That said, any government security certification is a Good Thing in the commercial marketplace
Three questions. (1) Why should I be penalized, through taxes and regulation, because you don't want to take responsibility for your own choices? (2) Why should the rest of the market be penalized, through taxes and regulation, because you don't want to take responsibility for your own choices? (3) Where is your proof that this government solution is better than the market solution?
You are the one proposing that coercion (government) is the solution to insecure software products. Have you considered that coercion may be the problem?
I think you missed the point. In a free market, where every interaction is based on voluntary association, every individual is 100% responsible for their own actions. If individuals cannot put their own responsibilities on anyone but themselves, they will not endorse an employer who treats them badly. Think about it. Would you endorse another individual who treats you badly? Of course not. So why do people continue to endorse employers who treat them badly? The problem is that government has created a situation where employers are not individuals like you or me, but representatives of government. Hence, employees have come to ignore the importantce personal responsibility. They expect everything to be done for them. They expect to be presented with the right choices, instead of doing the work required to make the right choices themselves. Are you one of these people?
It's about personal responsibility and personal liberty. I hope you can realize that the two concepts are one and the same.
I worked my ass off for 2 different companies,
saved them 10's of thousands of dollars,
and got shafted by both of them for the effort.
And whose fault is that? Unless you were forced into employment, you are 100% responsible for your choice of employer. I don't blame you for expecting other people (especially government) to solve your personal problems. In today's society, kids are taught to run to government to solve virtually any "problem" from day one. Government takes your money from you by force, and then they use it to shape your thoughts, opinions, and values.
Don't fool yourself. Don't eat the propaganda. You are a unique, thinking individual, and thus you are quite capable of making your own decisions -- and taking full responsibility when you make a bad decision (which you have, judging by your dissatisfaction with your former employer). You need to view this as an opportunity to learn, and an opportunity to rid yourself of the false belief that other people should be responsible for your choices.
A free market does not guarantee that every business is "ideal" or treats their employees well. It doesn't have to, and it doesn't need to. A free market guarantees that every business has equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome which government attempts to bring about) to compete in the market, precisely because there is no coercion. Hence, the free market guarantees that only the smartest businesses will survive.
Remember that voluntary association is the key to free market economics. In a socity based on voluntary association, individuals would be 100% responsible for their choices of employment. Free competition would ensure that only the smartest businesses survive. Why would employees willingly endorse a business that treats them any less than they want to be treated? In a free market society, this would not happen, because employees would not be able to ignore the need to make good choices.
Again, the free market system does not guarantee that "bad" employers do not exist. It only guarantees competition, and employees are a fundamental part of what makes competition work. Government's only role in the free market system would be to protect the individual from the initiation of force. If an employer breaks the employment contract, or otherwise initiates force or fraud against the employee, the employee will either take legal action or simply "vote" for another employer.
Now, I'm not about to read that entire book so if you could briefly summarize what happened I would appreciate it.
Companies don't care about you! You're just a resource to be exploited
Wrong. You are a resource offering your service in exchange for compensation. Employment is a form of trade. By engaging a work contract, you are engaging in trade. It is up to you to determine whether or not your trade is worthwhile. If you don't have enough information to do that, it is up to you to seek employment elsewhere. If you don't have the ability to determine if your trade is worthwhile, then you shouldn't have engaged work contract in the first place. Why exactly should I be punished (via taxes) because you can't make a good decision?
Smart employers will always care about you, because they care about their investment. To propose that employers don't care about you is to propose that they don't care about their business, which is illogical.
In a free market, incidentally, employers who don't care about their employees would quickly disappear. Logically, employees will reward the employers who care and punish the ones who don't, through the process of market competition. But we don't operate in a free market. Government is very deeply entangled in the economic system.
Government exists to regulate business, because there are people out there that will do anything in the name of business.
And who will regulate the business called government? Again, government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals -- each and every one driven by self-interest. How exactly is it that private enterprise needs regulation but government does not? They are both organizations of business driven by profit. Don't be fooled into thinking that government represents "the people" or "society". It is logically impossible.
You are in much greater danger from the local mill owner's ambitions than you are from your neighbor or the government.
Are you kidding? I am more in danger of a private organization that does business through voluntary association (whose customers choose to do business by their own will) than I am in danger of a government which does business through force (whose customers are forced to do business)? Are you actually trying to assert that voluntary association (free will) is more dangerous than coercion (force)?
Where government fails is where it attempts to do things beyond its central purpose of limiting individual's power.
Again, are you kidding? The central purpose of government is to limit the individual's power? You are dead wrong, my friend. The purpose of government is to secure the individual's rights, not to limit them. The purpose of government is to protect us from coercion, not to initiate coercion.
I don't know if you're kidding or not, but don't fall into the trap (like so many slashdotters) of believing that private business holds the power to harm the individual, government or not. The only possible way that a private business can initiate force "legally" is through government. Otherwise they have comitted a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. Without the aid of government, even the largest corporations are equal in power to you and me.
Think about it. Free trade is based on voluntary association, which is defined by the lack of force. Free trade is the natural state of human society. The only possible way that an "accepted" ("legal") force can be introduced into a free market is through government.
I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell we are going to eliminate the negative effects of patent law by embracing patent law. If you really believe that patent law is absolute -- that if "everything" was patented, eventually "everyting" would be released -- then you should review some history. Here in the US, the income tax was supposed to be temporary. Originally the rate was very low -- low enough that people would hardly notice. Now we're paying out the ass to support countless "pork" programs. Coincidence? How about the troops we have "stationed" (occupying) in hundreds of countries around the world? Exactly how long does it take to achieve peace? The "war on drugs" has been dragging on for the better part of a century. All we have to show for it is violent crime (from the resulting black market), corruption in government, the highest ratio of inmates per poplulation in the world, and -- surprise -- more drug addicts! Coincidence?
Let's think about this. Why haven't these expansions of government (power grabs) been rolled back? It's very simple. Government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals driven by self-interest, just like any human being. Thus government is a business by definition; it exists to profit. (The only way to prove that it doesn't is to prove that individuals in government are not driven by self-interest, which contradicts the whole of psychological theory.) The sole difference between government and the market is that government does business through force.
An expansion of government represents profit, just as an expansion of private business does. But since government operates on the principle of coercion, it doesn't matter when government programs fail. More often than not, failed government programs are rewarded with more funding. Look at Amtrak or the post office for a blatant example.
What does this all boil down to? You can't go out of business when your business model is based on coercion!
The top selling argument for Open Source, for Linux and for all the rest of it, is, and will remain, an argument of freedom.
I must take issue with RMS and others' use of the term "freedom" to define a contractual agreement. Of course a contract represents freedom -- the basis of contract is voluntary association. Open source and proprietary contracts are both examples of freedom. It does not matter what the terms of contract are; if the contract is engaged through voluntary association, then it represents freedom.
Freedom is defined by the lack of force, and nothing else. Freedom does not know the difference between open source and closed source. Freedom does not know what software is. Freedom knows only two states: coercion (force) and voluntary association. If an individual engages in an interaction with another individual or group, and the interaction is voluntary, then the interaction represents freedom. If the interaction is non-voluntary, i.e. an initiation of force, then the interaction does not represent freedom.
Therefore it is meaningless to define your terms of contract as "freedom". Microsoft's shared source contract is no more or less "free" than an open source contract, because you are equally "free" to engage both. What you really mean to say is that one vendor's terms of contract are more restrictive than another vendor. Freedom has nothing to do with it.
A zillion other people/companies came up with the infringing stuff on their own, without even being aware of Acacia's existence, so why the fuck should they have to pay a company that didn't do a damn thing to help them?
The root of the problem is government, not the private organizations who attempt to use the powers of government to their advantage. Really, what else would you expect? In a market where a legalized initiation of force exists (a "non-free" market), the winning business will always be the one that acquires that force. Remove the force from the market, and the problem is solved.
You missed the boat. Lawyers only accept a case when they know the odds are in their favor. Who puts the odds in their favor? Government. Not law firms, not mega-corporations, not you or me, but government and government only.
The root of the problem is government. Eliminate the powers of government which make these ridiculous lawsuits profitable, and we eliminate the ridiculous lawsuits.
If you're going to get mad, get mad at the USTPO for granting such broad stretching patents in the first place.
Exactly. Finally somebody who understands. Private corporations (and individuals) are only playing the game which is designed, implemented, and enforced by government. Eliminate the powers of government which make it happen, and the problem is solved.
On a related note, I often see people complaining about lobbyists and (in general) those who intend to use the force of government to their personal advantage. Again, the root of the problem here is government, not the private sector. Eliminate the powers of government that can be taken advantage of, and we eliminate the incentive for bribery.
That's what the lawmakers would have you believe. And from their perspective, that would be correct. But as private citizens, we need to look deeper. Realize that government does not (cannot) represent you, your neighbor, or "society", any more than a private corporation does. Government represents those individuals in power, because in reality, government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals -- just like any private organization. Logically, the only possible way that government could represent YOU would be if those individuals in power were exact copies of you, with exact opinions, experiences, and values.
Let's look at the business model which defines government: (1) Take money out of private hands (2) distribute some of it to "public" (government) services, and (3) keep a healthy profit for themselves. This is the way it's been since the beginning of time, and this is the way it will always be as long as there is government. (Democracy does not change a thing, incidentally.)
Now, let's not forget that lawmakers are human beings driven by self-interest, just like the rest of us. The key difference is that lawmakers hold the unique ability to initiate force.
In a nutshell, what they're really doing with this new tax is -- quite simply -- expanding the powers of government. Any new tax or tax increase is guaranteed to do exactly two things: (1) decrease your freedom (in this case spending ability), and (2) expand the powers of government. The tax may be viewed by the majority as "beneficial", or it may be viewed by the majority as "detrimental", but the tax is still guaranteed to do exactly those two things.
That's not quite what I would call "closing a loophole", which does not imply profit in itself. Government will profit from this, by definition.
It's hardly surprising, when you observe that government is nothing but a collection of individuals driven by self-interest, just as any individual is driven by self-interest. This, of course, is the fundamental flaw in the concept of government -- "government by the people, for the people" is logically impossible.
It all comes down to funding, which comes from the government.
Correction: Funding comes from the taxpayers' wallets. By definition, government does not generate its own revenue. Government obtains revenue only by taking it from those who do generate their own revenue, i.e. the private sector.
It's something you disagree with, therefore it's a troll.
Nope. It's a ridiculous generalization, and therefore it's a troll. BTW I did not attempt to correct your spelling. Sorry if it came out looking that way. But thanks for the lengthy evaluation.
EXACTLY. I am simply amazed at the number of people who blame private industry for laws that can only be implemented and enforced by government. Government is the root of all censorship, because only government has the power to initiate force. If there is no initiation of force, there is no censorship.
The next time we see a corporation taking advantage of the force of government, let's try to focus on the actual root of the problem: government. The sole reason corporations are able to take advantage of government is because government makes it happen. There is no "general problem" with private industry -- they are only playing the game which was designed and implemented by government. Eliminate the powers of government which make it happen, and we eliminate the incentive (or need) for corporations to use governement as a business model in the first place.
I define "power" as the ability to initiate force. Individual citizens (or groups of individual citizens, such as the corporation) are only as powerful as government makes them, because government is the only organization that can legally initiate force or grant the initiation of force to a third party.
When a non-government entity initiates force, it must be classified in one of two ways: "legitimate" or "illegitimate". In the case of "illegitimate" force, the non-government entity commits a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. In the case of "legitimate" force, the non-government party effectively becomes an arm of government. Without the aid of government, the non-government entity would be no more powerful than any individual citizen.
To reiterate, power (defined as the ability to initiate force) is absolutely rooted in government. Wealth does NOT create power, because wealth is not defined by the initiation of force.
I think USPTO should admit their mistake and invalidate them too.
Admit their mistake? That's it? What about firing those who were responsible? How about suing them for manipulating the competitive nature of the market? How about abolishing the program compeltely?
None of this will happen, of course. When government fails, it rewards itself with more revenue. I will guarantee that if government determines that the USPTO is failing, it will throw even more money at it -- effectively rewarding those who failed in the first place.
In today's society, you would be correct. Corporations represent more than just the sum of the individuals who control them, precisely because government makes them different than individuals. And this is government's fault, mind you -- not the corporation who (for example) accepts a few million in corporate welfare, or the corporation who (for example) sues another corporation over intellectual property.
In a society based on free market economics, however, you would be dead wrong. In this model, where corporations would have to do business by the rules of voluntary association (or die), corporations actually would represent the individuals who control them, because those individuals would be no more powerful than any other individual citizen.
To summarize, government is the root of your problems -- not private corporations. Corruption in the private sector is directly proportional to the size of government.
It does work, and I'll tell you exactly why. Because government makes it work. The dispicable concept of "lawsuit as business model" would not (and could not) be possible without government.
Government is the root of the problem, not Rambus or any other private business. Eliminate the powers of government which make it possible to profit through coercion, and private business will have to abandon the practice. Increase the powers of government which make it possible, and the lawsuits/corruption will increase proportional to the expansion of government. Guaranteed.
wouldn't eliminating "very expensive agencies", and vastly reducing the police force, and prison infrastructure, SAVE money?
For the taxpayers, sure. For government, it would represent a major downsizing and loss of market share (i.e. power). You have to view government as the business it really is, driven by profit and market share like any private business -- and realize that the government and the people are NOT the same groups of individuals.
Government works by taking resources from society by force, distributing some of those resources back to society, and keeping a healthy profit for themselves. This may not take the form of direct salary; lawmakers can profit off the people in many other ways, for example by screwing the people with the DMCA in return for "campaign contributions". It has worked this way since the beginning, and it will work this way as long as governments exist. (Democracy doesn't change a thing, incidentally.)
The War on Drugs costs 40 billion dollars [uua.org] a year.
Yes, and this represents a major profit for government (measured not just in revenue but power). Take this revenue away, and government will be exactly 40 billion dollars less powerful and a great deal less profitable than it was before. All this boils down to one simple rule: Power is directly proportional to the cost of government.
Slashdot Mirror
Three questions. (1) Why should I be penalized, through taxes and regulation, because you don't want to take responsibility for your own choices? (2) Why should the rest of the market be penalized, through taxes and regulation, because you don't want to take responsibility for your own choices? (3) Where is your proof that this government solution is better than the market solution?
You are the one proposing that coercion (government) is the solution to insecure software products. Have you considered that coercion may be the problem?
I think you missed the point. In a free market, where every interaction is based on voluntary association, every individual is 100% responsible for their own actions. If individuals cannot put their own responsibilities on anyone but themselves, they will not endorse an employer who treats them badly. Think about it. Would you endorse another individual who treats you badly? Of course not. So why do people continue to endorse employers who treat them badly? The problem is that government has created a situation where employers are not individuals like you or me, but representatives of government. Hence, employees have come to ignore the importantce personal responsibility. They expect everything to be done for them. They expect to be presented with the right choices, instead of doing the work required to make the right choices themselves. Are you one of these people? It's about personal responsibility and personal liberty. I hope you can realize that the two concepts are one and the same.
And whose fault is that? Unless you were forced into employment, you are 100% responsible for your choice of employer. I don't blame you for expecting other people (especially government) to solve your personal problems. In today's society, kids are taught to run to government to solve virtually any "problem" from day one. Government takes your money from you by force, and then they use it to shape your thoughts, opinions, and values.
Don't fool yourself. Don't eat the propaganda. You are a unique, thinking individual, and thus you are quite capable of making your own decisions -- and taking full responsibility when you make a bad decision (which you have, judging by your dissatisfaction with your former employer). You need to view this as an opportunity to learn, and an opportunity to rid yourself of the false belief that other people should be responsible for your choices.
A free market does not guarantee that every business is "ideal" or treats their employees well. It doesn't have to, and it doesn't need to. A free market guarantees that every business has equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome which government attempts to bring about) to compete in the market, precisely because there is no coercion. Hence, the free market guarantees that only the smartest businesses will survive.
Remember that voluntary association is the key to free market economics. In a socity based on voluntary association, individuals would be 100% responsible for their choices of employment. Free competition would ensure that only the smartest businesses survive. Why would employees willingly endorse a business that treats them any less than they want to be treated? In a free market society, this would not happen, because employees would not be able to ignore the need to make good choices.
Again, the free market system does not guarantee that "bad" employers do not exist. It only guarantees competition, and employees are a fundamental part of what makes competition work. Government's only role in the free market system would be to protect the individual from the initiation of force. If an employer breaks the employment contract, or otherwise initiates force or fraud against the employee, the employee will either take legal action or simply "vote" for another employer.
Now, I'm not about to read that entire book so if you could briefly summarize what happened I would appreciate it.
Wrong. You are a resource offering your service in exchange for compensation. Employment is a form of trade. By engaging a work contract, you are engaging in trade. It is up to you to determine whether or not your trade is worthwhile. If you don't have enough information to do that, it is up to you to seek employment elsewhere. If you don't have the ability to determine if your trade is worthwhile, then you shouldn't have engaged work contract in the first place. Why exactly should I be punished (via taxes) because you can't make a good decision?
Smart employers will always care about you, because they care about their investment. To propose that employers don't care about you is to propose that they don't care about their business, which is illogical.
In a free market, incidentally, employers who don't care about their employees would quickly disappear. Logically, employees will reward the employers who care and punish the ones who don't, through the process of market competition. But we don't operate in a free market. Government is very deeply entangled in the economic system.
And who will regulate the business called government? Again, government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals -- each and every one driven by self-interest. How exactly is it that private enterprise needs regulation but government does not? They are both organizations of business driven by profit. Don't be fooled into thinking that government represents "the people" or "society". It is logically impossible.
You are in much greater danger from the local mill owner's ambitions than you are from your neighbor or the government.
Are you kidding? I am more in danger of a private organization that does business through voluntary association (whose customers choose to do business by their own will) than I am in danger of a government which does business through force (whose customers are forced to do business)? Are you actually trying to assert that voluntary association (free will) is more dangerous than coercion (force)?
Where government fails is where it attempts to do things beyond its central purpose of limiting individual's power.
Again, are you kidding? The central purpose of government is to limit the individual's power? You are dead wrong, my friend. The purpose of government is to secure the individual's rights, not to limit them. The purpose of government is to protect us from coercion, not to initiate coercion.
I don't know if you're kidding or not, but don't fall into the trap (like so many slashdotters) of believing that private business holds the power to harm the individual, government or not. The only possible way that a private business can initiate force "legally" is through government. Otherwise they have comitted a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. Without the aid of government, even the largest corporations are equal in power to you and me.
Think about it. Free trade is based on voluntary association, which is defined by the lack of force. Free trade is the natural state of human society. The only possible way that an "accepted" ("legal") force can be introduced into a free market is through government.
I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell we are going to eliminate the negative effects of patent law by embracing patent law. If you really believe that patent law is absolute -- that if "everything" was patented, eventually "everyting" would be released -- then you should review some history. Here in the US, the income tax was supposed to be temporary. Originally the rate was very low -- low enough that people would hardly notice. Now we're paying out the ass to support countless "pork" programs. Coincidence? How about the troops we have "stationed" (occupying) in hundreds of countries around the world? Exactly how long does it take to achieve peace? The "war on drugs" has been dragging on for the better part of a century. All we have to show for it is violent crime (from the resulting black market), corruption in government, the highest ratio of inmates per poplulation in the world, and -- surprise -- more drug addicts! Coincidence?
Let's think about this. Why haven't these expansions of government (power grabs) been rolled back? It's very simple. Government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals driven by self-interest, just like any human being. Thus government is a business by definition; it exists to profit. (The only way to prove that it doesn't is to prove that individuals in government are not driven by self-interest, which contradicts the whole of psychological theory.) The sole difference between government and the market is that government does business through force.
An expansion of government represents profit, just as an expansion of private business does. But since government operates on the principle of coercion, it doesn't matter when government programs fail. More often than not, failed government programs are rewarded with more funding. Look at Amtrak or the post office for a blatant example.
What does this all boil down to? You can't go out of business when your business model is based on coercion!
I must take issue with RMS and others' use of the term "freedom" to define a contractual agreement. Of course a contract represents freedom -- the basis of contract is voluntary association. Open source and proprietary contracts are both examples of freedom. It does not matter what the terms of contract are; if the contract is engaged through voluntary association, then it represents freedom.
Freedom is defined by the lack of force, and nothing else. Freedom does not know the difference between open source and closed source. Freedom does not know what software is. Freedom knows only two states: coercion (force) and voluntary association. If an individual engages in an interaction with another individual or group, and the interaction is voluntary, then the interaction represents freedom. If the interaction is non-voluntary, i.e. an initiation of force, then the interaction does not represent freedom.
Therefore it is meaningless to define your terms of contract as "freedom". Microsoft's shared source contract is no more or less "free" than an open source contract, because you are equally "free" to engage both. What you really mean to say is that one vendor's terms of contract are more restrictive than another vendor. Freedom has nothing to do with it.
For christ's sake, mod it back down. I didn't even get FP.
The root of the problem is government, not the private organizations who attempt to use the powers of government to their advantage. Really, what else would you expect? In a market where a legalized initiation of force exists (a "non-free" market), the winning business will always be the one that acquires that force. Remove the force from the market, and the problem is solved.
The root of the problem is government. Eliminate the powers of government which make these ridiculous lawsuits profitable, and we eliminate the ridiculous lawsuits.
When exactly was your last first post?
Maybe they don't want to. But Internet Explorer certainly does.
Exactly. Finally somebody who understands. Private corporations (and individuals) are only playing the game which is designed, implemented, and enforced by government. Eliminate the powers of government which make it happen, and the problem is solved.
On a related note, I often see people complaining about lobbyists and (in general) those who intend to use the force of government to their personal advantage. Again, the root of the problem here is government, not the private sector. Eliminate the powers of government that can be taken advantage of, and we eliminate the incentive for bribery.
That's what the lawmakers would have you believe. And from their perspective, that would be correct. But as private citizens, we need to look deeper. Realize that government does not (cannot) represent you, your neighbor, or "society", any more than a private corporation does. Government represents those individuals in power, because in reality, government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals -- just like any private organization. Logically, the only possible way that government could represent YOU would be if those individuals in power were exact copies of you, with exact opinions, experiences, and values.
Let's look at the business model which defines government: (1) Take money out of private hands (2) distribute some of it to "public" (government) services, and (3) keep a healthy profit for themselves. This is the way it's been since the beginning of time, and this is the way it will always be as long as there is government. (Democracy does not change a thing, incidentally.)
Now, let's not forget that lawmakers are human beings driven by self-interest, just like the rest of us. The key difference is that lawmakers hold the unique ability to initiate force.
In a nutshell, what they're really doing with this new tax is -- quite simply -- expanding the powers of government. Any new tax or tax increase is guaranteed to do exactly two things: (1) decrease your freedom (in this case spending ability), and (2) expand the powers of government. The tax may be viewed by the majority as "beneficial", or it may be viewed by the majority as "detrimental", but the tax is still guaranteed to do exactly those two things.
That's not quite what I would call "closing a loophole", which does not imply profit in itself. Government will profit from this, by definition.
It's hardly surprising, when you observe that government is nothing but a collection of individuals driven by self-interest, just as any individual is driven by self-interest. This, of course, is the fundamental flaw in the concept of government -- "government by the people, for the people" is logically impossible.
Correction: Funding comes from the taxpayers' wallets. By definition, government does not generate its own revenue. Government obtains revenue only by taking it from those who do generate their own revenue, i.e. the private sector.
Nope. It's a ridiculous generalization, and therefore it's a troll. BTW I did not attempt to correct your spelling. Sorry if it came out looking that way. But thanks for the lengthy evaluation.
Amusing troll. Now let's see you prove it. Prove that your parent poster speaks for anyone but himself, let alone "most open sourcers".
If you ask me, the essence of "naivity" is generalization.
The next time we see a corporation taking advantage of the force of government, let's try to focus on the actual root of the problem: government. The sole reason corporations are able to take advantage of government is because government makes it happen. There is no "general problem" with private industry -- they are only playing the game which was designed and implemented by government. Eliminate the powers of government which make it happen, and we eliminate the incentive (or need) for corporations to use governement as a business model in the first place.
I define "power" as the ability to initiate force. Individual citizens (or groups of individual citizens, such as the corporation) are only as powerful as government makes them, because government is the only organization that can legally initiate force or grant the initiation of force to a third party.
When a non-government entity initiates force, it must be classified in one of two ways: "legitimate" or "illegitimate". In the case of "illegitimate" force, the non-government entity commits a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. In the case of "legitimate" force, the non-government party effectively becomes an arm of government. Without the aid of government, the non-government entity would be no more powerful than any individual citizen.
To reiterate, power (defined as the ability to initiate force) is absolutely rooted in government. Wealth does NOT create power, because wealth is not defined by the initiation of force.
Admit their mistake? That's it? What about firing those who were responsible? How about suing them for manipulating the competitive nature of the market? How about abolishing the program compeltely?
None of this will happen, of course. When government fails, it rewards itself with more revenue. I will guarantee that if government determines that the USPTO is failing, it will throw even more money at it -- effectively rewarding those who failed in the first place.
Ah, the benefits of power...
In today's society, you would be correct. Corporations represent more than just the sum of the individuals who control them, precisely because government makes them different than individuals. And this is government's fault, mind you -- not the corporation who (for example) accepts a few million in corporate welfare, or the corporation who (for example) sues another corporation over intellectual property.
In a society based on free market economics, however, you would be dead wrong. In this model, where corporations would have to do business by the rules of voluntary association (or die), corporations actually would represent the individuals who control them, because those individuals would be no more powerful than any other individual citizen.
To summarize, government is the root of your problems -- not private corporations. Corruption in the private sector is directly proportional to the size of government.
Government is the root of the problem, not Rambus or any other private business. Eliminate the powers of government which make it possible to profit through coercion, and private business will have to abandon the practice. Increase the powers of government which make it possible, and the lawsuits/corruption will increase proportional to the expansion of government. Guaranteed.
For the taxpayers, sure. For government, it would represent a major downsizing and loss of market share (i.e. power). You have to view government as the business it really is, driven by profit and market share like any private business -- and realize that the government and the people are NOT the same groups of individuals.
Government works by taking resources from society by force, distributing some of those resources back to society, and keeping a healthy profit for themselves. This may not take the form of direct salary; lawmakers can profit off the people in many other ways, for example by screwing the people with the DMCA in return for "campaign contributions". It has worked this way since the beginning, and it will work this way as long as governments exist. (Democracy doesn't change a thing, incidentally.)
The War on Drugs costs 40 billion dollars [uua.org] a year.
Yes, and this represents a major profit for government (measured not just in revenue but power). Take this revenue away, and government will be exactly 40 billion dollars less powerful and a great deal less profitable than it was before. All this boils down to one simple rule: Power is directly proportional to the cost of government.