Well, I don't want to lower myself to your level of being insulting, but your argument is naive. Since when are laws and lawsuits based upon clear logical thinking? They're based on an often emotional and inconsistent legal system where it's best to CYA.
I'm speaking from a perspective of having been in mass-deployed product liability meetings. I know the kinds of arguments that influence the decision makers. Discount it if you want by calling me a jerk or believing that the point you're trying to make is the right one since you're obviously a great intellect.
Yes, they exist by leave of the government. But the government is a concentration of power that's easily subverted by those with money... corporations. The only solution is to constantly prune back government to just essentials like national defense, providing a level playing ground for corporations (trust busting), and massive public works projects like *starting* the highway system or a space program. (I don't think they should run those things forever).
Let me try another Jefferson quote that applies: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."
"...there were people who believed we might be in a kind of apocalyptic situation and what we're really seeing now with H1N1 is that in most cases the disease is self-limiting."
Because it's wiping out the entire local populations? AIEEE!!!
Um, by "like", I meant in the "judges don't like things that aren't legal" sense.
Anyhow... someone reads EULAs? You've already paid for the software before you even loaded it to be able to read the EULA. It's too late for them to make unreasonable demands that you have to comply to; hence the reason that the DA went after them and they folded. They knew that they didn't want to try to push this crap past a judge.
Yeah, and if the EULA had some obscure legalese stating that the people were signing giving their homes to Symantec, would that be okay?
EULAs that try to enforce recurring payments when you're just buying desktop utility software are a bit of a surprise. Judges don't like corporations that hide surprises for consumers in their legalese. You shouldn't either. The more companies get away with burying surprises in their EULAs, the more commonplace it will be. You don't want to be pitted against a team of corporate attorneys in a game of one-ups-manship every time you buy something with some sort of EULA.
So you're basically saying that you're at a school full of girls that you don't know how to say "no" to but you're afraid that they might accidentally open up your pron folder?
Great, and then there will be secret abductions of spammers who are sent to Guantanamo without trial or hope of quick appeal. There will be water boarding and sleep deprivation and acts of humiliation.
Really, I think that my point is that it's not severe enough.
Bah... I didn't see Canadians complaining when the US economy was carrying it along for the ride up. Just sit on your moose, drink your beer, and be thankful that we're a buffer between you and Mexico.
That's where you went wrong, right there. Responsibility implies accountability. Accountability implies consequences like jail, or fines, or maybe just firing. When was the last time we ever saw any of those things for government officials? Scooter Libby? Poor sap was a scapegoat.
Yeah, the same way that government and laws are an ugly hack to get around staggering points of failure in society and human nature. Government and laws have their uses, though, just like a free market has its uses.
People are greedy. Give them an opportunity to make a buck off work that will benefit all of us. I'm not saying that the current patent system is ideal and doesn't need serious adjustments; just that I don't see many great alternatives.
At the end of TFA, Arthur Caplan makes the most reasoned point. Basically, he notes that the ACLU's attack is probably wrong. Rather than going after the whole genetic patents paradigm, just attack the validity of this patent. Has Myriad made a unique contribution to our understanding or processes that justifies their having exclusive rights to those discoveries? Or are they just gene-squatting?
You don't want to see some land-grab situation with genes where the people who file the most paperwork reap financial benefits just for naming things. But you also want to reward the companies investing billions of dollars moving our understanding forward.
Dude, don't come to Slashdot and make some logical argument about the good side of gene patenting and how this might be a complex issue where the knee-jerk reaction of "patents are bad!" might not apply.
Before your little intellectual escapade, everyone was having a nice circle jerk criticizing the evils of human greed to try to make a buck based upon little knowledge and much angst.
Your kind of informed opinion isn't appreciated here!
That should really be the default for everyone in all societies. Maybe set up a licensing system. I think it was Steve Martin in Parenthood who said something like: You have to get a license to fish, drive a car, or fly a plane - but any moron can become a parent.
Or your elected official promises to tax the rich and give you free health care, and you vote for him or her... then turns around and behaves in exactly the same corrupt way that you expected "the other team" to behave.
Despite that identical outcome, you'll pat yourself on the back that you elected the team that says the right things with Olberman cheerleading you the whole way - while Sean Hannity and his players are gnashing their teeth and decrying the corruption that was okay when it was their guys.
Montasano gets rich, the Politicians get rich, freedoms and quality of life issues suffer... but at least you get to hate those other guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't want to lower myself to your level of being insulting, but your argument is naive. Since when are laws and lawsuits based upon clear logical thinking? They're based on an often emotional and inconsistent legal system where it's best to CYA.
I'm speaking from a perspective of having been in mass-deployed product liability meetings. I know the kinds of arguments that influence the decision makers. Discount it if you want by calling me a jerk or believing that the point you're trying to make is the right one since you're obviously a great intellect.
Camera is complete slag, receipts all burned, paid with cash... who would know?
And then when it catches on fire, burning your house down? Who do you sue?
lawyer: Mr. WNight, were you using a Panasonic battery?
WNight: Of course I was.
Yes, they exist by leave of the government. But the government is a concentration of power that's easily subverted by those with money... corporations. The only solution is to constantly prune back government to just essentials like national defense, providing a level playing ground for corporations (trust busting), and massive public works projects like *starting* the highway system or a space program. (I don't think they should run those things forever).
Let me try another Jefferson quote that applies: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."
Corporations only have power because we've concentrated so much power in government.
Thomas Jefferson said it best, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
Yeah, that verdict sounds excessive.... maybe folks should stop violating copyright?
"...there were people who believed we might be in a kind of apocalyptic situation and what we're really seeing now with H1N1 is that in most cases the disease is self-limiting."
Because it's wiping out the entire local populations? AIEEE!!!
Um, by "like", I meant in the "judges don't like things that aren't legal" sense.
Anyhow... someone reads EULAs? You've already paid for the software before you even loaded it to be able to read the EULA. It's too late for them to make unreasonable demands that you have to comply to; hence the reason that the DA went after them and they folded. They knew that they didn't want to try to push this crap past a judge.
Yeah, and if the EULA had some obscure legalese stating that the people were signing giving their homes to Symantec, would that be okay?
EULAs that try to enforce recurring payments when you're just buying desktop utility software are a bit of a surprise. Judges don't like corporations that hide surprises for consumers in their legalese. You shouldn't either. The more companies get away with burying surprises in their EULAs, the more commonplace it will be. You don't want to be pitted against a team of corporate attorneys in a game of one-ups-manship every time you buy something with some sort of EULA.
So you're advocating the farkish "tits or get the fuck out" strategy?
So you're basically saying that you're at a school full of girls that you don't know how to say "no" to but you're afraid that they might accidentally open up your pron folder?
Is that about right?
Dark, clever, full of funny. Excellently played.
Because people are stupid.
The real question is why do the Slashdot editors approve them?
The straw men are flying fast and furious in this thread... I'm not sure why.
Love the sig, btw.
Where are all the people clambering[sic] for straw man arguments?
Great, and then there will be secret abductions of spammers who are sent to Guantanamo without trial or hope of quick appeal. There will be water boarding and sleep deprivation and acts of humiliation.
Really, I think that my point is that it's not severe enough.
Bah... I didn't see Canadians complaining when the US economy was carrying it along for the ride up. Just sit on your moose, drink your beer, and be thankful that we're a buffer between you and Mexico.
responsible
That's where you went wrong, right there. Responsibility implies accountability. Accountability implies consequences like jail, or fines, or maybe just firing. When was the last time we ever saw any of those things for government officials? Scooter Libby? Poor sap was a scapegoat.
Canada has to follow Federal laws just like the other 50 states. Write your congress person.
Yeah, the same way that government and laws are an ugly hack to get around staggering points of failure in society and human nature. Government and laws have their uses, though, just like a free market has its uses.
People are greedy. Give them an opportunity to make a buck off work that will benefit all of us. I'm not saying that the current patent system is ideal and doesn't need serious adjustments; just that I don't see many great alternatives.
Dammit... you're right. He's just so versatile, that Keanu. I should always attribute great movie lines to him - whether he said them or not.
At the end of TFA, Arthur Caplan makes the most reasoned point. Basically, he notes that the ACLU's attack is probably wrong. Rather than going after the whole genetic patents paradigm, just attack the validity of this patent. Has Myriad made a unique contribution to our understanding or processes that justifies their having exclusive rights to those discoveries? Or are they just gene-squatting?
You don't want to see some land-grab situation with genes where the people who file the most paperwork reap financial benefits just for naming things. But you also want to reward the companies investing billions of dollars moving our understanding forward.
Dude, don't come to Slashdot and make some logical argument about the good side of gene patenting and how this might be a complex issue where the knee-jerk reaction of "patents are bad!" might not apply.
Before your little intellectual escapade, everyone was having a nice circle jerk criticizing the evils of human greed to try to make a buck based upon little knowledge and much angst.
Your kind of informed opinion isn't appreciated here!
That should really be the default for everyone in all societies. Maybe set up a licensing system. I think it was Steve Martin in Parenthood who said something like: You have to get a license to fish, drive a car, or fly a plane - but any moron can become a parent.
Or your elected official promises to tax the rich and give you free health care, and you vote for him or her... then turns around and behaves in exactly the same corrupt way that you expected "the other team" to behave.
Despite that identical outcome, you'll pat yourself on the back that you elected the team that says the right things with Olberman cheerleading you the whole way - while Sean Hannity and his players are gnashing their teeth and decrying the corruption that was okay when it was their guys.
Montasano gets rich, the Politicians get rich, freedoms and quality of life issues suffer... but at least you get to hate those other guys.
We are so fucked.