You're looking at legal punishment as revenge rather than a precaution to make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't know all that much about it and I don't want to argue about the faults of the penal system here, but it seems to me that someone who kills a homosexual just because he's a homosexual is pretty likely to kill other homosexuals in the future. He probably should be given a stiffer sentence than a guy who killed someone in a bar fight and isn't likely to do it again.
It seems that there are already laws that cover this. I have often seen the creators of unwelcome self-replicating programs charged with "unauthorized use of a computer"
Read the article again. This law covers spreading the virus, not creating it. You no longer have to be the creator to be punished. If you find an old copy of Melissa and email it to a moron, you are now responsible.
Yes. I cannot think of a single breakthrough in science, art or literature that was motivated by financial gain.
What you fail to see here is that whether or not your point is correct (which, incidentally, it isn't) it is really irrelevant to this discussion. The point isn't that there will no longer be a financial incentive to create things. The point is that if no one gets paid to create, no one will be able to devote their full time to the creation of non-tangible material. There will no longer be any full time musicians, artists, scientists, writers, or any other profession which makes its money by selling things which have a zero or near zero reproduction cost.
Yes, I probably will make something useful. But it will be a piece of code, an idea, and therefore quite impossible for anyone to 'steal' from me. If a million people all copied it, i would still have it, and therefore i would have lost nothing.
What you still fail to grasp is that you will also have gained nothing. That's fine if you're just a hobbyist, cranking out programs on weekends, but if you were considering a career in programming, writing, art, music, or science? Forget it! No one will pay you for something you've created when they can just take it instead.
Real freedom doesn't come from anonymity. Real freedom comes from being able to say who you are and what you believe without any fear of retribution. The day I'm so scared to state my opinion that I have to cower and hide behind a mask of anonymity will be the day there is no freedom left in America.
How would it help for companies to share information about you? Sure, they would get something out of it, (a chance to peek into your private life) but how will it help you?
If the company you are dealing with wants to verify that you are a "worthy customer", (which means, I assume, a customer who has the ability to pay and is not committing fraud) sharing information with other online companies probably is not going to help. If you give them a credit card number, they already check with the credit card company to see that your name and information matches the name and information on the card. So the only real concern is, how does the company know it's really you ordering the product, and not some other guy with your information pretending to be you? The answer: they probably don't. And referrals from other companies probably won't help. Just because John Doe has purchased something from Company A, and was a good customer, doesn't really help Company B figure out whether it's really John Doe trying to order something from them or just a punk who stole his credit card.
Some companies sort of solve the problem by refusing to ship to any address but the one listed with the credit card company. This causes just as many problems as it solves, though, because it makes it impossible for a legitimate customer to have a purchase sent to an alternate address. So what options are available for companies to use to verify customers' identities? Anyone have any suggestions?
i wish to make the world a better place, and therefore i believe all software should be free.
Have you ever contributed any useful piece of software to the world, or do you just want software to be free so you can leach off of those who do contribute? Do you really think the world would be a better place if no one was paid to develop software, art, science, literature, or music?
It sounds to me like what you really mean is, "the world would be a better place FOR ME if all software were free."
Someday, you probably will make something valuable and useful. And some other jerk like you will steal it. You'll think it's unjust, but you still won't see the irony.
You still haven't explained how you think you can simplify the patent system to the point where no one needs a lawyer, yet still provide regulatory control and prevent abuses.
I'm talking about changing the current system to another that is probably no more complex than the current one.
Probably no more complex? That doesn't sound like a real simplification to me. You're right that the existing system needs redirection, but I still don't see how you expect to eliminate the need for a lawyer by making the system "probably no more complex."
If we did decide to admit that the patent system is designed to oppress the masses, I would certainly hope we would not just "be done with it." There are some people left in America, after all, who still believe that the system can work.
Keeping the network up so we can flame at each other costs a whole pile o' cash.
But next to the costs involved with a sanitation system, that pile of cash is nothing.
This is not an issue of "we have the money for an internet infrastructure or a sanitation infrastructure, but not both." The two things are not even close to comparable. You are grossly underestimating the cost of any meaningful attempt at a national sanitation system.
Do you honestly believe that the cost of installing and maintaining internet kiosks and teaching locals how to use them would add up to even one hundredth of the cost of installing and maintaining a useful sanitation infrastructure?
But obviously everybody does not have that standard of living. What does that comment have to do with reality?
Nothing more than your tirade about how someone has to be on the bottom, which is what it was in reply to.
It was relevant to my point that many people cannot afford any legal representation, and most people cannot afford good legal representation.
OK, but it still has nothing to do with inflation.
Not the way Mr. Dickinson runs the place. Anything that doesn't get voided during a quick prior art search gets patented. Anything that does seem to have prior art gets rewritten and patented.
The flaws you point out suggest a need for more rules, rather than less. Removing the regulations already in place aren't going to keep people from slipping by.
The patent system does not have to be complex to be effective. The current system is extremely subjective, so changing some guidelines and still giving examiners the ability to use their informed judgement could only be an improvement.
So what you're trying to say is that the existing clearcut rules that everyone is subjected to equally should be replaced with the impossible to quantify "informed judgement", and that everyone who tries to patent anything should be placed at the mercy of an examiner who has absolute power to reject their patent for any reason. Sounds great, except that it still won't get rid of the need for a good lawyer. Filing the patent is only the beginning; the real test is using it to keep other people from ripping off your idea.
If I were a person in a rural Indian village, I'd be more interested in getting me some of that modern plumbing and health care before I wanted to go read Slashdot.
How much do you think it would cost for the Indian government to lay and maintain brand new pipes to bring modern plumbing to the Indian countryside? I'm no expert, but that sounds like a longterm, multi-billion dollar project.
How much do you think it would cost to bring modern healthcare to the Indian countryside? Even if you just had travelling healthcare facilities operating on a minimal budget, it would still cost millions if not billions.
Now weigh those figures against how much it would cost to utilise existing cabling to bring internet service to the Indian countryside. A few big routers and some local kiosks, and you're done.
What you say isn't necessarily true; Buckminster Fuller maintained that with our current resources and technology, everyone on earth could potentially enjoy the standard of living which only the wealthiest enjoy now. I don't really see how inflation is in any way relevant to patent law, but you brought it up.
Back to the original subject, the laws in place in the patent system are in place for a reason. It takes a complicated system to regulate something as complex as ideas. One doesn't necessarily need to be a lawyer to be familiar (or even competent) with patent law, but you're correct that it certainly isn't worth learning if you can afford a lawyer to help you file your patent application.
Your idea that somehow patent law should be simple enough that no one needs any legal knowledge to file and maintain patents is more that idiotic; it's laughable. Someone will always find a way to abuse the system, and complex rules will have to be drawn up to prevent those abuses. Just as an example, preventing Amazonesque overly broad patents will probably require a more rigorous search for prior art and demand for evidence of an actual original idea. This will make it more difficult to frivolously sue for patent infringement, but at the same time make it more difficult for legitimate patents to be granted. You NEED complex rules to prevent abuses, but these same rules will make it very difficult for someone not intimately familiar with them, and will probably necessitate the hiring of an advocate familiar with the rules.
You didn't read my post closely. You already have justice; everybody plays by the same rules. If you don't know those rules, of course you are going to get shafted. You have three choices: Learn the rules, hire someone who knows the rules to look out for you, or arrange it so that someone who can work the system by either of the former methods has the same interests to protect as you.
The world is not a fair place, and nothing you can do will make it so as long as people are the way they are. The best you can do is draw up rules that apply to everyone and make sure everybody plays by them. But if you don't know the rules, naturally you're going to have trouble. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse". You can't expect people or corporations to give you a break because you don't know the rules.
Now you're making sense. A nation governed by a monarchy is indeed the embodiment of "self regulatory Government", but not the embodiment of self regulation.
Like it or not, if you're going to coexist with the legal system in the United States, you're going to have to interact with the laws. And if you're going to interact with the laws, you really should either know the laws yourself or hire an advocate who knows the laws. If you think you know patent law well enough to do it on your own, no one is forcing you to hire a lawyer, but if you're concerned that you aren't sharp enough to protect your interests on your own, you're probably going to regret it if you don't get a lawyer to do it for you.
Many situations - for instance crossing the street - are simple enough, law-wise, that you probably don't need a lawyer. And the consequences of screwing up (legally) are appropriately low. But complex, high-stakes situations such as intellectual property require a much more complex system of laws. And if you don't know them, you tend to get screwed.
Mr. Dickenson doesn't dictate the cost of a lawyer, nor does he decide whether big corporations will screw you out of your invention or not.
But look on the bright side: If your idea is worth enough to warrant companies trying to screw you out of it, you'll probably be able to find someone willing to buy in and help you protect it.
You're absolutely right and I totally agree with you. However, your first comment was poorly phrased and too broad in scope. Self regulation can work in certain situations, but usually, it doesn't.
Having a monarch or dictator is not the embodiment of self regulation. The monarch is of course self regulated, but the people (those who "have" the monarch) are regulated by the monarch. The monarch is not a member of the public, nor is he interested in the interests of the public.
Yeah, who ever heard of self regulation working? And some people are even talking about forming some kind of self regulated nation, where leaders are elected by the people and laws are passed based on the people's needs! How could that possibly work? Every nation needs a dictator or monarch, don't you agree?
Slashdot Mirror
You're looking at legal punishment as revenge rather than a precaution to make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't know all that much about it and I don't want to argue about the faults of the penal system here, but it seems to me that someone who kills a homosexual just because he's a homosexual is pretty likely to kill other homosexuals in the future. He probably should be given a stiffer sentence than a guy who killed someone in a bar fight and isn't likely to do it again.
Neither of the programs you describe are self-replicating.
It seems that there are already laws that cover this. I have often seen the creators of unwelcome self-replicating programs charged with "unauthorized use of a computer"
Read the article again. This law covers spreading the virus, not creating it. You no longer have to be the creator to be punished. If you find an old copy of Melissa and email it to a moron, you are now responsible.
If it was just a personal project you were working on, you're responsible for writing the virus, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
How many of these are you going to post?
It was funny the first time, but... come on! It's getting old.
when 1.0 comes out, we can Burn All MP3s (the domain is available) like we burned all GIFs.
Funny how I still see GIFs everywhere, including Slashdot.
Yes. I cannot think of a single breakthrough in science, art or literature that was motivated by financial gain.
What you fail to see here is that whether or not your point is correct (which, incidentally, it isn't) it is really irrelevant to this discussion. The point isn't that there will no longer be a financial incentive to create things. The point is that if no one gets paid to create, no one will be able to devote their full time to the creation of non-tangible material. There will no longer be any full time musicians, artists, scientists, writers, or any other profession which makes its money by selling things which have a zero or near zero reproduction cost.
Yes, I probably will make something useful. But it will be a piece of code, an idea, and therefore quite impossible for anyone to 'steal' from me. If a million people all copied it, i would still have it, and therefore i would have lost nothing.
What you still fail to grasp is that you will also have gained nothing. That's fine if you're just a hobbyist, cranking out programs on weekends, but if you were considering a career in programming, writing, art, music, or science? Forget it! No one will pay you for something you've created when they can just take it instead.
Real freedom doesn't come from anonymity. Real freedom comes from being able to say who you are and what you believe without any fear of retribution. The day I'm so scared to state my opinion that I have to cower and hide behind a mask of anonymity will be the day there is no freedom left in America.
How would it help for companies to share information about you? Sure, they would get something out of it, (a chance to peek into your private life) but how will it help you?
If the company you are dealing with wants to verify that you are a "worthy customer", (which means, I assume, a customer who has the ability to pay and is not committing fraud) sharing information with other online companies probably is not going to help. If you give them a credit card number, they already check with the credit card company to see that your name and information matches the name and information on the card. So the only real concern is, how does the company know it's really you ordering the product, and not some other guy with your information pretending to be you? The answer: they probably don't. And referrals from other companies probably won't help. Just because John Doe has purchased something from Company A, and was a good customer, doesn't really help Company B figure out whether it's really John Doe trying to order something from them or just a punk who stole his credit card.
Some companies sort of solve the problem by refusing to ship to any address but the one listed with the credit card company. This causes just as many problems as it solves, though, because it makes it impossible for a legitimate customer to have a purchase sent to an alternate address. So what options are available for companies to use to verify customers' identities? Anyone have any suggestions?
So you were brought up using Linux as a kid?
i wish to make the world a better place, and therefore i believe all software should be free.
Have you ever contributed any useful piece of software to the world, or do you just want software to be free so you can leach off of those who do contribute? Do you really think the world would be a better place if no one was paid to develop software, art, science, literature, or music?
It sounds to me like what you really mean is, "the world would be a better place FOR ME if all software were free."
Someday, you probably will make something valuable and useful. And some other jerk like you will steal it. You'll think it's unjust, but you still won't see the irony.
You still haven't explained how you think you can simplify the patent system to the point where no one needs a lawyer, yet still provide regulatory control and prevent abuses.
I'm talking about changing the current system to another that is probably no more complex than the current one.
Probably no more complex? That doesn't sound like a real simplification to me. You're right that the existing system needs redirection, but I still don't see how you expect to eliminate the need for a lawyer by making the system "probably no more complex."
If we did decide to admit that the patent system is designed to oppress the masses, I would certainly hope we would not just "be done with it." There are some people left in America, after all, who still believe that the system can work.
Keeping the network up so we can flame at each other costs a whole pile o' cash.
But next to the costs involved with a sanitation system, that pile of cash is nothing.
This is not an issue of "we have the money for an internet infrastructure or a sanitation infrastructure, but not both." The two things are not even close to comparable. You are grossly underestimating the cost of any meaningful attempt at a national sanitation system.
Do you honestly believe that the cost of installing and maintaining internet kiosks and teaching locals how to use them would add up to even one hundredth of the cost of installing and maintaining a useful sanitation infrastructure?
But obviously everybody does not have that standard of living. What does that comment have to do with reality?
Nothing more than your tirade about how someone has to be on the bottom, which is what it was in reply to.
It was relevant to my point that many people cannot afford any legal representation, and most people cannot afford good legal representation.
OK, but it still has nothing to do with inflation.
Not the way Mr. Dickinson runs the place. Anything that doesn't get voided during a quick prior art search gets patented. Anything that does seem to have prior art gets rewritten and patented.
The flaws you point out suggest a need for more rules, rather than less. Removing the regulations already in place aren't going to keep people from slipping by.
The patent system does not have to be complex to be effective. The current system is extremely subjective, so changing some guidelines and still giving examiners the ability to use their informed judgement could only be an improvement.
So what you're trying to say is that the existing clearcut rules that everyone is subjected to equally should be replaced with the impossible to quantify "informed judgement", and that everyone who tries to patent anything should be placed at the mercy of an examiner who has absolute power to reject their patent for any reason. Sounds great, except that it still won't get rid of the need for a good lawyer. Filing the patent is only the beginning; the real test is using it to keep other people from ripping off your idea.
If I were a person in a rural Indian village, I'd be more interested in getting me some of that modern plumbing and health care before I wanted to go read Slashdot.
How much do you think it would cost for the Indian government to lay and maintain brand new pipes to bring modern plumbing to the Indian countryside? I'm no expert, but that sounds like a longterm, multi-billion dollar project.
How much do you think it would cost to bring modern healthcare to the Indian countryside? Even if you just had travelling healthcare facilities operating on a minimal budget, it would still cost millions if not billions.
Now weigh those figures against how much it would cost to utilise existing cabling to bring internet service to the Indian countryside. A few big routers and some local kiosks, and you're done.
What you say isn't necessarily true; Buckminster Fuller maintained that with our current resources and technology, everyone on earth could potentially enjoy the standard of living which only the wealthiest enjoy now. I don't really see how inflation is in any way relevant to patent law, but you brought it up.
Back to the original subject, the laws in place in the patent system are in place for a reason. It takes a complicated system to regulate something as complex as ideas. One doesn't necessarily need to be a lawyer to be familiar (or even competent) with patent law, but you're correct that it certainly isn't worth learning if you can afford a lawyer to help you file your patent application.
Your idea that somehow patent law should be simple enough that no one needs any legal knowledge to file and maintain patents is more that idiotic; it's laughable. Someone will always find a way to abuse the system, and complex rules will have to be drawn up to prevent those abuses. Just as an example, preventing Amazonesque overly broad patents will probably require a more rigorous search for prior art and demand for evidence of an actual original idea. This will make it more difficult to frivolously sue for patent infringement, but at the same time make it more difficult for legitimate patents to be granted. You NEED complex rules to prevent abuses, but these same rules will make it very difficult for someone not intimately familiar with them, and will probably necessitate the hiring of an advocate familiar with the rules.
You didn't read my post closely. You already have justice; everybody plays by the same rules. If you don't know those rules, of course you are going to get shafted. You have three choices: Learn the rules, hire someone who knows the rules to look out for you, or arrange it so that someone who can work the system by either of the former methods has the same interests to protect as you.
The world is not a fair place, and nothing you can do will make it so as long as people are the way they are. The best you can do is draw up rules that apply to everyone and make sure everybody plays by them. But if you don't know the rules, naturally you're going to have trouble. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse". You can't expect people or corporations to give you a break because you don't know the rules.
Now you're making sense. A nation governed by a monarchy is indeed the embodiment of "self regulatory Government", but not the embodiment of self regulation.
Like it or not, if you're going to coexist with the legal system in the United States, you're going to have to interact with the laws. And if you're going to interact with the laws, you really should either know the laws yourself or hire an advocate who knows the laws. If you think you know patent law well enough to do it on your own, no one is forcing you to hire a lawyer, but if you're concerned that you aren't sharp enough to protect your interests on your own, you're probably going to regret it if you don't get a lawyer to do it for you.
Many situations - for instance crossing the street - are simple enough, law-wise, that you probably don't need a lawyer. And the consequences of screwing up (legally) are appropriately low. But complex, high-stakes situations such as intellectual property require a much more complex system of laws. And if you don't know them, you tend to get screwed.
Mr. Dickenson doesn't dictate the cost of a lawyer, nor does he decide whether big corporations will screw you out of your invention or not.
But look on the bright side: If your idea is worth enough to warrant companies trying to screw you out of it, you'll probably be able to find someone willing to buy in and help you protect it.
You're absolutely right and I totally agree with you. However, your first comment was poorly phrased and too broad in scope. Self regulation can work in certain situations, but usually, it doesn't.
Having a monarch or dictator is not the embodiment of self regulation. The monarch is of course self regulated, but the people (those who "have" the monarch) are regulated by the monarch. The monarch is not a member of the public, nor is he interested in the interests of the public.
Yeah, who ever heard of self regulation working? And some people are even talking about forming some kind of self regulated nation, where leaders are elected by the people and laws are passed based on the people's needs! How could that possibly work? Every nation needs a dictator or monarch, don't you agree?