Google, Apple and Amazon are not doing anything wrong. They are in business to make money for their stockholders of which many I bet are UK citizens. In some jurisdictions they are legally REQUIRED to operate their enterprises to the best legal advantage of their stockholders.
Those UK citizens pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains they realize from owning stock in these companies. Not only that but these companies provide extremely useful services to UK citizens thereby enriching their lives.
They ALSO employ many people who ALSO pay taxes on their wages, and by being employers relieve the state from having to pay for the upkeep of these people who would otherwise be on the dole.
Not only that but there are other taxes on value added transactions that result from the economic activities involved. Consumption based taxes are generally viewed to have the least negative impact on economic growth of any taxes.
Then of course there is the whole question of the macroeconomics of the situation. It is generally held that taxes on businesses are inefficient in terms of encouraging economic growth. Such policies are not productive overall to the economy. This is why business taxes in Europe are generally relatively low. It is conscious sound policy decision based on scientific analysis of the economic facts.
No, in 1490 the Church knew the Earth was round. The fact is that any educated person from the 3rd century BC on in Europe knew the Earth was round. In 1477 the Vatican commissioned two globes for the new Vatican library.
That's absolute poppycock. Anyone who knows geometry (I assume all competent scientists do) and investigates the situation will quickly determine the Earth is round.
The Pythaogoreans speculated the Earth was round in the 6th century BC, and Eratosthenes proved it and came up with a pretty accurate measure of it's diameter in the 3rd century BC. He even devised a system of longtitude and latitude.
Yes, and that time frame is imposed by a government regulatory process known as FDA approval.
I'm fairly sympathetic to the idea of extending patents to account for the regulatory process. A lawyer once told me that a patent is:
A contract between an inventor and the government in which the inventor discloses the best known way to practice an invention so that it can be repeated by others in exchange for the right to prevent others from practicing that invention for a specified period of time.
So that specified time is right now 20 years. Well if the government also imposes a regulatory process that takes 15 years or some other variable but significant duration before sale can take place the patent contract becomes quite meaningless.
Holding patents is a defensive measure in the following ways:
1. It places art in the public record which may later be claimed as prior art. Of course other publication may also server the same purpose.
2. The patent office eats it's own dog food, that is prior art in the form of patents seems more likely to be searched and cited than the general literature.
3, Patents in a particular field may discourage a competitor from filing patents or even working on the same problem.
4. Patents in a field may trigger mutually beneficial cross licensing opportunities rather than lawsuits.
5. Patents in a field may provide counter-suit fodder or also M.A.D. style deterrence that is sort of an informal mutual cross-license that is cheaper than an actual shit storm of lawsuits.
Doctor patient privilege per Larry Lawyer client privilege Spousal privilege Confessional privilege Self-incrimination exclusion Public interest privilege Accountant-client Reporter's privilege Right to silence
Larry, you are an idiot about social issues. Shut up.
Percy Schmeiser did exactly that. His neighbors planted some Monsanto RR corn, and he ended up with some cross pollinated seed. He then used RoundUp to select the RR corn from the cross pollinated mix, and planted it. By the time he was done he had something like 90% RR corn.
Monsanto sued him for patent infringement and won. The damage award was tiny because in the end Schmieser didn't use RoundUp on the actual crops.
Monsanto doesn't try to sue people affected by accidental pollenation.
It's only in cases like Percy Schmieser who intentionally selected seeds that were accidentally pollenated by use of Roundup to obtain 2nd or third genaration seed collection that have a high percentage of RoundUp resistance that Monsanto considers to be infringing.
The V1 had a rudimentary guidance system consisting of an anemometer in the nose that track distance and tipped the missile into a dive at the proper range.
What's unethical is Congress not having produced a reasonable and effective tax code. This is their job. Seriously the quality of the work products of the US Congress is really bad.
Corporations are required by law to operate to the benefit of their stockholders. Not avoiding taxes is in fact illegal.
Also I'm amazed the idea of GE not paying taxes is still prevalent. It's not true.
> Given a mathematical data compression algorithm, for example, apart from performance optimizations by vectorization and other tricks, there's usually exactly one way to implement it that doesn't result in precision loss.
You aren't going to be able (at least if the patent review process works properly) to get a patent on a pre-existing prior art compression algorithm. It was already patented (maybe the patent has expired as some these go back almost 40 years now), or the material was published. It's fundamentally ineligible.
Now if you invent a new algorithm it used to be you would have a good chance. Inventing a new algorithm puts you in a place where there are many possible choices. Of course I still think it's problematic for the reasons I laid out in the GP.
As far as the Olds assembly line patent, I was not able to find a patent number for this. Just a lot of handwaving that such a thing exists. In any case it's over 100 years old so the legal situation is quite different now. In addition the idea that assembly lines had to be run by people was already known to not be true as Eli Whitney had mechanized an early assembly line more than 100 years earlier. The Most Serene Republic of Venice was using an assembly line to produce warships in the 16th Century.
Slashdot Mirror
A logical conclusion? Supported by what logic? The act that you describe is quite illegal and is not covered by the Citizen's United decision.
> They're using lobbyists to to get to government grants on the one hand and shady accountants to effectively launder their cash on the other.
If British citizens object to what Amazon is doing they are free to change the tax laws.
Blaming Amazon for the results of the UKs laws and government polices is complete rubbish.
Google, Apple and Amazon are not doing anything wrong. They are in business to make money for their stockholders of which many I bet are UK citizens. In some jurisdictions they are legally REQUIRED to operate their enterprises to the best legal advantage of their stockholders.
Those UK citizens pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains they realize from owning stock in these companies. Not only that but these companies provide extremely useful services to UK citizens thereby enriching their lives.
They ALSO employ many people who ALSO pay taxes on their wages, and by being employers relieve the state from having to pay for the upkeep of these people who would otherwise be on the dole.
Not only that but there are other taxes on value added transactions that result from the economic activities involved. Consumption based taxes are generally viewed to have the least negative impact on economic growth of any taxes.
Then of course there is the whole question of the macroeconomics of the situation. It is generally held that taxes on businesses are inefficient in terms of encouraging economic growth. Such policies are not productive overall to the economy. This is why business taxes in Europe are generally relatively low. It is conscious sound policy decision based on scientific analysis of the economic facts.
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/themes/02_taxation.pdf
In other words this is a completely RUBBISH article in every way possible.
> What should open source programmers do in parts of the world without software patents?
Nothing. If there are no software patents you can't be sued for infringement, right?
No, in 1490 the Church knew the Earth was round. The fact is that any educated person from the 3rd century BC on in Europe knew the Earth was round. In 1477 the Vatican commissioned two globes for the new Vatican library.
That's absolute poppycock. Anyone who knows geometry (I assume all competent scientists do) and investigates the situation will quickly determine the Earth is round.
The Pythaogoreans speculated the Earth was round in the 6th century BC, and Eratosthenes proved it and came up with a pretty accurate measure of it's diameter in the 3rd century BC. He even devised a system of longtitude and latitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
WHAT DO THEY TEACH IN SCHOOL THESE DAYS?
The idea that scientists though the Earth was flat in the 1800s is the most ridiculous thing I have read on slashdot, I have a 5 digit ID!!!
I doubt if 97% of priests believe in God.
Certainly the Buddhists don't take a position on the question.
Yes, and that time frame is imposed by a government regulatory process known as FDA approval.
I'm fairly sympathetic to the idea of extending patents to account for the regulatory process. A lawyer once told me that a patent is:
A contract between an inventor and the government in which the inventor discloses the best known way to practice an invention so that it can be repeated by others in exchange for the right to prevent others from practicing that invention for a specified period of time.
So that specified time is right now 20 years. Well if the government also imposes a regulatory process that takes 15 years or some other variable but significant duration before sale can take place the patent contract becomes quite meaningless.
Holding patents is a defensive measure in the following ways:
1. It places art in the public record which may later be claimed as prior art. Of course other publication may also server the same purpose.
2. The patent office eats it's own dog food, that is prior art in the form of patents seems more likely to be searched and cited than the general literature.
3, Patents in a particular field may discourage a competitor from filing patents or even working on the same problem.
4. Patents in a field may trigger mutually beneficial cross licensing opportunities rather than lawsuits.
5. Patents in a field may provide counter-suit fodder or also M.A.D. style deterrence that is sort of an informal mutual cross-license that is cheaper than an actual shit storm of lawsuits.
No:
Doctor patient privilege per Larry
Lawyer client privilege
Spousal privilege
Confessional privilege
Self-incrimination exclusion
Public interest privilege
Accountant-client
Reporter's privilege
Right to silence
Larry, you are an idiot about social issues. Shut up.
A lot of what you describe is fixed by the ACA. However it doesn't fix the biggest problem, cost.
Ultimately I think that's what going to be what brings down the current system.
Well, how about a 2nd Amendment solution to the cameras?
Where is Sarah Palin when we need her?
Come on Sarah, this is your chance!
Actually I don't like postmodernism either. But your critique of climate science is just as bad as postmodernism.
In the Fox version the Universe is 6000 years old and the Earth is at the center of the Universe.
The over-reach is equally enabled by Congress with their great ideas like FISA, the Patriot Act and so on.
It's a disgusting situation.
Percy Schmeiser did exactly that. His neighbors planted some Monsanto RR corn, and he ended up with some cross pollinated seed. He then used RoundUp to select the RR corn from the cross pollinated mix, and planted it. By the time he was done he had something like 90% RR corn.
Monsanto sued him for patent infringement and won. The damage award was tiny because in the end Schmieser didn't use RoundUp on the actual crops.
This is not a copyright case. It's a patent case. Two very different things.
Monsanto doesn't try to sue people affected by accidental pollenation.
It's only in cases like Percy Schmieser who intentionally selected seeds that were accidentally pollenated by use of Roundup to obtain 2nd or third genaration seed collection that have a high percentage of RoundUp resistance that Monsanto considers to be infringing.
Haven't heard of the Doctrine of Equivalents have you?
Um the farmer is very likely to have a good idea what is in the grain elevator as soon as he uses a little Round-Up on a couple of seedlings.
The V1 had a rudimentary guidance system consisting of an anemometer in the nose that track distance and tipped the missile into a dive at the proper range.
So yes it was the first guided drone.
Not correct. While they don't have to say how much tax they pay in specific categories, they do have to reveal the total.
It's a billion per year in the US.
That's far from zero.
What's unethical is Congress not having produced a reasonable and effective tax code. This is their job. Seriously the quality of the work products of the US Congress is really bad.
Corporations are required by law to operate to the benefit of their stockholders. Not avoiding taxes is in fact illegal.
Also I'm amazed the idea of GE not paying taxes is still prevalent. It's not true.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/
You can rebuild it without the DRM features, but then you will not be able to play back DRM protected content.
DRM does not require closed source to implement. Sun released such a project years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_DReaM
> Given a mathematical data compression algorithm, for example, apart from performance optimizations by vectorization and other tricks, there's usually exactly one way to implement it that doesn't result in precision loss.
You aren't going to be able (at least if the patent review process works properly) to get a patent on a pre-existing prior art compression algorithm. It was already patented (maybe the patent has expired as some these go back almost 40 years now), or the material was published. It's fundamentally ineligible.
Now if you invent a new algorithm it used to be you would have a good chance. Inventing a new algorithm puts you in a place where there are many possible choices. Of course I still think it's problematic for the reasons I laid out in the GP.
As far as the Olds assembly line patent, I was not able to find a patent number for this. Just a lot of handwaving that such a thing exists. In any case it's over 100 years old so the legal situation is quite different now. In addition the idea that assembly lines had to be run by people was already known to not be true as Eli Whitney had mechanized an early assembly line more than 100 years earlier. The Most Serene Republic of Venice was using an assembly line to produce warships in the 16th Century.