Slashdot Mirror
Hardware Hacker Proposes Patent and Education Reform To Obama
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."
Good question, but the answer was way too evasive, without any real committments.
This is exactly the same thing he promised in 2008 .... and NEVER delivered. He didn't even discuss it for 4 years.
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.
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
[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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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"
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!
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.
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.'"
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.'"
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?
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!"