auto, which is what the EVIIILLL gun used to kill those kids was) rifle? After all, that would be a step "in any direction"?
  Alternately, a law forbidding automobiles within 1000 yards of any school would work as "a step in any direction".
  In other words, don't be an idiot!
  If you want more gun control, more power to you. It won't work to reduce the number of guns out there, and it won't work to reduce gun crime, but it's perfectly fine that you want that (and even better that you say it, rather than mealy-mouthed crap like "a step in ANY direction").
  Note, by the by, that you look at Sandy Hook as an example of the evils of guns. I see a crime that took place in a "gun-free zone" - no law-abiding citizen had any chance at all of stopping whatsisbutthead even if they'd wanted to.
  And, oddly enough, the law forbidding firearms in schools did NOT prevent whatsisbutthead from bringing a gun in and killing people.
  And if there'd been an "assault weapon" in place, he'd still have been able to kill those kids - a shotgun doesn't care from age of target, nor does a pistol....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
32. Re:So much for the guns by tqk · 2013-02-17 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Good point. I stand corrected.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
33. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  More children choke to death each day than have ever died in all school shootings, combined.
  Seriously.
  And better, there is NOTHING to you could do to stop an activity like a school shooter. NOTHING. No law, no amount of money, no defense you can erect around the school. If a guy is determined, he will succeed.
  Meanwhile, you'll drop $40000000000 per school and still fail. You'd save more kids by banning hotdogs.
34. Re:So much for the guns by DFurno2003 · 2013-02-17 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, Just because a certain political leader says that something will be done on a certain time frame does not make it true. The president is not a dictator. Furthermore, there are many other critical issues in this country to be dealt with. Children being killed is a terrible thing, but it is very shortsighted of you to think that is the biggest problem in the world or that the president should devote every talking breath to gun control.
35. Re:So much for the guns by drinkypoo · 2013-02-17 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Illegitimate wars are embarrassing, but to some extent they are a necessary part of a system that includes legitimate wars.
  There is no logical basis for accepting entire illegitimate wars because some war is valid, and then not accepting illegitimate shootings when you are accepting that some shooting is valid, especially since war includes shooting. That is exceptionally hypocritical.
  
  School shootings are not. They aren't a mistake -- no one thought that the children might be angry aliens.
  The guns aren't for protection from aliens, angry or otherwise. You are a douchebag because that was a straw man, and you are prevaricating. Now, by all means, accuse me of Ad Hominem. I won't disagree, and you'll still be a douchebag.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
36. Re:So much for the guns by drinkypoo · 2013-02-17 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, I agree with you entirely. I'm upset that it's been 40 years of the same problems, and that you guys don't seem to be any closer.
  You are either disingenuous or insufficiently informed to open your yap. Gun ownership in America is rising, but gun crime is falling. And as well, the ratio of suicide to murder is heading towards the suicide (see what I did there?) and while we might reasonably discuss whether that is bad for society, it does suggest that we are in fact getting a handle on gun crime in spite of the many problems in our society.
  
  And while I've recently decided to stop visiting, and stop contributing my tourism dollars, and I'm even working on cancelling my business dollars to find suppliers elsewhere, still many of your laws seem to be crossing our borders.
  So you're upset with us because of your inadequate border control? Can't even stop a law? They're big things, hard to hide, you know.
  
  That's the problem. That's why I'm worried about your problems. Your "solutions" cross the border, often intentionally.
  We wouldn't even be here if it weren't for the French. Complain to them. Oh, wait...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
37. Re:So much for the guns by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-02-17 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  You know, if you were doing that for any other country than America, you would be a racist bigot.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
38. Re:So much for the guns by wierd_w · 2013-02-17 08:39 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I would put it at "systemic problem", and not at "One time occurrence."
  The issue with "20 children", is that we jam that many into a single classroom, because of other systemic problems.
  Much like "OMG! That airplane crashed and killed 900 people!" does NOT mean "OMG, Airplanes are unsafe! Look at all the people that died! WE MUST DO SOMETHING!" It means "One airplane crashed, and the 900 people we shoehorned onto it paid with their lives. Out of the many thousands of aircraft in service, this is a one-off occurrence and the large casualty figure is a consequence of mass transit."
  In both of your examples, we have areas that 1) Service an epic ass-ton of people, and 2) have a large density of people per service run. Just like the hypothetical crashing jumbo-liner.
  A much more drastic reduction in total children shot by crazy people can be achieved by putting fewer children in each school, and in each classroom. Studies suggest that this will also increase educational quality as a bonus. We don't do that, because of a big tangled ratnest of other problems that are systemic.
  Rather than focus the attention on the rat-nest of systemic problems, (Cause like, that's hard and shit. Blaming gun ownership is much easier!) we jump for an easy to blame strawman we can shove all our problems onto, so we can continue to pretend that the systemic malfunction does not exist.
  So, where do *I* draw *MY* line?
  Ignoring systemic problems that create ripe opportunities for massive loss of life to begin with because ignoring those problems is easier than dealing with them properly, and the assignment of scapegoats and whipping boys to divert the attention away from those problems.
  Is that answer satisfactory for you?
39. Re:So much for the guns by wierd_w · 2013-02-17 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  It is arguable that his policies are endangering that many, and more by a factor of 1000, or perhaps more-- by not just waving a gun around, but waving around nuclear devices.
  When you really stop to consider the actual size of the event, we have 26 people, out of 300 million people, with a 5 to 10 year interval between such events. All things considered, the actual *rate* of such shootings is quite low.
  Compare with what Assad's nuclear penis waving actually translates to in terms of endangering the lives of his citizenry.
  The two are not even close to comparable in scope. Assad is by far the bigger embarrassment.
40. Re:So much for the guns by wierd_w · 2013-02-17 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  Bad patents havent killed kids?
  By what metric do you ascribe "Killed"?
  Does death by withholding treatment count? If so, then drug patents have directly killed more children than every school shooting in the US combined.
  "Oh, Sorry little Raj, but we need our 10,000 dollars for your life saving medication, even though your government can produce it for 10$. Because that undermines our business model, we have to sue your government to stop the inexpensive local production, and you have to die. It's nothing personal, just business. We HAVE to protect our intellectual property!"
41. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  ... in America.
42. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Spoiled little gun-hating child who has never known adversity demands that no one should ever own a firearm. You're a deep thinker. Keep your worthless monopoly money.
43. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  You are hilariously ignorant and naive. Have you ever pondered why you're protected from attack? Do you think it's because the muslims think you guys are a-ok, and that it's just those damn americans that need to die?
  Lets say America ceased to exist tomorrow. You canadians would be next on their fucking list. But keep kidding yourself douche lips.
44. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  You say you don't want to ban guns, and yet in your list of "horrible things that should be banned or removed from civilization", guns are the first item on your list. Many more kids die in car accidents or are deformed by fetal alcohol syndrome ever year than any rare and horrible circumstance like a school shooting.
  Don't try to push your ignorant bereft of logic agenda on others sir.
45. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  We can not get real on this type of issue. Being that over population is by far the driving force behind almost all our woes and miseries it is a sad fact that actions that kill off a lot of people may make us feel awful but in the end we could suffer a loss of 80% of the world's population and be all the better for it although the stench would be dreadful.
46. Re:So much for the guns by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-02-17 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about him, but that's precisely what I think. Muslim hatred for America is extraordinarily specific to the USA. The fact that Canada has a very similar culture is utterly irrelevant to the haters. The hatred has absolutely no bearing on reality, and is significantly artificial anyway, which divorces it even further from reality. (See Saudi royal family funding for the artificiality.)
  So no, Canada would not be "next on the list" if they succeeded in overthrowing the Great Satan. Israel is next on the list. Actually Israel is first on the list, but we're standing in the way (not too cleverly, I might add), so we're first by dint of being nosy. Canada does not stand in front of Israel, therefore Canada is of no concern at all.
47. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 12:05 · Score: -1
  
  Fuck. You're a fucking retard. You have no sense of perspective.
48. Re:So much for the guns by tqk · 2013-02-17 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Oh, Sorry little Raj, but we need our 10,000 dollars for your life saving medication, even though your government can produce it for 10$. Because that undermines our business model ...
  I sympathise and very much agree, but that's not what we usually called "killed." Raj may end up dead, but his condition is what killed him, not some greedy, heartless pharmaceutical corp. Blame $deity or Karma. Sucks to be mortal.
  I'm very much in favour of eliminating the patent regime. It's unnecessary. Corps have far too much power naturally. They don't deserve any more via politicos passing laws in their favour granting them monopolies.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
49. Re:So much for the guns by stephanruby · 2013-02-17 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  However, as an outsider, I'll let you in on a little secret. With all of the wars, and all of the droughts, and all of the torture, December's shootings remain the most embarrassing thing on the planet at this time.
  As Americans, we've stopped being embarrassed long ago.
  It's a coping mechanism.
50. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Guns have real utility in allowing us to prevent our government from becoming completely tyrannical. As long as that continues to be the case I'm not willing to allow anyone to ban them. We need to be able to defend ourselves from the people we've put in power, if need be. After all it takes a special kind of crazy to want to have such total control over other people as is vested in our government. I'm sorry that you trust your government enough to allow them to take your last line of defense away, but I don't trust mine enough to allow them to do whatever they want.
  The USA was founded by people who had a very good reason to not trust the government, and they knew that given enough time there would be a repetition of that situation. They would feel very badly for the children who were murdered at the hands of a psychopath, but I doubt that they would find that reason enough to ban or even control guns considering the potential loss of human life and dignity that comes from tyrannical governments. There are principles worth standing up for at all odds, and being able to defend your own self from anyone who would seek to force their will on you is one of them.
  Personally I find it shocking that you blame the gun and not the asshole who murdered all those children instead of simply taking his own life. Why are you so angry at guns? Why not be angry at the person who is the only actor in the situation with the capacity to stop himself? Why not rail against a culture that is so indifferent as to not even notice someone going completely off the deep end? If people earnestly reached out to each other more often, perhaps the shooter would have been less inclined to lash out. More compassion all around is never a bad thing.
51. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's cool. We saw Iraq as a mentally challenged older brother about 10 years ago and just up and invaded him. You can feel free to start a war with us anytime. With that kind of paternalistic attitude I'm surprised you haven't already suggested it.
52. Re:So much for the guns by Rockoon · 2013-02-17 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  I sympathise and very much agree, but that's not what we usually called "killed." Raj may end up dead, but his condition is what killed him
  Bullshit. What killed him is a lack of liberty.
  
  The idea that none of the 7+ billion people on the planet would be offering the $10 treatment that would have saved Raj's life is simply laughable. The only reason this theoretical person doesnt get the theoretical $10 treatment today is the very real problem with the concept of intellectual property imposed upon the theory-verse.
  
  In the real world, the government created another monopoly. People really die because of it.
  
  Would you ever try to pull the same horse-shit argument if it was about Food and Starvation? The government grants a monopoly to a single company for all food production, and they want $10,000 dollars per sandwich.... would you really say "its the need for food that killed, not some greedy, heartless food corporation" ??
  
  Of course not. You would say that its the government that was responsible for the killing. Why do you pretend that medicine is different?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
53. Re:So much for the guns by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  In the real world, the government created another monopoly. People really die because of it.
  Would you ever try to pull the same horse-shit argument if it was about Food and Starvation? The government grants a monopoly to a single company for all food production, and they want $10,000 dollars per sandwich.... would you really say "its the need for food that killed, not some greedy, heartless food corporation" ??
  Of course not. You would say that its the government that was responsible for the killing. Why do you pretend that medicine is different?
  There really is no need to develop new food, but new medications are required to save lives?
  (Yes, I do understand that the a case can be made the current patent regime gives an incentive for companies to research into drugs that are suboptimal from an overall social point of view. I.E., the invention of a new drug that increases survival from the current 97% to 98% in a disease that affects 200,000 per year is more profitable that an 80% effective cure for a disease that affects 5,000 people per year. I am not arguing that a tax on sick people (increased money from patents) is the appropriate way to fund health care research. However, the equivalency you presented is false.)
54. Re:So much for the guns by chrismcb · 2013-02-18 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Which country are you talking about? I couldn't narrow it down from your description.
  Many countries have lots of problems. Many of them take a long time to fix. You can just ignore some, because you haven't yet solved other multiyear problems. Especially when some of the problems are intertwined.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
US painted into a corner by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 05:31 · Score: 1

The USA is increasingly reliant on its "intellectual property rights" now. Software patents help to maintain the status quo in favor of the USA for a while longer.
No matter how stupid and destructive software patents are, any US administration will fight hard to keep things the same.
1. Re:US painted into a corner by tqk · 2013-02-17 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  The USA is increasingly reliant on its "intellectual property rights" now.
  Please stop using that empty phrase. It's "imaginary property rights." Just because you pass a law, doesn't make it real.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Dumb patents by flyingfsck · 2013-02-17 05:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

The problem is dumb patents that do not advance the state of the art and provide no solution to anything. Most software patents are only problem statements and provide no solution to the problem at all, so they are totally worthless except to harass other people who actually invested the time and energy to solve the problem. If a patent describes something useful in a way that furthers the art, then no-one will have an issue with it. Every patent application should be accompanied by a working machine. Whether it costs 10 pence, 10 dollars, or 10 billion dollars to make that working machine - that will prove the value of the patent.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. Re:Dumb patents by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-02-17 06:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The problem is dumb patents that do not advance the state of the art and provide no solution to anything. Most software patents are only problem statements and provide no solution to the problem at all, so they are totally worthless except to harass other people who actually invested the time and energy to solve the problem. If a patent describes something useful in a way that furthers the art, then no-one will have an issue with it. Every patent application should be accompanied by a working machine. Whether it costs 10 pence, 10 dollars, or 10 billion dollars to make that working machine - that will prove the value of the patent.
  That would destroy drug patents as well as software patents.
  It should require a demonstration to show practicality. In the case of a drug patent, that would mean a successful clinical trial
  In the case of sotware (and yes, I think there should be software patents but not for obvious, workmanlike programs) it would be a working program that implements all the claims of the invention.) and a demonstration that it does what is claimed.
  In the case of hardware, it would require a physical implementation of the invention and demonstration that it does what is claimed.
  In the case of a gene patent, no such fucking thing unless you built that gene yourself and it isn't known to exist in a living organism in the wild. For example, if you invent a new DNA sequence that will cause bacteria to break down cellulose quickly and convert it into ethanol or methane, that would be an invention. And the modified bacteria could then be an invention, though I have qualms about letting any living thing be patented because if it escapes into the biosphere it becomes impossible to commercially control.
2. Re:Dumb patents by nnnnnnn · 2013-02-17 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  "Most software patents are only problem statements and provide no solution to the problem at all"
  I don't understand what you're talking about. You can't patent problems, you can only patent a solution to a certain problem. Even if you do patent a problem, good luck defending it against a PTO re-exam or in court, let alone collecting any kind of royalty.
  From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent : An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem, and may be a product or a process.
3. Re:Dumb patents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, what he means is this: the patents are just statements of a problem not an actual solution. For example: "A system for printing spreadsheets over wifi", this isn't an invention it's a problem, as in "we need to find a system for printing spreadsheets over wifi". It says nothing about how you do it. Therefor anyone who actually creates a system for printing spreadsheets over wifi now has to pay the patent troll for solving the patent trolls own problem! get it now?
4. Re:Dumb patents by icebike · 2013-02-17 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I have qualms about letting any living thing be patented because if it escapes into the biosphere it becomes impossible to commercially control.
  Being patented might well be the least of all worries if a "living thing" escapes into the biosphere. Patents have no bearing on such an event, or the potential harm (or good) that might result.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
5. Re:Dumb patents by icebike · 2013-02-17 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  You do not get patents for statements like "A system for printing spreadsheets over wifi".
  You get patents for specific claims made in your patent which describe specific things.
  You've fallen for the Slashdot Summary Title Patent Definition.
  Yet when you trace down and SSTPD, and actually, Read the Fine Patent, you will find an actual METHOD and perhaps an APPARATUS for doing what the patent claims.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:Dumb patents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  You assume the patent office actually follows its own guidelines. I mean if you just read the official documents of the USSR it sounds like a glorious place. Too bad what large bureaucracies say and what they actually do are totally different. You are either very young or very aspie.
7. Re:Dumb patents by nnnnnnn · 2013-02-17 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  You assume the patent office actually follows its own guidelines
  
  It doesn't matter what the patent office does. As soon as you try to enforce it, the other sides lawyer will rip up your patent that does not state a specific method of solving a specific problem.
8. Re:Dumb patents by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-02-17 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  For the possible harm, there's torts. The patent does have bearing. The rule should be that if your patented gene gets loose (reproduces outside human agency), you have no legal recourse for it turning up wherever it turns up. For instance, if it's a crop gene and it gets cross-pollinated into the field of somebody who didn't buy your seed, that's too bad for you. You put the gene in a condition to be propagated outside of human control and you have no rights regarding the seeds produced on that field. Animals are a little easier to control, but if your genetically modified bull gets into the neighbor's pasture and impregnates all the heifers, that's also too bad for you. You don't own the calves. They belong to the farmer who owns the heifers.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 05:46 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 05:50 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:02 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:04 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:18 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:20 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:26 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:31 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:33 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 06:50 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-17 07:22 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Another idea for preventing bad patents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 08:33 · Score: 1

Make it a requirement that patent applicants document all of their R&D expenses associated with the specific patent (no counting the same costs multiple times on multiple applications) and submit this information with the application.
Award inventors who are doing serious R&D a patent with strong protections. Meanwhile, "inventors" whose R&D consists of two peoples' salary for a month while they pulled something out of their ass and wrote it up can get a very weak patent protection (eg. compulsory licensing at low cost) or none at all.
Tackling patent fraud is a problem now? by zenyu · 2013-02-17 09:35 · Score: 1

Take, for example, another (short-lived) attempt to exploit the law for unjustified gain: the (now amended) statute on false marking of patents.
I think most Americans think we should have more enforcement against criminals fraudulently claiming an item is patented when it is not. Civil enforcement of the law was starting to work, but the patent bar complained and congress acted within months to protect patent fraud perps.
Patent trolls aren't the main problem. A Sony, Microsoft or IBM at the door of an innovator is a much larger problem than a patent troll. Trolls mostly attack companies already profitable enough to put up a fight. The main problems are 1/ that the patent office hands out too many patents by an order of at east 10,000x, and 2/ there is not compulsory licensing at a reasonable rate. Both problems could easily be addressed, but we have serious regulatory capture going on in the patent industry. The USPTO today exists to benefit patent lawyers at the expense of all other industry. Since the greater economy is the last thing on most politicians' to do list I don't have much hope that the problem will be addressed anytime soon.
1. Re:Tackling patent fraud is a problem now? by Raenex · 2013-02-17 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Trolls mostly attack companies already profitable enough to put up a fight.
  Actually, many times they attack smaller companies that can't afford to fight. See, for example, here.