2. (somewhat related) Do you think IP laws have become too tilted in favor of IP holders? If so, what reforms would you like to see enacted?
3. First, some background: Many people on Slashdot and in the Open Source and Free Software communities detest the phrase "intellectual property". The argument is that IP is not "property", but a privelege granted to holders for the public benefit. I have always contended that the issue is irrelevant because whether or not IP is a "right" it can still be limited. For example, your right to hold land is limited and can be revoked if you fail to pay property taxes. A similar argument revolves around the term "piracy" and "theft" in relation to IP. OK now the questions:
A. Do you agree that legally there is no such thing as Intellectual "property"?
B. If the answer to A is "yes", does it bother you a great deal that an inacurate term is being used to describe a class of laws?
C. Do you think the term "IP" is an Orwellian attempt to control language and create a right that formerly didn't exist? Likewise, do you think "file sharing" as opposed to "piracy" is equally Orwellian but in the opposite direction?
D. Do you think this whole argument is just silly?
E. Does language really change thought, or better yet (since you're a lawyer), do you think it has an impact on laws over time? I have some friends who are lawyers, and they say that a lot of old English words remain in the law because they have established meanings that don't change over time. Be that as it may, is the legal system vulnerable to "newspeak"?
F. Can you suggest some unbiased replacements for "IP", "piracy/sharing", and "theft/(law)viilation"? Better yet, are there obscure words being used by lawyers that might help us if they found their way into the common vernacular?
4. The other end of the spectrum--what laws do you most like enforcing? What gives you the "warm fuzzies" and makes you feel it's all worthwhile?
Advocating? Sure. However, not as a requirement for a conforming C implementation. Right now we've got two levels of library support in C: Freestanding (IIRC, only stdarg.h and float.h required) and Hosted (full library support required). I have proposed adding a 3rd level of library support: Extended.
It would help C (and C++) compete with Java. One of the primary appeals of Java is the rich set of "standard" libraries. Unlike Java, nobody would be required to implement or use the extended standard libraries. You could still use DirectX, Windows Sockets, Joe's data structures, etc.
Alternatively, the ISO could just keep out of all library development and concentrate only on the core. Under such an approach, we wouldn't have the abomination that is complex.h in C99. Instead, we might have something like operator overloading, which would have allowed anybody to implement their own complex.h.
In other words, no half-a** library standards. Either comprehensive standard libraries, or core specs only. It would certainly provide much easier answers for the people who ask "how do I do graphics" in comp.lang.c every other day.
SIG CORRECTION: So, wait a second... anybody who works on Linux immediately becomes "IBM's employee" and IBM generously "donates" that person's services for the purpose of spitefully irritating Bill Gates?
Now wasn't that simple? Why can't Congress and the Supreme Court understand this?
Congress couldn't understand it because of the money. The SCOTUS couldn't understand it because Larry Lessig was too busy having his ego stroked to try the case properly. I knew that case was in trouble when there was some interview with the guy linked from Slashdot just weeks before oral arguments. That's a total contrast to the portrayals that I've seen of landmark cases where lawyers did nothing but work on the case day and night before orals.
JMHO, but Lessig lost the case. He failed to illuminate it. It's been a while since we've heard from him too. Maybe he's "peaked".
Boost, a C++-specific library, has a great regex module.
My question was rhetorical, the point being that regex libraries written using standard-compliant C have been available for at least 10 years, probably longer. The (C) BSD license in my copy of Henry Spencer's regex has 1992 as the earliest date. Since C can be linked into C++, this means that Spencer's regex has been available to C++ too.
If your library works on the platforms you're developing for, adding a wrapper won't make it any more standard compliant. However, rewriting it to use the new standard will
If you've used something like regex in multiple modules, it would be silly to re-write all the modules to use the regex that comes with the compiler. Instead, you'd 1. write a wrapper around the regex that comes with the compiler. 2. swap out the include file for the old regex and replace it with the header for your wrapper. 3. stop linking the old regex. In theory, linking the new regex wouldn't be required since it's now part of the standard library.
Following those 3 simple steps is a lot easier than re-writing all your modules, but it's pointless make-busy work.
On the one hand, this forms a good argument for standards bodies just sticking with the core language and leaving libraries up to us. OTOH, it's also a good argument for them to put more effort into libraries. A rich set of libraries has always looked like one of Java's strongest points to me. Whatever they do, they shouldn't do it half-baked, which is what it looks like to me.
It also looks like perhaps they are trying to justify their existance, and make just enough work to keep the current members busy, but not so much work as to achieve something truly magnificent, such as a set of standard libraries to rival Java's.
"A Proposal to add Regular Expression to the Standard Library"
This seems typical of the pace at which language standardization moves. How long have standard, free, C (useable in C++) regex implementations been available for those who really want them?
And ISO-C still specifies no standard library for graphics, networking, regex, or data structures which are respectively satisfied by (numerous APIs), sockets, Henry Spencer, and (roll-your-own).
So, if any of this stuff ever makes it into the standard, that will just add the extra work of having to write a wrapper around the current solution to make your code "standard compliant". Why bother?
[ ] The fact that this AC copy-pasted rjch's (user # 544288) post from within this story. [ ] The fact that the AC got modded up for doing it. [ ] The fact that I'm pointing it out. [ ] Cowboy Neal waiting by his VOIP and nobody calling.
Please archive this thread as prior art, in case anybody ever tries to patent ductape necklesses, braceletts, or for guys... a baseball cap with a roll of tape inside it. Ladies can just put a regular roll in their purses.
I don't know how new and different a tape dispenser should have to be to get a patent, but simply making it wallet-sized doesn't qualify in my book.
That's it I'm going out and making myself some laws
You were modded funny, but there's actually a truth in there that defines the American character, and explains why a dictatorship here is pretty unlikely.
For example, where I live it's illegal to have any fireworks that explode. Last night, it sounded like Beirut.
Most people get that stuff from NC, where they are legal. It occured to me that there's nothing more American than driving up I-95 15 miles an hour over the speed limit with a trunkload of illegal firecrackers, MP3s blasting through the stereo.
Americans have a low tolerance for stupid laws, in large part because the country was founded by people who violated such laws.
Picture the fathers of our country dressed up like Indians, trespassing on somebody's boat, and dumping all the cargo just because they didn't wanna pay taxes.
Now, it's hard to say how well this attitude will work to defeat the more stupid provisions of the Patriot Act, which is an interesting name if you think about it; after all, those people weren't patriots, they were just acting, which is a lot like pretending as in "pretenders to the throne". The real kings are the people--the people who break stupid laws.
Now, if the state is really, really determined, they can enforce stupid laws. The war on drugs is a prime example; but they can't do it forever. There has been a huge impact on the incarceration rate, all due to the American tendancy to break laws they don't agree with.
I keep wondering if we're going to have some kind of Bastille Day type episode over that.
At any rate, I think this ingrained attitude in the US, perhaps more than anything, will prevent us from falling into dictatorship. Call me an cockeyed optimist if you must.
The XBox isn't the only product with issues like this. Remember the EV-1 electric car? They wouldn't sell them to people, even though people wanted to buy them. They would only lease them, and they insisted on taking them back.
Remember when Ma Bell owned your phone?
Surely there are other examples of "lease only" hardware too.
The real question is, "to what extent should lease-only hardware be permitted"? not "how do we stop this one company from releasing lease-only hardware?".
Personally, I think there should be no such thing as lease-only hardware at the consumer level. It probably makes more sense at the corporate level, like, if you're leasing a drilling rig or something.
OTOH, there are other less clear-cut cases. For example, is your credit card "hardware"? Not in the traditional sense, but the card is owned by the bank, and they can take it from you any time they like. How is that different from, for example... MS disabling your XBox remotely if you violate their TOS?
We could make lease-only illegal by default and carve out exceptions for things like credit card issuers. Or, we could make lease-only legal by default and carve out exceptions for companies like MS.
Actually, a more effective, and less ad-hoc reform might be to prohibit *any* legally declared monopoly from selling *any* product at a loss or under lease-only terms.
Those testing kits are crap. Real testing costs real money. Besides, I don't believe we have lead contamination. I just flush the pipes to be extra cautious; perhaps even a bit paranoid. I drank the water with no ill effects for years. It was the extra chlorine that really pissed me off.
Crappy taste and the possibility of lead contamination lead me to bottled a long time ago (no pun intended).
I live in Fairfax County, VA--one of the wealthier counties, and yet the water is still crappy. Apparently, in response to concerns about microbes, they've been adding more chlorine to the water. Yuck. Then there's our pipes. Although the pipes are copper, they are joined with solder which may be lead based (40 year old pipes). Although it's unlikely that the lead levels are dangerous, this just gives me one more reason to drink bottled.
I still cook with tap water, but I let the water run a few minutes to clear the pipes before using it.
Of course, it could be worse. I could be living in DC, paying a million dollar mortgage, and drinking out of pipes that--wait for it--date back to the Civil War.
OK, maybe they don't get sent to hard prisons before conviction; but people have been convicted and sent to death row and later found innocent. I'm sure there are plenty of innocent people doing time for lesser offenses like armed robbery... or rape. Now, wouldn't that be ironic?
For more information, see this site. Yes, there's probably some bias there; but it's certainly not all made up.
Now hear me out. Right now, the patent office is a cash cow. Take away the milk, and Congress will start coming up with ways to shrink the office instead of building a massive new complex on very expensive real estate in Alexandria, Virginia.
Also, patent examiners will be more inclined to come up with ways to quickly deny patents instead of quickly granting them, since maintaining the patent is now just "work".
If you're clever, you might even be able to pitch this as pro-patent.
Then, when the inevitable problem of "too many patents" that are costing the government "too much money" arises, you can enact additional reforms such as disqualification from filing for a certain time period after a rejection.
Good point. I'm sure something reasonable could be hammered out. How do you distinguish between our cable company's bi-weekly automated "why don't you upgrade to digital?" harassment, and your hypothetical widget distributor though?
Sure, there should be an ironclad 'opt out' process
Agreed. But you would still have to allow leading questions to give rise to sales during service calls. It's too difficult (and not at all desireable) to train service people not to make sales. If you rely on a strict "opt out" and don't allow sales during service calls, you open the company up for frivolous lawsuits. That was my big concern there.
It's a serious problem. How would you like to be accidently detained because you look like some guy on the wanted list, and end up with your body and mind irreperably damaged?
One of the major consumer agencies (BBB, Consumer Reports, Ralph Nader's organization, etc.) needs to develop a "responsable advertising seal" as a companion to the BBB seal.
I think it goes without saying that to keep your RAS seal you can't spam. Also, no junk mail or pop-ups on the web. And of course, no telemarketing at all; even if you have a prior relationship. Of course businesses can call users to advise of service outages, resolve billing disputes and the like; but no solicitation for new service unless the customer asks a leading question, giving implied oral consent to hear about new services on that particular call (e.g., the customer asks "How do I get Showtime" and the agent tells her).
Examples of responsable advertising include: TV spots that don't intrude on the show (That means many cable networks would be denied a RAS because they burn their logo at the bottom of the screen. Product placement is OK though) radio spots, print ads, web banners in GIF/PNG/JPEG format only (no scripts, no audio, and especially not pop-ups or DHTML that makes stuff fly all over your screen).
Unlike the BBB seal, the RAS seal could be issued to non-profits and politicians as well. These groups have loopholes in the telemarketing laws. Which would you rather donate to? Charity X that has a RAS seal and never bothers you, or Charity Y that doesn't and puts you on a list?
Slashdot Mirror
1. What laws do you least like enforcing?
2. (somewhat related) Do you think IP laws have become too tilted in favor of IP holders? If so, what reforms would you like to see enacted?
3. First, some background: Many people on Slashdot and in the Open Source and Free Software communities detest the phrase "intellectual property". The argument is that IP is not "property", but a privelege granted to holders for the public benefit. I have always contended that the issue is irrelevant because whether or not IP is a "right" it can still be limited. For example, your right to hold land is limited and can be revoked if you fail to pay property taxes. A similar argument revolves around the term "piracy" and "theft" in relation to IP. OK now the questions:
A. Do you agree that legally there is no such thing as Intellectual "property"?
B. If the answer to A is "yes", does it bother you a great deal that an inacurate term is being used to describe a class of laws?
C. Do you think the term "IP" is an Orwellian attempt to control language and create a right that formerly didn't exist? Likewise, do you think "file sharing" as opposed to "piracy" is equally Orwellian but in the opposite direction?
D. Do you think this whole argument is just silly?
E. Does language really change thought, or better yet (since you're a lawyer), do you think it has an impact on laws over time? I have some friends who are lawyers, and they say that a lot of old English words remain in the law because they have established meanings that don't change over time. Be that as it may, is the legal system vulnerable to "newspeak"?
F. Can you suggest some unbiased replacements for "IP", "piracy/sharing", and "theft/(law)viilation"? Better yet, are there obscure words being used by lawyers that might help us if they found their way into the common vernacular?
4. The other end of the spectrum--what laws do you most like enforcing? What gives you the "warm fuzzies" and makes you feel it's all worthwhile?
Here's another epithet for us *NIX snobs to hurl at Windows* developers.
Advocating? Sure. However, not as a requirement for a conforming C implementation. Right now we've got two levels of library support in C: Freestanding (IIRC, only stdarg.h and float.h required) and Hosted (full library support required). I have proposed adding a 3rd level of library support: Extended.
It would help C (and C++) compete with Java. One of the primary appeals of Java is the rich set of "standard" libraries. Unlike Java, nobody would be required to implement or use the extended standard libraries. You could still use DirectX, Windows Sockets, Joe's data structures, etc.
Alternatively, the ISO could just keep out of all library development and concentrate only on the core. Under such an approach, we wouldn't have the abomination that is complex.h in C99. Instead, we might have something like operator overloading, which would have allowed anybody to implement their own complex.h.
In other words, no half-a** library standards. Either comprehensive standard libraries, or core specs only. It would certainly provide much easier answers for the people who ask "how do I do graphics" in comp.lang.c every other day.
SIG CORRECTION: So, wait a second... anybody who works on Linux immediately becomes "IBM's employee" and IBM generously "donates" that person's services for the purpose of spitefully irritating Bill Gates?
Tell me more about this world you live in.
Now wasn't that simple? Why can't Congress and the Supreme Court understand this?
Congress couldn't understand it because of the money. The SCOTUS couldn't understand it because Larry Lessig was too busy having his ego stroked to try the case properly. I knew that case was in trouble when there was some interview with the guy linked from Slashdot just weeks before oral arguments. That's a total contrast to the portrayals that I've seen of landmark cases where lawyers did nothing but work on the case day and night before orals.
JMHO, but Lessig lost the case. He failed to illuminate it. It's been a while since we've heard from him too. Maybe he's "peaked".
Boost, a C++-specific library, has a great regex module.
My question was rhetorical, the point being that regex libraries written using standard-compliant C have been available for at least 10 years, probably longer. The (C) BSD license in my copy of Henry Spencer's regex has 1992 as the earliest date. Since C can be linked into C++, this means that Spencer's regex has been available to C++ too.
If your library works on the platforms you're developing for, adding a wrapper won't make it any more standard compliant. However, rewriting it to use the new standard will
If you've used something like regex in multiple modules, it would be silly to re-write all the modules to use the regex that comes with the compiler. Instead, you'd 1. write a wrapper around the regex that comes with the compiler. 2. swap out the include file for the old regex and replace it with the header for your wrapper. 3. stop linking the old regex. In theory, linking the new regex wouldn't be required since it's now part of the standard library.
Following those 3 simple steps is a lot easier than re-writing all your modules, but it's pointless make-busy work.
On the one hand, this forms a good argument for standards bodies just sticking with the core language and leaving libraries up to us. OTOH, it's also a good argument for them to put more effort into libraries. A rich set of libraries has always looked like one of Java's strongest points to me. Whatever they do, they shouldn't do it half-baked, which is what it looks like to me.
It also looks like perhaps they are trying to justify their existance, and make just enough work to keep the current members busy, but not so much work as to achieve something truly magnificent, such as a set of standard libraries to rival Java's.
"A Proposal to add Regular Expression to the Standard Library"
This seems typical of the pace at which language standardization moves. How long have standard, free, C (useable in C++) regex implementations been available for those who really want them?
And ISO-C still specifies no standard library for graphics, networking, regex, or data structures which are respectively satisfied by (numerous APIs), sockets, Henry Spencer, and (roll-your-own).
So, if any of this stuff ever makes it into the standard, that will just add the extra work of having to write a wrapper around the current solution to make your code "standard compliant". Why bother?
Which is saddest:
Please archive this thread as prior art, in case anybody ever tries to patent ductape necklesses, braceletts, or for guys... a baseball cap with a roll of tape inside it. Ladies can just put a regular roll in their purses.
I don't know how new and different a tape dispenser should have to be to get a patent, but simply making it wallet-sized doesn't qualify in my book.
I hereby move that we rename the legislation "The Fluffy Bunnies and Kittens Act". Who could be against that?
That's it I'm going out and making myself some laws
You were modded funny, but there's actually a truth in there that defines the American character, and explains why a dictatorship here is pretty unlikely.
For example, where I live it's illegal to have any fireworks that explode. Last night, it sounded like Beirut.
Most people get that stuff from NC, where they are legal. It occured to me that there's nothing more American than driving up I-95 15 miles an hour over the speed limit with a trunkload of illegal firecrackers, MP3s blasting through the stereo.
Americans have a low tolerance for stupid laws, in large part because the country was founded by people who violated such laws.
Picture the fathers of our country dressed up like Indians, trespassing on somebody's boat, and dumping all the cargo just because they didn't wanna pay taxes.
Now, it's hard to say how well this attitude will work to defeat the more stupid provisions of the Patriot Act, which is an interesting name if you think about it; after all, those people weren't patriots, they were just acting, which is a lot like pretending as in "pretenders to the throne". The real kings are the people--the people who break stupid laws.
Now, if the state is really, really determined, they can enforce stupid laws. The war on drugs is a prime example; but they can't do it forever. There has been a huge impact on the incarceration rate, all due to the American tendancy to break laws they don't agree with.
I keep wondering if we're going to have some kind of Bastille Day type episode over that.
At any rate, I think this ingrained attitude in the US, perhaps more than anything, will prevent us from falling into dictatorship. Call me an cockeyed optimist if you must.
Dear Mr. Gates, please choose one of the following:
The XBox isn't the only product with issues like this. Remember the EV-1 electric car? They wouldn't sell them to people, even though people wanted to buy them. They would only lease them, and they insisted on taking them back.
Remember when Ma Bell owned your phone?
Surely there are other examples of "lease only" hardware too.
The real question is, "to what extent should lease-only hardware be permitted"? not "how do we stop this one company from releasing lease-only hardware?".
Personally, I think there should be no such thing as lease-only hardware at the consumer level. It probably makes more sense at the corporate level, like, if you're leasing a drilling rig or something.
OTOH, there are other less clear-cut cases. For example, is your credit card "hardware"? Not in the traditional sense, but the card is owned by the bank, and they can take it from you any time they like. How is that different from, for example... MS disabling your XBox remotely if you violate their TOS?
We could make lease-only illegal by default and carve out exceptions for things like credit card issuers. Or, we could make lease-only legal by default and carve out exceptions for companies like MS.
Actually, a more effective, and less ad-hoc reform might be to prohibit *any* legally declared monopoly from selling *any* product at a loss or under lease-only terms.
Those testing kits are crap. Real testing costs real money. Besides, I don't believe we have lead contamination. I just flush the pipes to be extra cautious; perhaps even a bit paranoid. I drank the water with no ill effects for years. It was the extra chlorine that really pissed me off.
Saffron (a spice made from crocus flowers) is more costly than gold!
Bah! Let them eat the giant blob.
Crappy taste and the possibility of lead contamination lead me to bottled a long time ago (no pun intended).
I live in Fairfax County, VA--one of the wealthier counties, and yet the water is still crappy. Apparently, in response to concerns about microbes, they've been adding more chlorine to the water. Yuck. Then there's our pipes. Although the pipes are copper, they are joined with solder which may be lead based (40 year old pipes). Although it's unlikely that the lead levels are dangerous, this just gives me one more reason to drink bottled.
I still cook with tap water, but I let the water run a few minutes to clear the pipes before using it.
Of course, it could be worse. I could be living in DC, paying a million dollar mortgage, and drinking out of pipes that--wait for it--date back to the Civil War.
OK, maybe they don't get sent to hard prisons before conviction; but people have been convicted and sent to death row and later found innocent. I'm sure there are plenty of innocent people doing time for lesser offenses like armed robbery... or rape. Now, wouldn't that be ironic?
For more information, see this site. Yes, there's probably some bias there; but it's certainly not all made up.
Eliminate the application fees.
Now hear me out. Right now, the patent office is a cash cow. Take away the milk, and Congress will start coming up with ways to shrink the office instead of building a massive new complex on very expensive real estate in Alexandria, Virginia.
Also, patent examiners will be more inclined to come up with ways to quickly deny patents instead of quickly granting them, since maintaining the patent is now just "work".
If you're clever, you might even be able to pitch this as pro-patent.
Then, when the inevitable problem of "too many patents" that are costing the government "too much money" arises, you can enact additional reforms such as disqualification from filing for a certain time period after a rejection.
This T-shirt wears you.
...a group at Bellevue has planned soft walls for anybody crazy enough to believe something "can't be hacked".
Good point. I'm sure something reasonable could be hammered out. How do you distinguish between our cable company's bi-weekly automated "why don't you upgrade to digital?" harassment, and your hypothetical widget distributor though?
Sure, there should be an ironclad 'opt out' process
Agreed. But you would still have to allow leading questions to give rise to sales during service calls. It's too difficult (and not at all desireable) to train service people not to make sales. If you rely on a strict "opt out" and don't allow sales during service calls, you open the company up for frivolous lawsuits. That was my big concern there.
If a telemarketer makes you think it's possible to get a better deal, here's what you do:
Hang up, get on the net, and look for better deals. Or, call the companies.
First, you might actually get an even better deal than the one being offered. Second, you won't be encouraging telemarketers.
It's a serious problem. How would you like to be accidently detained because you look like some guy on the wanted list, and end up with your body and mind irreperably damaged?
One of the major consumer agencies (BBB, Consumer Reports, Ralph Nader's organization, etc.) needs to develop a "responsable advertising seal" as a companion to the BBB seal.
I think it goes without saying that to keep your RAS seal you can't spam. Also, no junk mail or pop-ups on the web. And of course, no telemarketing at all; even if you have a prior relationship. Of course businesses can call users to advise of service outages, resolve billing disputes and the like; but no solicitation for new service unless the customer asks a leading question, giving implied oral consent to hear about new services on that particular call (e.g., the customer asks "How do I get Showtime" and the agent tells her).
Examples of responsable advertising include: TV spots that don't intrude on the show (That means many cable networks would be denied a RAS because they burn their logo at the bottom of the screen. Product placement is OK though) radio spots, print ads, web banners in GIF/PNG/JPEG format only (no scripts, no audio, and especially not pop-ups or DHTML that makes stuff fly all over your screen).
Unlike the BBB seal, the RAS seal could be issued to non-profits and politicians as well. These groups have loopholes in the telemarketing laws. Which would you rather donate to? Charity X that has a RAS seal and never bothers you, or Charity Y that doesn't and puts you on a list?
IW