Some of the problems with software patents could be solved with an idea from trademarks. Require that patents be defended or else they're lost. This wouldn't affect companies that legitimately do research, develop patents, and license the patents. One criticism would be that this favors big companies who have the ability to defend their patents at the expense of individuals and small businesses who don't have those resources. I don't think the criticism is valid because the playing field is already tilted very much in favor of big corporations and because law firms would market to inventors to help defend their patents in exchange for a share of the royalties. A legitimate patent is valuable enough that an inventor won't have a hard time finding legal representation to help defend it. This would squash the tactics of patent trolls and reduce the patent wars between big companies like Apple vs. Samsumg.
I disagree. Investigative reporting is good, but it can be sensationalized and it's really done for profit. In many cases, investigative reports don't release the documents and interviews that form the basis of the stories. There isn't a lot of transparency, and reports don't actually want the transparency. See this article complaining that once an FOIA request is made for a document, the documents are made freely available to anyone, which would be damaging to investigative reporters. In short, they want access to the documents requested under the FOIA but don't want others to have access because it would cut into their profits from reporting. Although Wikileaks can't be fully trusted because they are (necessarily) selective about what they release, it's not biased out of desire for profit and it's transparent enough in that you see the original documents.
This became a big deal at Mizzou, where protests, a hunger strike, and the football team going on strike resulted in the chancellor and university president both being ousted. Now there were some legitimately offensive things that took place on campus like someone smearing a poop swastika on a wall. While such an incident should be handled by the university police, it doesn't seem like the chancellor and president need to get involved. Another issue was someone yelling a racial slur at the student body president off of campus. It seems like it's totally outside the jurisdiction of the university, yet it was another factor cited for the protests. The failure of the university to address the riots in Ferguson also was given as a reason. Sure, there are reasons to be offended by the actual incidents, but the protests because the administration didn't act quickly enough when really it probably wasn't their responsibility to get involved at all is totally absurd. My understanding is that one of the demands was for all students to have mandatory sensitivity training. In other words, you're presumed to be an insensitive bigot without actually doing anything bigoted at all. I'm ashamed of my alma mater and what's going on in there in the name of being politically correct. Are we so quick to be offended that we'll demand punishment from people who had nothing to do with the offenses at all?
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the problems with software patents could be solved with an idea from trademarks. Require that patents be defended or else they're lost. This wouldn't affect companies that legitimately do research, develop patents, and license the patents. One criticism would be that this favors big companies who have the ability to defend their patents at the expense of individuals and small businesses who don't have those resources. I don't think the criticism is valid because the playing field is already tilted very much in favor of big corporations and because law firms would market to inventors to help defend their patents in exchange for a share of the royalties. A legitimate patent is valuable enough that an inventor won't have a hard time finding legal representation to help defend it. This would squash the tactics of patent trolls and reduce the patent wars between big companies like Apple vs. Samsumg.
I disagree. Investigative reporting is good, but it can be sensationalized and it's really done for profit. In many cases, investigative reports don't release the documents and interviews that form the basis of the stories. There isn't a lot of transparency, and reports don't actually want the transparency. See this article complaining that once an FOIA request is made for a document, the documents are made freely available to anyone, which would be damaging to investigative reporters. In short, they want access to the documents requested under the FOIA but don't want others to have access because it would cut into their profits from reporting. Although Wikileaks can't be fully trusted because they are (necessarily) selective about what they release, it's not biased out of desire for profit and it's transparent enough in that you see the original documents.
This became a big deal at Mizzou, where protests, a hunger strike, and the football team going on strike resulted in the chancellor and university president both being ousted. Now there were some legitimately offensive things that took place on campus like someone smearing a poop swastika on a wall. While such an incident should be handled by the university police, it doesn't seem like the chancellor and president need to get involved. Another issue was someone yelling a racial slur at the student body president off of campus. It seems like it's totally outside the jurisdiction of the university, yet it was another factor cited for the protests. The failure of the university to address the riots in Ferguson also was given as a reason. Sure, there are reasons to be offended by the actual incidents, but the protests because the administration didn't act quickly enough when really it probably wasn't their responsibility to get involved at all is totally absurd. My understanding is that one of the demands was for all students to have mandatory sensitivity training. In other words, you're presumed to be an insensitive bigot without actually doing anything bigoted at all. I'm ashamed of my alma mater and what's going on in there in the name of being politically correct. Are we so quick to be offended that we'll demand punishment from people who had nothing to do with the offenses at all?