The argument on the other side is what if this software would not be available to the government at all if the source had to become public? If the principle of being open trumps the efficiencies (in most cases) of contracting with private companies to solve specific problems, then that should be required by statute.
Personally, I would be for such statutes where the government prosecutes citizens using the software. Hmm, interesting distinction between government buying OTS closed software and contracting to have software written where the developing company retains exclusive rights to the source. With either OTS or for-contract software where the software is used to convict citizens, I would support a statute requiring the source to be available; for OTS software for other purposes (government offices using Windows w/o getting the source) definitely not (it would be too inefficient to require otherwise); for contracted-for software for other purposes I think the argument is much closer and should be on a case-by-case basis.
After a quick read of UMG RECORDINGS, INC. v. MP3.COM, INC. it seems one of the key issues will be whether Google's infringement is protected under fair use. According to the court in UMG Recordings, four factors are considered:
1. "Pupose and character of the use"
While not on its face commercial (Google is not directly selling copies of the works), it is in furtherance of their commercial interests and presumeably will receive payment for redirecting potential buyers to various retailers. Google could argue that they are providing a public good by providing an index to the public but this seems quite shaky to me; Google could buttress their argument by showing that their indexing adds new "insights and understandings" to the original works.
2. "the nature of the copyrighted work"
I would think, especially for non-fiction books, Google is on stronger ground here since books are more "factual or descriptive" than music.
3. "The amount and substantiality of the portion used..."
Here Google is stuck. They are using the works in their entirety.
4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market"
Google can argue that they are only enhancing the existing market for sale of physical copies of the works and unlike my.mp3.com are not usurping a potential market from the copyright holders (unless there is a market for charging people to be able to search contents of a book). I suppose the copyright holder could argue that they are losing their ability to license their works to a search engine. Actually, I think that's a pretty strong argument.
I'd need to read more cases to see how courts balance these four factors but I believe Authors Guild has the stronger position, as far as fair use goes.
IAALIT (I Am A Lawyer In Training)... Actually, you have it backwards... consideration is requierd in order to have a legally binding contract; there is no requirement for there to be a written contract (aside from contracts concerning specific topics defined by statute where there is a much greater risk of fraud, such as anything involving real estate or contracts which cannot be performed in one year or less).
Also, while it might seem like this is a contract to no specific person and thus is a pledge, that really isn't a problem- you can make an offer (that when accepted forms a contract) to an unspecified third party. The classic example of this is a posting offering a $10 reward to anyone who finds my lost puppy. If someone finds my puppy and brings him to me, by their performance they have accepted my offer and I am legally bound to pay them the $10 reward.
I haven't read the fine print (yet), but in theory this could easily be a legally binding contract with anyone who uses their patents in creating software that they license under an open source license.
Problem is there is no consideration so the contract is probably not legally binding. Any relief would have to come from an estoppel/reliance argument.
Actually, giving it a little thought, this is a contract with anyone who uses this patent in creating open source software; the consideration is in the software developer restricting (constraining) his/her legal rights by releasing his/her software under an Open Source license.
Ignorant ass... homework: what percentage of the National Guard is currently overseas?
Extra credit: How effective/how useful would the units that are currently deployed be in responding to a national disaster?
To be fair, you are most certainly correct that President Bush is not a Rebuplican in the same mold as one from 10-15 years ago... the largest increase in federal spending under any president is evidence enough of that (yes, the president doesn't set the budget, the house does that, but he does sign off on it and could take a stronger leadership role in providing proposals that reigned in spending).
from a court dedicated to interpitation of the constitution to one that just may be another political tool to enforce a given ideology
heh... ever since Justice Marshall, we've had supreme courts that "interpreted" the Constitution to get whatever result they were looking for. And the youngest justice is actually (IMO) the most principled as far as looking to the Constitution and nothing more for the basis of his rulings, even to the point of sounding a bit loony in his willingness to forgo a century of precedence if he believes the foundation for such precedence to be faulty. That really shows the mark of an idealist.
Amusing that you link "near certainty that he is a member of the Federalist Society" with being a "far right wing judge" as though any member of the Federalist Society is bound to be "right wing", when any member is just as likely to be libertarian. To be honest, I don't know where Roberts falls, but I remain somewhat hopeful that he will end up more like Thomas then Scalia.
By the way, nice hyberbole regarding "this power hungry, out of control, regime,":) 99% of all politicians are power hungry, why else would they choose to drag their families into such a dirty business?
Also, as to Roberts keeping his mouth shut, sounds like he learned the Ginsburg lesson quite well. To be honest, it is actually quite proper for a jurist to refuse to answer any question where an answer would require pre-judging issues that might come bfore him or her while on the bench.
Yes, you're right, and in my opinion, putting all those steps together to solve an address validation problem is arguably obvious to "one of ordinary skill in the art". That was my measure of "innovative".
Microsoft did not get a patent on treating an email address like an object. Always ignore the abstract in a patent unless you need it to understand the background. The only stuff that matters is the claims. In this case, here is what Microsoft actually patented:
1. A computer-implemented process for allowing a user to manipulate an email address contained in the preview pane or full message window of an email message of an email program as an object, comprising using a computer to perform the following acts:
identifying an entry in the preview pane or full message window of an email message as an email address, said identifying comprising,
finding at least one field in the preview pane or full message window containing an email message header of the email message containing one or more email addresses, and
parsing at least one email address from the at least one field in the preview pane or full message window which contains one or more email addresses;
checking the email address against addresses in one or more contact databases to determine if it is contained in a contact database, wherein a contact database is a set of stored contacts and corresponding addresses, and wherein said checking comprises at least one of,
determining if the address corresponds to a single contact in the contact list,
determining if the address corresponds to a mailing list in the contact list,
determining if the address corresponds to a newsgroup address in the contact list,
determining if the address corresponds to an invalid email address or internet address,
determining if the address corresponds to a valid email address not found to match any addresses in the contact list, and if so,
ascertaining whether the user's computer is in correspondence with one or more servers,
if the user's computer is not in correspondence with said one or more servers,
appending an icon indicating to the user that more information is needed before sending the email message,
flagging the address such that an act of determining if the address corresponds to an address in the contact list of said one or more servers must be performed prior to sending an email message,
prompting the user to establish correspondence with said one or more servers, and
upon establishing correspondence with said one or more servers, determining if the address corresponds to an address in a contact list of at least one server;
marking the email address with an adjacently placed indicator; and
upon selection of the indicator by the user, allowing the user to manipulate the email address as an object.
Doesn't sound terribly innovative to me but can we at least be sure to criticize the right thing?
To get technical about it, using this application would violate the contract consumers agreed to to access the iTunes store and this is enough for Apple to claim they have been "injured in a legal sense". The cute thing would be what they try to claim as damages- they might be able to prevent you from accessing their store with this software but assuming you pay for all the songs you download, they'd be hard pressed to sue you and get any money.
And as to suing Johansen himself, they might try and were he subject to U.S. jurisdiction, he might be screwed but that's not the case and thanks to the DeCSS case, we can be pretty sure he is out of their reach. The worst-case (legally) would be if they could get some kind of injuctive ruling against using/having this program (not easy to do at all) whereby simply having/using/distributing it would make the consumer subject to a fine for violating a court order.
According to a CNET article I read on this, only a linux version will be released (see last paragraph here. They are explicitly NOT releasing a windows version this time, presumably to minimize any antagonization of Apple by limiting it to such a small target audience that doesn't have "sanctioned" options to shop on iTunes.
But it was the USA that helped install Saddam in the first place, and also the rulers in Iran.
Exactly how did the USA help install Saddam? And the rulers in Iran? You do know that the rulers of Iran at the time they were at war with Iraq actually deposed the ruler that the USA supported (but did not actually install. Believe it or not but the USA was not there when Reza Khan helped overthrow the Qajar dynasty).
...one of the main reasons war happens so often is because defense contractors can profit off of it.
Please give even one example of a war happening primarily because of defense contractors being able to profit off of it. I can't think of a single instance myself.
We constantly demonize the actions of nazi soldiers because they were killing innocent people, but how often does the mainstream criticize the US for Hiroshima?
While the actions of Nazis are constantly (and rightly, IMNSHO) demonized, most documentaries and war movies relating to WWII do not treat the average German soldier the same way. For the most part they are given a soldier's respect.
As for Hiroshima, the U.S. hasn't gotten a carte blanche on this one. I've seen plenty of criticism for this one though it seems the mainstream falls on the side of using the A-bomb as being the right one, or at least understandable given the context. I happen to agree with this assesment, if you don't, sorry, but it's not the same thing as not being criticized at all.
My own story of fun and pseudo-danger in Baltimore...
Went into the Ruby Lounge one night while attempting to bar hop... found out we couldn't leave as the police had shut down several blocks of Charles St. following a shooting involving undercover Baltimore PD where several shots went through the front window of The Great American Melting Pot, just a few blocks up Charles. Quite inconvenienced we were. If I remember correctly, it was before midnight when all this went down. Lovely town, Baltimore is:)
I can certainly see the irony of the situation (as bitter as it is, helps to be a cynic).
In the hypothetical you give about China, I would hope the US would respond strongly in defense of Taiwan, despite any economic fallout that may occur. That's one of those situations where I think the principle of the matter carries more weight than any "cost analysis". This is of course assuming that the US would be able to weather such economic fallout and still be able to come out on top. Despite my cynicism, I still have some belief left in the resiliency and strength of America. A sidenote (and please correct me if I'm wrong)- I thought I remembered Congress had passed some law requiring our defense of Taiwan should PRC invade, seperate from any policy of the Executive branch. I really don't know why we have such close ties to a system that is such an anethema to our basic values (well other than it pays (for now) and had strategic value during the cold war). Makes things too messy IMHO.
I'm okay with some government regulation, after all corner cases develop in a true free market that lead to, well, an un-free market (natural monopolies). I just believe that such regulations should be judiciously determined and sparingly used.
I understand your point, but I think the "proper" conclusion depends on what time scale you look at it from. On the shorter side, yes Walmart either directly or indirectly purchases products made cheaper overseas (or even just a different part of the U.S.) and this results in a short-term loss of jobs. However, looking at a larger scale (a historical perspective), I think a strong argument could be made that the poor are better off today then they have been in the past... just look at the percentage of households (even those living below the "poverty line") that own such "luxuries" as a TV, a refrigerator, and (too a lesser degree) a car. In the long run, yes it does make all of us, especially the lower classes, better off. And if you (hypothetical you, not you personally) used to work in a manufacturing job that got outsourced elsewhere, it's YOUR responsibility to develop and train skills that are marketable to employers.
Nobody said life is fair, and there are definitely growing pains associated with this.
(Can you tell I'm a believer in free markets:), at least in the descriptive sense)
Wal-Mart is not a monopoly. Being extremely efficient and taking advantage of economies of scale do not a monopoly make. Even in rural areas they face competition from Target, KMart, and to a lesser extent food stores and home improvement stores (Home Depot, Lowes).
And given the relatively low barrier to entry for retail stores, if Wal-Mart ever tried to inflate their prices on some product thinking they had a monopoly, someone would start up a competing store that sold that product at a lower price.
Don't cry foul that nobody could ever charge as little as Wal-Mart because they buy in such volume- these savings still get converted to a lower price for the end-consumer. They'll still pay a lower price then what a low-volume store would have to charge. And guess who Wal-Mart's #1 customer is? People living paycheck to paycheck, the people who benefit most from having the lowest prices possible.
Now personally, I find Wal-Marts to be on the dirty side, overly crowded, not terribly helpful with customer service and generally distasteful; but of course I still shop there from time to time because they're so damn cheap:)
Interesting fact my Torts professor shared with the class: sales at Walmart peak at the beginning and in the middle of every month as their number one customers are those people living paycheck to paycheck. Walmart's extremely low prices are a boon for this working class and thus quite a good thing for a large part of America (especially rural America).
I caught a glimpse on Black Sky: Winning the X-Prize on Discovery Channel, and when talking about the next step (tier 2, i.e. orbital flight), they showed the plans for the larger White Knight and SpaceShipOne... this one seats 7 instead of three and also had a large (about 1.5-2x the length of SS1) drop-away booster.
Even more interesting, Rutan implied that after accomplishing that, he'd like to spear-head development of the third tier, i.e. extra-orbital to LX points, the moon, wherever. Once you get out of earth orbit, any destination in the solar system is open to you (well, one-way at least).
It was a bit more than a stunt- it was a first step and Rutan himself is planning on taking the next big two (orbital, then extra-orbital).
It's mentioned a bit at the bottom of this article, though I think they botched the meaning of tier 3. If you can, catch a showing of Black Sky: Winning the X-Prize on the Discovery Channel... in a short scene where Rutan is talking about the next steps, he shows the plans for an orbital craft, and it's a scaled up version of While Knight and SpaceShipOne (that sits 7 instead of 3) + a large booster.
Yes, there's quite a way to go until they reach orbital flights, but since that's "where the money is", you can be sure they'll get there sooner rather than later.
I assume by this you're referring to the federal government's "ban" on certain types of research, such as stem cell reasearch... only there is no such ban. You can do all the research with any type of stem cells you want (including those from aborted fetuses) and not break a single law... you just can't do it using money from the federal government.
While whether or not such research should have access to federal funds is debatable (and I'd probably agree that the current regulations are too restrictive), it's a far cry from actually banning such research.
One useful statistic that I've never come across is the relative ammounts of research funding spent in the U.S. by private vs. public/government sources.
True, it is vulnerable to such corruption, though I think it's at least more obvious than all the current loopholes that exist (especially on hte corporate tax side). Still, if that (necessity exception) was the way we decided to go, it would be worth writing those specific exceptions into the constitutional amendment that would establish this federal tax (and do away with the income tax). At least that makes it more difficult to abuse the system. Also, the amendment would have to state that all non-exempt products get taxed at the same rate (no cheating that way either).
Slashdot Mirror
The argument on the other side is what if this software would not be available to the government at all if the source had to become public? If the principle of being open trumps the efficiencies (in most cases) of contracting with private companies to solve specific problems, then that should be required by statute.
Personally, I would be for such statutes where the government prosecutes citizens using the software. Hmm, interesting distinction between government buying OTS closed software and contracting to have software written where the developing company retains exclusive rights to the source. With either OTS or for-contract software where the software is used to convict citizens, I would support a statute requiring the source to be available; for OTS software for other purposes (government offices using Windows w/o getting the source) definitely not (it would be too inefficient to require otherwise); for contracted-for software for other purposes I think the argument is much closer and should be on a case-by-case basis.
After a quick read of UMG RECORDINGS, INC. v. MP3.COM, INC. it seems one of the key issues will be whether Google's infringement is protected under fair use. According to the court in UMG Recordings, four factors are considered:
1. "Pupose and character of the use"
While not on its face commercial (Google is not directly selling copies of the works), it is in furtherance of their commercial interests and presumeably will receive payment for redirecting potential buyers to various retailers. Google could argue that they are providing a public good by providing an index to the public but this seems quite shaky to me; Google could buttress their argument by showing that their indexing adds new "insights and understandings" to the original works.
2. "the nature of the copyrighted work"
I would think, especially for non-fiction books, Google is on stronger ground here since books are more "factual or descriptive" than music.
3. "The amount and substantiality of the portion used..."
Here Google is stuck. They are using the works in their entirety.
4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market"
Google can argue that they are only enhancing the existing market for sale of physical copies of the works and unlike my.mp3.com are not usurping a potential market from the copyright holders (unless there is a market for charging people to be able to search contents of a book). I suppose the copyright holder could argue that they are losing their ability to license their works to a search engine. Actually, I think that's a pretty strong argument.
I'd need to read more cases to see how courts balance these four factors but I believe Authors Guild has the stronger position, as far as fair use goes.
IAALIT (I Am A Lawyer In Training)...
Actually, you have it backwards... consideration is requierd in order to have a legally binding contract; there is no requirement for there to be a written contract (aside from contracts concerning specific topics defined by statute where there is a much greater risk of fraud, such as anything involving real estate or contracts which cannot be performed in one year or less).
Also, while it might seem like this is a contract to no specific person and thus is a pledge, that really isn't a problem- you can make an offer (that when accepted forms a contract) to an unspecified third party. The classic example of this is a posting offering a $10 reward to anyone who finds my lost puppy. If someone finds my puppy and brings him to me, by their performance they have accepted my offer and I am legally bound to pay them the $10 reward.
I haven't read the fine print (yet), but in theory this could easily be a legally binding contract with anyone who uses their patents in creating software that they license under an open source license.
Problem is there is no consideration so the contract is probably not legally binding. Any relief would have to come from an estoppel/reliance argument.
Actually, giving it a little thought, this is a contract with anyone who uses this patent in creating open source software; the consideration is in the software developer restricting (constraining) his/her legal rights by releasing his/her software under an Open Source license.
Ignorant ass... homework: what percentage of the National Guard is currently overseas?
Extra credit: How effective/how useful would the units that are currently deployed be in responding to a national disaster?
To be fair, you are most certainly correct that President Bush is not a Rebuplican in the same mold as one from 10-15 years ago... the largest increase in federal spending under any president is evidence enough of that (yes, the president doesn't set the budget, the house does that, but he does sign off on it and could take a stronger leadership role in providing proposals that reigned in spending).
Amusing that you link "near certainty that he is a member of the Federalist Society" with being a "far right wing judge" as though any member of the Federalist Society is bound to be "right wing", when any member is just as likely to be libertarian. To be honest, I don't know where Roberts falls, but I remain somewhat hopeful that he will end up more like Thomas then Scalia.
:) 99% of all politicians are power hungry, why else would they choose to drag their families into such a dirty business?
By the way, nice hyberbole regarding "this power hungry, out of control, regime,"
Also, as to Roberts keeping his mouth shut, sounds like he learned the Ginsburg lesson quite well. To be honest, it is actually quite proper for a jurist to refuse to answer any question where an answer would require pre-judging issues that might come bfore him or her while on the bench.
Yes, you're right, and in my opinion, putting all those steps together to solve an address validation problem is arguably obvious to "one of ordinary skill in the art". That was my measure of "innovative".
Doesn't sound terribly innovative to me but can we at least be sure to criticize the right thing?
So soon? I'd give them at least until DNF.
To get technical about it, using this application would violate the contract consumers agreed to to access the iTunes store and this is enough for Apple to claim they have been "injured in a legal sense". The cute thing would be what they try to claim as damages- they might be able to prevent you from accessing their store with this software but assuming you pay for all the songs you download, they'd be hard pressed to sue you and get any money.
And as to suing Johansen himself, they might try and were he subject to U.S. jurisdiction, he might be screwed but that's not the case and thanks to the DeCSS case, we can be pretty sure he is out of their reach. The worst-case (legally) would be if they could get some kind of injuctive ruling against using/having this program (not easy to do at all) whereby simply having/using/distributing it would make the consumer subject to a fine for violating a court order.
According to a CNET article I read on this, only a linux version will be released (see last paragraph here. They are explicitly NOT releasing a windows version this time, presumably to minimize any antagonization of Apple by limiting it to such a small target audience that doesn't have "sanctioned" options to shop on iTunes.
Exactly how did the USA help install Saddam? And the rulers in Iran? You do know that the rulers of Iran at the time they were at war with Iraq actually deposed the ruler that the USA supported (but did not actually install. Believe it or not but the USA was not there when Reza Khan helped overthrow the Qajar dynasty).
As for Hiroshima, the U.S. hasn't gotten a carte blanche on this one. I've seen plenty of criticism for this one though it seems the mainstream falls on the side of using the A-bomb as being the right one, or at least understandable given the context. I happen to agree with this assesment, if you don't, sorry, but it's not the same thing as not being criticized at all.
No, hypocrisy would be if Bush said these leaders were supporting him (without identifying which leaders they are), and then got praised for it.
My own story of fun and pseudo-danger in Baltimore...
:)
Went into the Ruby Lounge one night while attempting to bar hop... found out we couldn't leave as the police had shut down several blocks of Charles St. following a shooting involving undercover Baltimore PD where several shots went through the front window of The Great American Melting Pot, just a few blocks up Charles. Quite inconvenienced we were. If I remember correctly, it was before midnight when all this went down. Lovely town, Baltimore is
I can certainly see the irony of the situation (as bitter as it is, helps to be a cynic).
In the hypothetical you give about China, I would hope the US would respond strongly in defense of Taiwan, despite any economic fallout that may occur. That's one of those situations where I think the principle of the matter carries more weight than any "cost analysis". This is of course assuming that the US would be able to weather such economic fallout and still be able to come out on top. Despite my cynicism, I still have some belief left in the resiliency and strength of America. A sidenote (and please correct me if I'm wrong)- I thought I remembered Congress had passed some law requiring our defense of Taiwan should PRC invade, seperate from any policy of the Executive branch. I really don't know why we have such close ties to a system that is such an anethema to our basic values (well other than it pays (for now) and had strategic value during the cold war). Makes things too messy IMHO.
I'm okay with some government regulation, after all corner cases develop in a true free market that lead to, well, an un-free market (natural monopolies). I just believe that such regulations should be judiciously determined and sparingly used.
I understand your point, but I think the "proper" conclusion depends on what time scale you look at it from. On the shorter side, yes Walmart either directly or indirectly purchases products made cheaper overseas (or even just a different part of the U.S.) and this results in a short-term loss of jobs. However, looking at a larger scale (a historical perspective), I think a strong argument could be made that the poor are better off today then they have been in the past... just look at the percentage of households (even those living below the "poverty line") that own such "luxuries" as a TV, a refrigerator, and (too a lesser degree) a car. In the long run, yes it does make all of us, especially the lower classes, better off. And if you (hypothetical you, not you personally) used to work in a manufacturing job that got outsourced elsewhere, it's YOUR responsibility to develop and train skills that are marketable to employers.
:), at least in the descriptive sense)
Nobody said life is fair, and there are definitely growing pains associated with this.
(Can you tell I'm a believer in free markets
Wal-Mart is not a monopoly. Being extremely efficient and taking advantage of economies of scale do not a monopoly make. Even in rural areas they face competition from Target, KMart, and to a lesser extent food stores and home improvement stores (Home Depot, Lowes).
:)
And given the relatively low barrier to entry for retail stores, if Wal-Mart ever tried to inflate their prices on some product thinking they had a monopoly, someone would start up a competing store that sold that product at a lower price.
Don't cry foul that nobody could ever charge as little as Wal-Mart because they buy in such volume- these savings still get converted to a lower price for the end-consumer. They'll still pay a lower price then what a low-volume store would have to charge. And guess who Wal-Mart's #1 customer is? People living paycheck to paycheck, the people who benefit most from having the lowest prices possible.
Now personally, I find Wal-Marts to be on the dirty side, overly crowded, not terribly helpful with customer service and generally distasteful; but of course I still shop there from time to time because they're so damn cheap
Interesting fact my Torts professor shared with the class: sales at Walmart peak at the beginning and in the middle of every month as their number one customers are those people living paycheck to paycheck. Walmart's extremely low prices are a boon for this working class and thus quite a good thing for a large part of America (especially rural America).
I caught a glimpse on Black Sky: Winning the X-Prize on Discovery Channel, and when talking about the next step (tier 2, i.e. orbital flight), they showed the plans for the larger White Knight and SpaceShipOne... this one seats 7 instead of three and also had a large (about 1.5-2x the length of SS1) drop-away booster.
Even more interesting, Rutan implied that after accomplishing that, he'd like to spear-head development of the third tier, i.e. extra-orbital to LX points, the moon, wherever. Once you get out of earth orbit, any destination in the solar system is open to you (well, one-way at least).
It was a bit more than a stunt- it was a first step and Rutan himself is planning on taking the next big two (orbital, then extra-orbital).
It's mentioned a bit at the bottom of this article,
though I think they botched the meaning of tier 3. If you can, catch a showing of Black Sky: Winning the X-Prize on the Discovery Channel... in a short scene where Rutan is talking about the next steps, he shows the plans for an orbital craft, and it's a scaled up version of While Knight and SpaceShipOne (that sits 7 instead of 3) + a large booster.
Yes, there's quite a way to go until they reach orbital flights, but since that's "where the money is", you can be sure they'll get there sooner rather than later.
I assume by this you're referring to the federal government's "ban" on certain types of research, such as stem cell reasearch... only there is no such ban. You can do all the research with any type of stem cells you want (including those from aborted fetuses) and not break a single law... you just can't do it using money from the federal government.
While whether or not such research should have access to federal funds is debatable (and I'd probably agree that the current regulations are too restrictive), it's a far cry from actually banning such research.
One useful statistic that I've never come across is the relative ammounts of research funding spent in the U.S. by private vs. public/government sources.
True, it is vulnerable to such corruption, though I think it's at least more obvious than all the current loopholes that exist (especially on hte corporate tax side). Still, if that (necessity exception) was the way we decided to go, it would be worth writing those specific exceptions into the constitutional amendment that would establish this federal tax (and do away with the income tax). At least that makes it more difficult to abuse the system. Also, the amendment would have to state that all non-exempt products get taxed at the same rate (no cheating that way either).