So "proving" that Microsoft did not break the law is impossible, because strictly speaking, every large corporation breaks antitrust law simply by trying to maintain their market share.
Whoa there. There is a different (as many other posters here have kindly pointed out) between the ways that different corporations can maintain and improve their market share. Remember, it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to gain monopoly power by illegal means, or to use monopoly power (even if acquired legally) to act in restraint of trade. With that in mind, let's consider some legal ways for companies to increase market share:
Make a better product
Get to market first with a "good enough" product
Charge less for about the same product
Have better marketing for an inferior product. Most people aren't that happy with this one, but it is legal and consumer choice hasn't been diminished; consumers can still learn that the product is bad and buy the competition instead.
Here are some illegal ways:
Charge OEMs for your product even if they don't ship it
Deliberately include incompatibilities in your product so that it fails to work with your competition, and then blame it on them
Create products in one market that only work correctly if used with your products from a different market
Contract with OEMs to give them a much better deal on your product only if they don't include a competitor's product as well.
I'll admit that the anti-trust laws are not the most clear-cut in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. This made sense when the laws were drafted, because markets can change rapidly and we don't want to rewrite large laws like this every year to take into account market changes and entirely new markets. Like many other laws, the question is ultimately the intent of Microsoft, and I don't think anyone at this point can argue that Microsoft's intent was only to have a good, clean competition and provide the best products for their customers.
Do you think everyone will flock to the new incompatability?
If you call it a feature they will. Isn't this how it worked for web browsers? Remember, we won't be talking about a totally incompatible new system, just one with new Baby Bill ActiveSomething!
Splitting them up into multiple smaller companies with the exact same products won't work nearly as well as it did for Ma Bell, because there's no way to restrict the baby Bills to separate geographical markets. We would just end up with three smaller clones, but since they can all tie their Windows to their apps, either one of them will eventually become a monopoly again or the government will have to do some intrusive regulation of Microsoft's business, just like they do for the local phone companies now.
Separating the apps, internet, and OS components of Micros~1 would work better because it would break up the quasi-vertical monopoly that MS has in several different software arenas. Also, this would force their products to fully disclose their APIs, and then other companies could compete and be sure that their apps are fully Windows compliant (remember DR-DOS?). Besides, part of the case against MS (the most important part, IMHO) concerned their use of an OS monopoly to try to gain a web browser monopoly. Splitting up MS along product lines would prevent this sort of monopoly-spreading.
That is a very good point - often it is difficult or impossible to track exactly where your taxes go. I certainly don't think that we should only pay taxes for exactly the roads, colleges, etc. that we use - obviously most people should pay taxes into a common pool at the state and federal levels, and this entire pool of money will be divided between roads, schools, and so on. I have no argument with this.
However, I do have a problem with contributing to a tax pool which is specifically excludes me from benefiting from it - local taxes in another state, in this particular issue. If I buy something online, it will likely be from a store in CA, and I don't live in that state so let's use that as an example. Local sales tax in CA is specifically earmarked for the use of the town and possibly the state government. None of that benefit will return to me back in my state.
So yes, the government sells services as a package, but under our federal system there are several quasi-self-contained service pools. Tax money directed into one of those areas (like the state of CA, for example) won't provide any benefit to those who aren't a part of the CA benefit pool - people and companies who exist or visit CA. I have no problems paying a federal tax and the benefit going to another state, because all states are in the federal benefits pool. But any taxes I pay to CA won't benefit me at all if I never live in that state and never visit it.
It's not really the exact same transaction, though, because you didn't actually visit amazon.com (or wherever). If you had been there in person, you would have expected roads, law enforcement, etc. and you would have paid local sales tax for them. But if you aren't there, you don't need those things. So why should you pay for them?
On the other hand, you did use more bandwidth than you would have if you had gone in person. So you can eventually expect to pay more for your 'net connection, as can your online retailer. There's also shipping costs and amazon.com's local costs, which are taxed and may increase the sale price of your book. But if the 'net is the only infrastructure that you personally are using, then that is the only thing you should be taxed for.
There are costs to a transaction either way, but it would be better to slightly increase existing taxes which already pay for services, than create a new tax which isn't directly linked to a service provided to the community.
I'll agree with you - normally taxes serve a useful purpose by funding services that the community needs. I think what confuses people in the debate over sales tax on Internet purchases is that there isn't a specific service that would be funded by the tax that isn't already funded by another tax. If you look at the components of a purchase over the Internet, amazon.com pays local taxes and UPS pays local taxes as well as transport taxes (gas tax, weight penalties, etc). Your connection to amazon.com is paid for in the Internet connection fees that you and amazon.com pay. These fees are loosely related to the amount of traffic the two of you generate. If any of these components don't generate enough revenue to pay for what they use ('net backbone, local law enforcement, interstate highways) then those taxes should be increased, or the level of service lowered.
If I actually went to the amazon.com warehouse (wherever it is) to get my book I would expect roads, law enforcement, and emergency 911 services over the course of my trip. Theoretically that's what local sales tax pays for, right? So far I haven't read a better explanation. If I'm buying over the Internet, I don't need these services, so charging me a separate local sales tax doesn't make sense. Increasing the taxes on the components of my online purchase (warehousing, shipping, and 'net connection) does make sense, because even an online purchase does use resources and must be paid for. I think more people here would support the idea if it were explained that way. As it is, it seems like states are trying to replace the exact amount of money they are losing in local sales, rather than looking more closely at what happens during an online purchase.
Poor pathing for large ground units, especially when moving with groups of smaller units. Instead of waiting for the smaller units to move (which would make sense, since the small units accelerate quickly and move out of the way quickly), the large units will slowly come to a halt and then slowly accelerate in a different direction. By that time the small units have moved out of the way, so again we slow to a halt, change course, and accelerate. Part of the problem is the accel/decel times for large units (which shouldn't be changed), but things would work a lot better if they would hesitate slightly longer to see if their way will be cleared.
Many people would argue that the data isn't NSI's to control in the first place. Also, if this license appears only after you do a domain name lookup, then it may not be valid. For example:
In reading this Slashdot post, you agree to send me US$5.00.
Obviously this isn't legally enforceable, and I expect eventually NSI's "agreement" on whois results will be found similarly unenforceable.
I think Google ranks a site X by finding how many other sites link to site X. Their theory, IIRC, is that the more sites which link to X, the more important X is to that particular topic and the more likely that a user searching for a site on that topic wil want to see site X. The Google ranking of the sites which link to X is also taken into consideration. So if you want a higher Google ranking, you need to get linked from more sites and more highly ranked sites. According to their FAQ, "This definition seems circular, and it is."
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but since I've seen DAVEO post on other articles, I'll assume not. I have to concur with some of your other respondents: you really should try using the first person some time. It's surprisingly easy and fun to use, and you will automatically get more respect for your postings and fewer people will call you a troll. This is just friendly advice.
If, as other posters have pointed out, Microworkz marketing made reference to Linux in the sense that "our product is really stable and has great networking capabilities", then that's great! It means that some really well-done Linux advocacy has been going on. Would you prefer them to say "combines the UI of Be with the unstoppable power of Windows NT"? I didn't think so.
I'll admit that they could have gone about their advertising a little better. It's confusing to say that the iToaster includes Linux but doesn't come with the source, and even worse when we find out that the product doesn't include Linux but uses the Linux(tm) trademark in their advertising anyway. Now if they had quoted a reviewer who said "it's solid just like Linux" then that would be OK. I guess their marketing department didn't run this by the legal department on its way out the door.
All in all, there are worst things that could happen than Linux becoming the generic term for small, stable, networkable operating systems.
Linda Tripp to the contrary, normally recording someone's conversation on a tape recorder is illegal unless you let them know you are doing it. This is why customer service 800 numbers say something like "This call may be monitored for quality purposes".
This seems to be a no-brainer to me. It doesn't surprise me that listening to cell calls is illegal, but real criminals with something to gain from this sort of eavesdropping aren't putting up a web site advertizing what they're doing. If someone really wants to listen to unencrypted broadcast traffic (whether it was intended as point-to-point or not) they will. The solution is not another unenforceable law; instead people need to take reasonable precautions when they're using part of a public spectrum. I agree that it is ethically wrong to intentionally listen in on a cell call, but the bottom line is that the real bad guys are not going to stop, and there isn't a good way to catch them right now.
Access to the original P cannot be restricted - you are correct. The whole BSD/GPL debate really comes down to who gets the benefit of the changes made from P->P+.
In the BSD world, the author of the + section can distribute both P and + together, without source code, and only that author receives the benefit of the + changes. Everybody else has to reinvent the wheel if they wanted to get P+ code and didn't want to get the + from the + author.
In the GPL world, the author of the + section must distribute the original P with source code if they distribute it at all, and if the + code incorporates code from P, then they must distribute the + source code as well. Then everyone can include the + code in their GPL'd projects, which is a benefit for them. Of course, the author may not make as much money (if any) distributing a GPL'd P+ as they would have under the BSD license.
The GPL has a very specific view of what is good for the software world: software distributed with GPL'd source code. Software distributed with GPL'd source code leads to more of the same, which was the FSF's goal. Of course, if you don't like this goal (if you prefer proprietary software or, as another poster pointed out, other free software licenses) then you aren't going to like the GPL or its goals.
There's more to freedom than openness, though. This is the whole Open Source thing: is it enough to be able to see the code, or do we also need the rights to modify the code, distribute modifications, and incorporate it into other projects (other free projects, if GPL'd; other closed projects if BSD licensed).
Well, technically you can enhance GPL'd code all you want as long as you don't distribute those changes. This is specifically stated in the GPL, so the GPL doesn't enslave your new code at all. The GPL does make certain requirements upon your distribution of GPL'd software, which makes sense because the authors don't want just anybody changing the license of their software and redistributing it. So really the only problem you have is how to keep your additions proprietary while distributing them along with and integrating them into GPL'd software. This doesn't seem too enslaving to me - you can do what you want with your code, as long as the original GPL'd code remains free as it was licensed to you. Of course, it may be very difficult to distribute your proprietary software in this manner (while keeping it proprietary), but RMS never promised you a rose garden:)
You are correct, there is no harm to the existing codebase. However, the GPL isn't really as oriented towards preventing proprietary add-ons themselves as it is with encouraging improvements to the code base to be non-proprietary. It sounds like this is splitting hairs, but it makes sense when considered in terms of the goals of the FSF and the GPL: to encourage better software through the availability of source code.
A proprietary addition to a BSD-licensed project doesn't harm the base code, but it doesn't add anything to that code base either, because the source code for the additions is not available. In that case, the only winners are the company who can now sell the enhanced product. A GPL'd addition to a GPL-licensed project actually adds more code to the code base, which can lead to better software for everyone since anyone can use the additions in their own projects. Of course, no one individual or company can derive all the benefit from the improvements, because anyone can try to sell this code. There's a trade-off between the good of those who write additions to an existing codebase, and the good of the software community as a whole. So it doesn't harm the existing codebase to write closed-source additions, but a lot more is gained (according to the FSF, at least) by writing open source additions.
You are correct; I do agree with you. I would prefer no government control of any information, but if that is politically unlikely then local control is vastly preferable to federal control. Your voice is proportionally a lot louder at the local level. Of course, if your views on the subject don't match those of your community very well, then you still have some problems.
I prefer the set where 5 of them form a land team, 5 form an air team, and 5 form a sea team. Then they all split up and all 15 form a robot. They still have a blazing sword, though.
IIRC, companies with patents are required to make their designs available for use by others upon payment of a licensing fee. So if you patent something, you can't just sit on it and prevent others from using it. After all, the design is public knowledge - you can look it up at the Patent Office. This way everybody gets to use the new technology you've created, but you still get remunerated for your R&D work. I'm not sure if there are any limits on the actual licensing fees you can charge, so this might be a stumbling block, but I think there is some sort of limit on those fees.
That was my initial thought also, but in the case that the police already had probable cause (they saw you hold up the bank, etc.) they can still arrest you, and if you had encrypted your plans to rob the bank then you could be prosecuted for both the plans and the encryption. Also, this just prevents use of encryption from being the "sole basis" of probable cause, but use of encryption could be a contributory basis. This was a step in the right direction, just not as far as it looks at first glance.
There are certainly valid points to the strict constructionist viewpoint of the Constitution, but on the other hand things are a lot different now than they were in the 1780s. Most people receive more benefit than harm from such extensions of federal authority like the FCC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and so forth. I don't think the founding fathers intended their descendants to be stuck with exactly the same balance of power that they set up back then - due to modern technology and changing perceptions, the executive branch has gained a lot of power and the legislative branch has lost a little. In general these changes have worked out OK, since they are subject to constant legal challenge and review in the Supreme Court as well as the press.
I'll be the first to agree that the Constitution should have been amended as these changes occurred, rather than simply bent and forced into a new shape. However, it would be a mistake to return suddenly to the strict constructionist view now - the country would collapse fairly quickly without the more centralized federal control we have now.
I have this feeling of deja vu all over again...see below.
This hasn't empowered local communities to do anything - this amendment restricts federal funding for local libraries based on an undefined standard of "harmful to minors". No one has told local communities that "they MUST expose their children to a completely wide-open Internet". Many communities already have filtering in place, which is completely within their discretion to do (pending further court action, of course, but the principle of locally defined filters seems a lot less controversial). Now the federal government is trying to prohibit any community from receiving funding unless they follow a certain federal standard.
You seem to be a little inconsistent in your beliefs. How does a federal mandate handed down from the highest levels of government encourage local community standards? Sure, right now the federal government may have acted to support the standards of your community, but what about the next federal law? If you want local control of things, then you should be consistent and oppose any sort of federal control such as this.
Of course all communities don't have to have the same standards of what is acceptable. But they should decide their standards at the local level, so that they can argue about issues like whether adults will have to use the filters too, how old is an adult, and what exactly we want to filter. Congress making laws about "harmful" material just clouds the issue, because people in different communities disagree over what's harmful to children (porn? sex ed? other religions?) but the law will be enforced across the entire country.
Also, the last time I checked, no one was forced to find anything on the World Wide Web (which is what we are discussing blocking). That's right, it is impossible to force your message onto anyone - they have to visit your site to get whatever message you are spouting. If parents would surf the web with their kids to show them how it works, what parts to avoid, and so forth, then we wouldn't need any sort of government control of information.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing the government didn't take away their "freedom to innovate" in that regard.
OK, I'm in.
Whoa there. There is a different (as many other posters here have kindly pointed out) between the ways that different corporations can maintain and improve their market share. Remember, it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to gain monopoly power by illegal means, or to use monopoly power (even if acquired legally) to act in restraint of trade. With that in mind, let's consider some legal ways for companies to increase market share:
Here are some illegal ways:
I'll admit that the anti-trust laws are not the most clear-cut in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. This made sense when the laws were drafted, because markets can change rapidly and we don't want to rewrite large laws like this every year to take into account market changes and entirely new markets. Like many other laws, the question is ultimately the intent of Microsoft, and I don't think anyone at this point can argue that Microsoft's intent was only to have a good, clean competition and provide the best products for their customers.
If you call it a feature they will. Isn't this how it worked for web browsers? Remember, we won't be talking about a totally incompatible new system, just one with new Baby Bill ActiveSomething!
Splitting them up into multiple smaller companies with the exact same products won't work nearly as well as it did for Ma Bell, because there's no way to restrict the baby Bills to separate geographical markets. We would just end up with three smaller clones, but since they can all tie their Windows to their apps, either one of them will eventually become a monopoly again or the government will have to do some intrusive regulation of Microsoft's business, just like they do for the local phone companies now.
Separating the apps, internet, and OS components of Micros~1 would work better because it would break up the quasi-vertical monopoly that MS has in several different software arenas. Also, this would force their products to fully disclose their APIs, and then other companies could compete and be sure that their apps are fully Windows compliant (remember DR-DOS?). Besides, part of the case against MS (the most important part, IMHO) concerned their use of an OS monopoly to try to gain a web browser monopoly. Splitting up MS along product lines would prevent this sort of monopoly-spreading.
That is a very good point - often it is difficult or impossible to track exactly where your taxes go. I certainly don't think that we should only pay taxes for exactly the roads, colleges, etc. that we use - obviously most people should pay taxes into a common pool at the state and federal levels, and this entire pool of money will be divided between roads, schools, and so on. I have no argument with this.
However, I do have a problem with contributing to a tax pool which is specifically excludes me from benefiting from it - local taxes in another state, in this particular issue. If I buy something online, it will likely be from a store in CA, and I don't live in that state so let's use that as an example. Local sales tax in CA is specifically earmarked for the use of the town and possibly the state government. None of that benefit will return to me back in my state.
So yes, the government sells services as a package, but under our federal system there are several quasi-self-contained service pools. Tax money directed into one of those areas (like the state of CA, for example) won't provide any benefit to those who aren't a part of the CA benefit pool - people and companies who exist or visit CA. I have no problems paying a federal tax and the benefit going to another state, because all states are in the federal benefits pool. But any taxes I pay to CA won't benefit me at all if I never live in that state and never visit it.
It's not really the exact same transaction, though, because you didn't actually visit amazon.com (or wherever). If you had been there in person, you would have expected roads, law enforcement, etc. and you would have paid local sales tax for them. But if you aren't there, you don't need those things. So why should you pay for them?
On the other hand, you did use more bandwidth than you would have if you had gone in person. So you can eventually expect to pay more for your 'net connection, as can your online retailer. There's also shipping costs and amazon.com's local costs, which are taxed and may increase the sale price of your book. But if the 'net is the only infrastructure that you personally are using, then that is the only thing you should be taxed for.
There are costs to a transaction either way, but it would be better to slightly increase existing taxes which already pay for services, than create a new tax which isn't directly linked to a service provided to the community.
I'll agree with you - normally taxes serve a useful purpose by funding services that the community needs. I think what confuses people in the debate over sales tax on Internet purchases is that there isn't a specific service that would be funded by the tax that isn't already funded by another tax. If you look at the components of a purchase over the Internet, amazon.com pays local taxes and UPS pays local taxes as well as transport taxes (gas tax, weight penalties, etc). Your connection to amazon.com is paid for in the Internet connection fees that you and amazon.com pay. These fees are loosely related to the amount of traffic the two of you generate. If any of these components don't generate enough revenue to pay for what they use ('net backbone, local law enforcement, interstate highways) then those taxes should be increased, or the level of service lowered.
If I actually went to the amazon.com warehouse (wherever it is) to get my book I would expect roads, law enforcement, and emergency 911 services over the course of my trip. Theoretically that's what local sales tax pays for, right? So far I haven't read a better explanation. If I'm buying over the Internet, I don't need these services, so charging me a separate local sales tax doesn't make sense. Increasing the taxes on the components of my online purchase (warehousing, shipping, and 'net connection) does make sense, because even an online purchase does use resources and must be paid for. I think more people here would support the idea if it were explained that way. As it is, it seems like states are trying to replace the exact amount of money they are losing in local sales, rather than looking more closely at what happens during an online purchase.
Poor pathing for large ground units, especially when moving with groups of smaller units. Instead of waiting for the smaller units to move (which would make sense, since the small units accelerate quickly and move out of the way quickly), the large units will slowly come to a halt and then slowly accelerate in a different direction. By that time the small units have moved out of the way, so again we slow to a halt, change course, and accelerate. Part of the problem is the accel/decel times for large units (which shouldn't be changed), but things would work a lot better if they would hesitate slightly longer to see if their way will be cleared.
Since apparently the standard in trademark disputes is consumer confusion, I propose this poll:
Many people would argue that the data isn't NSI's to control in the first place. Also, if this license appears only after you do a domain name lookup, then it may not be valid. For example:
Obviously this isn't legally enforceable, and I expect eventually NSI's "agreement" on whois results will be found similarly unenforceable.
I think Google ranks a site X by finding how many other sites link to site X. Their theory, IIRC, is that the more sites which link to X, the more important X is to that particular topic and the more likely that a user searching for a site on that topic wil want to see site X. The Google ranking of the sites which link to X is also taken into consideration. So if you want a higher Google ranking, you need to get linked from more sites and more highly ranked sites. According to their FAQ, "This definition seems circular, and it is."
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but since I've seen DAVEO post on other articles, I'll assume not. I have to concur with some of your other respondents: you really should try using the first person some time. It's surprisingly easy and fun to use, and you will automatically get more respect for your postings and fewer people will call you a troll. This is just friendly advice.
If, as other posters have pointed out, Microworkz marketing made reference to Linux in the sense that "our product is really stable and has great networking capabilities", then that's great! It means that some really well-done Linux advocacy has been going on. Would you prefer them to say "combines the UI of Be with the unstoppable power of Windows NT"? I didn't think so.
I'll admit that they could have gone about their advertising a little better. It's confusing to say that the iToaster includes Linux but doesn't come with the source, and even worse when we find out that the product doesn't include Linux but uses the Linux(tm) trademark in their advertising anyway. Now if they had quoted a reviewer who said "it's solid just like Linux" then that would be OK. I guess their marketing department didn't run this by the legal department on its way out the door.
All in all, there are worst things that could happen than Linux becoming the generic term for small, stable, networkable operating systems.
Linda Tripp to the contrary, normally recording someone's conversation on a tape recorder is illegal unless you let them know you are doing it. This is why customer service 800 numbers say something like "This call may be monitored for quality purposes".
This seems to be a no-brainer to me. It doesn't surprise me that listening to cell calls is illegal, but real criminals with something to gain from this sort of eavesdropping aren't putting up a web site advertizing what they're doing. If someone really wants to listen to unencrypted broadcast traffic (whether it was intended as point-to-point or not) they will. The solution is not another unenforceable law; instead people need to take reasonable precautions when they're using part of a public spectrum. I agree that it is ethically wrong to intentionally listen in on a cell call, but the bottom line is that the real bad guys are not going to stop, and there isn't a good way to catch them right now.
Access to the original P cannot be restricted - you are correct. The whole BSD/GPL debate really comes down to who gets the benefit of the changes made from P->P+.
In the BSD world, the author of the + section can distribute both P and + together, without source code, and only that author receives the benefit of the + changes. Everybody else has to reinvent the wheel if they wanted to get P+ code and didn't want to get the + from the + author.
In the GPL world, the author of the + section must distribute the original P with source code if they distribute it at all, and if the + code incorporates code from P, then they must distribute the + source code as well. Then everyone can include the + code in their GPL'd projects, which is a benefit for them. Of course, the author may not make as much money (if any) distributing a GPL'd P+ as they would have under the BSD license.
The GPL has a very specific view of what is good for the software world: software distributed with GPL'd source code. Software distributed with GPL'd source code leads to more of the same, which was the FSF's goal. Of course, if you don't like this goal (if you prefer proprietary software or, as another poster pointed out, other free software licenses) then you aren't going to like the GPL or its goals.
There's more to freedom than openness, though. This is the whole Open Source thing: is it enough to be able to see the code, or do we also need the rights to modify the code, distribute modifications, and incorporate it into other projects (other free projects, if GPL'd; other closed projects if BSD licensed).
Well, technically you can enhance GPL'd code all you want as long as you don't distribute those changes. This is specifically stated in the GPL, so the GPL doesn't enslave your new code at all. The GPL does make certain requirements upon your distribution of GPL'd software, which makes sense because the authors don't want just anybody changing the license of their software and redistributing it. So really the only problem you have is how to keep your additions proprietary while distributing them along with and integrating them into GPL'd software. This doesn't seem too enslaving to me - you can do what you want with your code, as long as the original GPL'd code remains free as it was licensed to you. Of course, it may be very difficult to distribute your proprietary software in this manner (while keeping it proprietary), but RMS never promised you a rose garden :)
You are correct, there is no harm to the existing codebase. However, the GPL isn't really as oriented towards preventing proprietary add-ons themselves as it is with encouraging improvements to the code base to be non-proprietary. It sounds like this is splitting hairs, but it makes sense when considered in terms of the goals of the FSF and the GPL: to encourage better software through the availability of source code.
A proprietary addition to a BSD-licensed project doesn't harm the base code, but it doesn't add anything to that code base either, because the source code for the additions is not available. In that case, the only winners are the company who can now sell the enhanced product. A GPL'd addition to a GPL-licensed project actually adds more code to the code base, which can lead to better software for everyone since anyone can use the additions in their own projects. Of course, no one individual or company can derive all the benefit from the improvements, because anyone can try to sell this code. There's a trade-off between the good of those who write additions to an existing codebase, and the good of the software community as a whole. So it doesn't harm the existing codebase to write closed-source additions, but a lot more is gained (according to the FSF, at least) by writing open source additions.
You are correct; I do agree with you. I would prefer no government control of any information, but if that is politically unlikely then local control is vastly preferable to federal control. Your voice is proportionally a lot louder at the local level. Of course, if your views on the subject don't match those of your community very well, then you still have some problems.
I prefer the set where 5 of them form a land team, 5 form an air team, and 5 form a sea team. Then they all split up and all 15 form a robot. They still have a blazing sword, though.
IIRC, companies with patents are required to make their designs available for use by others upon payment of a licensing fee. So if you patent something, you can't just sit on it and prevent others from using it. After all, the design is public knowledge - you can look it up at the Patent Office. This way everybody gets to use the new technology you've created, but you still get remunerated for your R&D work. I'm not sure if there are any limits on the actual licensing fees you can charge, so this might be a stumbling block, but I think there is some sort of limit on those fees.
I dunno, MEEPT is funny sometimes.
That was my initial thought also, but in the case that the police already had probable cause (they saw you hold up the bank, etc.) they can still arrest you, and if you had encrypted your plans to rob the bank then you could be prosecuted for both the plans and the encryption. Also, this just prevents use of encryption from being the "sole basis" of probable cause, but use of encryption could be a contributory basis. This was a step in the right direction, just not as far as it looks at first glance.
There are certainly valid points to the strict constructionist viewpoint of the Constitution, but on the other hand things are a lot different now than they were in the 1780s. Most people receive more benefit than harm from such extensions of federal authority like the FCC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and so forth. I don't think the founding fathers intended their descendants to be stuck with exactly the same balance of power that they set up back then - due to modern technology and changing perceptions, the executive branch has gained a lot of power and the legislative branch has lost a little. In general these changes have worked out OK, since they are subject to constant legal challenge and review in the Supreme Court as well as the press.
I'll be the first to agree that the Constitution should have been amended as these changes occurred, rather than simply bent and forced into a new shape. However, it would be a mistake to return suddenly to the strict constructionist view now - the country would collapse fairly quickly without the more centralized federal control we have now.
I have this feeling of deja vu all over again...see below.
This hasn't empowered local communities to do anything - this amendment restricts federal funding for local libraries based on an undefined standard of "harmful to minors". No one has told local communities that "they MUST expose their children to a completely wide-open Internet". Many communities already have filtering in place, which is completely within their discretion to do (pending further court action, of course, but the principle of locally defined filters seems a lot less controversial). Now the federal government is trying to prohibit any community from receiving funding unless they follow a certain federal standard.
You seem to be a little inconsistent in your beliefs. How does a federal mandate handed down from the highest levels of government encourage local community standards? Sure, right now the federal government may have acted to support the standards of your community, but what about the next federal law? If you want local control of things, then you should be consistent and oppose any sort of federal control such as this.
Of course all communities don't have to have the same standards of what is acceptable. But they should decide their standards at the local level, so that they can argue about issues like whether adults will have to use the filters too, how old is an adult, and what exactly we want to filter. Congress making laws about "harmful" material just clouds the issue, because people in different communities disagree over what's harmful to children (porn? sex ed? other religions?) but the law will be enforced across the entire country.
Also, the last time I checked, no one was forced to find anything on the World Wide Web (which is what we are discussing blocking). That's right, it is impossible to force your message onto anyone - they have to visit your site to get whatever message you are spouting. If parents would surf the web with their kids to show them how it works, what parts to avoid, and so forth, then we wouldn't need any sort of government control of information.