Licensing to others is nice BUT there are still big problems with allowing a non-practicing entity to sue.
1. A non-practicing entity cannot be counter-sued. This distorts the legal system in favor of the party doing the suing. This is the primary evil associated with patent trolling.
Even worse is the case where it is a governmental entity that is doing the suing. If I were the host nation for such a suit I'd be pissed at the country engaging in such extraterritorial behavior by the government of another nation. If the US were going around and suing people for violating patents on the internet you can bet we'd be hearing screams of bloody murder about it.
2. How can you award damages to a party that doesn't practice the invention? It seems to me any reasonable logic would dictate such damages to be $0.00. This is one of the legal issues that makes it difficult for non practicing entities to get injunctive relief. The fiction of large monetary damages awarded to a non-practicing entity is a distortion of justice.
It is these two points that patent trolls depend on to make their money. You may argue whether organizations like CSIRO should be called patent trolls, but the fact is that they are using the same legal inequities that enable patent trolls to generate questionable profits.
Perhaps if it walks like a duck we should consider calling it a duck.
> I take that to mean the theorum assumes that the questions asked are worded in a neutral manner, correct?
Hahahaha please define this "neutral" you speak of. I suspect you will have better success nailing jello to a tree.
Your thinking lacks clarity if it entertains such concepts.
The results from ANY questions asked to a random sample of citizens follow the same mathematical law. The law doesn't predict what the result will be nor give a FF whether the question is "neutral", whatever THAT might be, only that it will follow certain trends with sample size, population size, etc.
The results from two different questions, biased differently are likely to be different, as anyone with more than a 5% working brain might expect. However the results for both WILL follow the law of large numbers.
It would be a poor law indeed if it depended on "neutral".
Well, it's not a poor law.
"He stood before the very Gates of Hell girt only in the Central Limit Theorem and the Laws of Large Numbers, casted order upon the chaos and humbled The Lord of Light and all his Minions"
-the eric conspiracy
I know of scarcely anything so apt to impress the imagination as the wonderful form of cosmic order expressed by the "Law of Frequency of Error". The law would have been personified by the Greeks and deified, if they had known of it. It reigns with serenity and in complete self-effacement, amidst the wildest confusion. The huger the mob, and the greater the apparent anarchy, the more perfect is its sway. It is the supreme law of Unreason. Whenever a large sample of chaotic elements are taken in hand and marshaled in the order of their magnitude, an unsuspected and most beautiful form of regularity proves to have been latent all along.
-Sir Francis Galton 1889
ps. Galton is speaking of a different law, however very closely related to the laws of large numbers.
One of the consequences of the law of large numbers is that the sample result is independent of the population size if the population is large compared to the sample size.
Your opinion was known to be wrong some 400 years ago.
You can see the results of this in the following calculator.
Einstein was generally thought to be an agnostic. He certainly did not believe in a personal God.
Following is Einstein's reply on 24 March 1954 to a correspondent (an atheist) who wrote to him about his religious beliefs:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
All of the Catholics I know disagree with one or more tenants of Catholicism. And evolution isn't a tenant; there are only statements that evolution of the human body is compatible with Catholicism. Views of the rest, i.e. the mind, and the prime sources are in conflict. So there are in fact YEC Catholics. I don't know the percentage but I'd guess it's something like 40% in the US.
To illustrate the issues with the Catholic Church's views as being compatible with Darwinism, let's look at the Humani Generis points 2 and 3:
2. Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
In an essay on the Popeâ(TM)s evolution message called âoeYou Canâ(TM)t Have it Both Waysâ the controversy-loving biologist [Richard Dawkins] accused Pope John Paul of âoecasuistical double-talkâ and âoeobscurantism.â (SAR, 209) Dawkins took issue with the Popeâ(TM)s declaring off-limits theories suggesting that the human mind is an evolutionary product. In his address the Pope said: "[I]f the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by Godâ¦Consequently, theories of evolution whichâ¦consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in âoepolygenism,â the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans.
The Fucking Imbeciles are those who have no clue as to the implications of the Law of Large Numbers which was mathematically proven by Jacob Bernoulli some 400 years ago.
I don't have an opinion as to who is freer not having lived in Canada - but the limitations and notwithstanding clauses in the Canadian Charter of Rights are really a big concern to me.
Well CISPA is pretty much dead in the water at present. However the alternatives that are following on aren't much different.
However to compare these to Chinese style surveillance is laughable. That's MUCH worse than even CISPA.
My thinking is that there should not be a centralized body. The various nations should be free to go to hell in their own ways.
And really what does a centralized domain name server do for you? Not a lot. Blocking requires the ability to filter out at an address level. Otherwise it's just a matter of adding another IP to your DNS list.
Compared to what is going on in China, one of the parties to this proposal?
It's not an either-or. With the US you will get surveillance with at least a little accountability. With the UN you will get unbridled surveillance, censorship, toll roads and no accountability.
At this point in time the idea that the US controls the internet is laughable.
What they control are some pieces of the internet infrastructure that allow them to seize some domains. These seizures have little to no effect because many non-US registries exist.
A US implemented kill switch would affect what? The US that's it. And maybe not even that. Given the pool of engineering talent available in the US underground nets would be very hard to suppress.
The real danger is having a completely centralized control.
When the Articles of Confederation were passed nobody in America wanted a federal government either. However history sort of imposed itself. States were running their own armies, there were treaties and tariffs between states and foreign powers and even border disputes and skirmishes between states.
It was pretty clear to the Founders this was going nowhere. Federalism has problems, sure. But without a federal government the colonies were falling apart.
Eventually Europe will realize that their current structure is a small measure towards getting rid of the petty nationalism that caused it to dissolve into extraordinarily chauvinistic behavior over the centuries. This is the 21st century now, not the 18th.
The fact is that throughout human history political progress has meant increasing the size of the political units.
"Our constitution states that any power not explicitly granted by said constitution or its amendments is retained by the component states, or the people."
Nah. Here's what the 10th Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I wish people would actually read the 10th amendment. The word "explicitly" appears nowhere. While it was debated at the time of adoption it was not included. This means powers implicitly granted are also allowed.
There is also the 13th amendment which you might want to take a gander at. It broadens federal powers quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. It's always blame Canada.
Much more likely you would just disappear. Charges are too much bother.
Licensing to others is nice BUT there are still big problems with allowing a non-practicing entity to sue.
1. A non-practicing entity cannot be counter-sued. This distorts the legal system in favor of the party doing the suing. This is the primary evil associated with patent trolling.
Even worse is the case where it is a governmental entity that is doing the suing. If I were the host nation for such a suit I'd be pissed at the country engaging in such extraterritorial behavior by the government of another nation. If the US were going around and suing people for violating patents on the internet you can bet we'd be hearing screams of bloody murder about it.
2. How can you award damages to a party that doesn't practice the invention? It seems to me any reasonable logic would dictate such damages to be $0.00. This is one of the legal issues that makes it difficult for non practicing entities to get injunctive relief. The fiction of large monetary damages awarded to a non-practicing entity is a distortion of justice.
It is these two points that patent trolls depend on to make their money. You may argue whether organizations like CSIRO should be called patent trolls, but the fact is that they are using the same legal inequities that enable patent trolls to generate questionable profits.
Perhaps if it walks like a duck we should consider calling it a duck.
> I take that to mean the theorum assumes that the questions asked are worded in a neutral manner, correct?
Hahahaha please define this "neutral" you speak of. I suspect you will have better success nailing jello to a tree.
Your thinking lacks clarity if it entertains such concepts.
The results from ANY questions asked to a random sample of citizens follow the same mathematical law. The law doesn't predict what the result will be nor give a FF whether the question is "neutral", whatever THAT might be, only that it will follow certain trends with sample size, population size, etc.
The results from two different questions, biased differently are likely to be different, as anyone with more than a 5% working brain might expect. However the results for both WILL follow the law of large numbers.
It would be a poor law indeed if it depended on "neutral".
Well, it's not a poor law.
"He stood before the very Gates of Hell girt only in the Central Limit Theorem and the Laws of Large Numbers, casted order upon the chaos and humbled The Lord of Light and all his Minions"
-the eric conspiracy
I know of scarcely anything so apt to impress the imagination as the wonderful form of cosmic order expressed by the "Law of Frequency of Error". The law would have been personified by the Greeks and deified, if they had known of it. It reigns with serenity and in complete self-effacement, amidst the wildest confusion. The huger the mob, and the greater the apparent anarchy, the more perfect is its sway. It is the supreme law of Unreason. Whenever a large sample of chaotic elements are taken in hand and marshaled in the order of their magnitude, an unsuspected and most beautiful form of regularity proves to have been latent all along.
-Sir Francis Galton 1889
ps. Galton is speaking of a different law, however very closely related to the laws of large numbers.
One of the consequences of the law of large numbers is that the sample result is independent of the population size if the population is large compared to the sample size.
Your opinion was known to be wrong some 400 years ago.
You can see the results of this in the following calculator.
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Einstein was generally thought to be an agnostic. He certainly did not believe in a personal God.
Following is Einstein's reply on 24 March 1954 to a correspondent (an atheist) who wrote to him about his religious beliefs:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Maybe in our society.
Try something where people are not indoctrinated from birth to hold supernatural beliefs and I bet that results would be a lot better.
Gagh. I remember being forced into bible school at age 5. Can you imagine if people put their children into naturalism schools at the same age?
All of the Catholics I know disagree with one or more tenants of Catholicism. And evolution isn't a tenant; there are only statements that evolution of the human body is compatible with Catholicism. Views of the rest, i.e. the mind, and the prime sources are in conflict. So there are in fact YEC Catholics. I don't know the percentage but I'd guess it's something like 40% in the US.
To illustrate the issues with the Catholic Church's views as being compatible with Darwinism, let's look at the Humani Generis points 2 and 3:
2. Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
[From http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html%5D
In an essay on the Popeâ(TM)s evolution message called âoeYou Canâ(TM)t Have it Both Waysâ the controversy-loving biologist [Richard Dawkins] accused Pope John Paul of âoecasuistical double-talkâ and âoeobscurantism.â (SAR, 209) Dawkins took issue with the Popeâ(TM)s declaring off-limits theories suggesting that the human mind is an evolutionary product. In his address the Pope said: "[I]f the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by Godâ¦Consequently, theories of evolution whichâ¦consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in âoepolygenism,â the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans.
Clearly Darwinism and this view are incompatible.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin.
Pollsters are exempt from Do Not Call.
And I believe pollsters generally correct for the other biases you cite.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/25/news/la-pn-gap-between-cell-phones-landlines-evident-in-party-splits-20120524
The real problem is these people will have the right to vote.
The Fucking Imbeciles are those who have no clue as to the implications of the Law of Large Numbers which was mathematically proven by Jacob Bernoulli some 400 years ago.
I don't have an opinion as to who is freer not having lived in Canada - but the limitations and notwithstanding clauses in the Canadian Charter of Rights are really a big concern to me.
Well CISPA is pretty much dead in the water at present. However the alternatives that are following on aren't much different.
However to compare these to Chinese style surveillance is laughable. That's MUCH worse than even CISPA.
My thinking is that there should not be a centralized body. The various nations should be free to go to hell in their own ways.
And really what does a centralized domain name server do for you? Not a lot. Blocking requires the ability to filter out at an address level. Otherwise it's just a matter of adding another IP to your DNS list.
You think the US has unbridled surveillance?
Compared to what is going on in China, one of the parties to this proposal?
It's not an either-or. With the US you will get surveillance with at least a little accountability. With the UN you will get unbridled surveillance, censorship, toll roads and no accountability.
At this point in time the idea that the US controls the internet is laughable.
What they control are some pieces of the internet infrastructure that allow them to seize some domains. These seizures have little to no effect because many non-US registries exist.
A US implemented kill switch would affect what? The US that's it. And maybe not even that. Given the pool of engineering talent available in the US underground nets would be very hard to suppress.
The real danger is having a completely centralized control.
What's happened in Fla is that there is now a high risk pool paid for by you guessed it the taxpayers.
What will happen is the insurance companies won't be constrained by this legislation, and thus will slap extremely high premiums on the developments.
So it won't matter.
A range of 0.2 - 2.0 is 1.1 +/- 90% or so. Not 1000%.
I didn't say it was going to be easy. However the alternatives are going to be worse.
> You don't need a big government to enforce a common fiscal policy across Europe. You do need unanimous agreement and we're lacking there.
The requirement for unanimous agreement is what killed the Confederation. It won't work for the EU either.
Well, the RIAA's primary business has to do with copyrights, not patents.
Patent enforcement is a costly business - an infringement suit runs about $2 million to bring these days. So no it is not a zero risk investment.
Excuse me, that's the 14th amendment.
When the Articles of Confederation were passed nobody in America wanted a federal government either. However history sort of imposed itself. States were running their own armies, there were treaties and tariffs between states and foreign powers and even border disputes and skirmishes between states.
It was pretty clear to the Founders this was going nowhere. Federalism has problems, sure. But without a federal government the colonies were falling apart.
Eventually Europe will realize that their current structure is a small measure towards getting rid of the petty nationalism that caused it to dissolve into extraordinarily chauvinistic behavior over the centuries. This is the 21st century now, not the 18th.
The fact is that throughout human history political progress has meant increasing the size of the political units.
"Our constitution states that any power not explicitly granted by said constitution or its amendments is retained by the component states, or the people."
Nah. Here's what the 10th Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I wish people would actually read the 10th amendment. The word "explicitly" appears nowhere. While it was debated at the time of adoption it was not included. This means powers implicitly granted are also allowed.
There is also the 13th amendment which you might want to take a gander at. It broadens federal powers quite a bit.