At least in the way I read this. Look at it again.
Here's the resolution from 1941:
the President is hereby authorized... against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination
And the one from now...
The President is authorized... in order to-- (1) defend the national security... and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
These are rather open ended goals. I mean isn't it already the job of the military to defend us? Isn't enforcement process rather than a goal? From what I understand, Congress doesn't have the power to issue such open ended authority, does it? I mean it's supposed to have limits to its power...
In my opinion, the best solution might be to shorten patent life. If the purpose of patents is to encourage ideas to be published and used, yet allow the inventors to reap the benefits of their ideas and their work, then a shorter lifespan of patents would work well... how long does it generally take for a company to recoup monies invested in research anyway?
An alternative measure of a patent's lifespan to time could be the money. Why not set a limit to how much money is made before a patent dies. Or whichever comes first type of thing: 15 years or $15 million
If I have a good idea but I lack the means to develop it in the near future, is the public not better off if another company is allowed to use my idea after the patent lapses after a few years,
Absolutely, how about requiring patents to have an established licensing fee? This could help avoid the "landmine" situation
instead of allowing me to sit on it for ages, perhaps hoping some company will discover the same idea and then spring my patent on them? I would suggest a patent lifespan of no more than a few years... but perhaps others can come up with reasons longer lifespans would be a necessity.
This would give a lot more credit to ICANN, no? Considering all of the noise about ICANN's current behavior, suppose they actually asked VeriSign to initiate a complaint against them. The public would view this as a voice to which the government will listen (as the article says "today's statement represents one of the most vocal critiques of the organization from the industry it manages.")
When the government sees that VeriSign is complaining about not making enough money, they'll dismiss the complaint.
When you dismiss one of the most vocal dissenters, it makes all others seem rather less important than before. Could it be ICANN is looking to clear the road ahead?
Slashdot Mirror
At least in the way I read this. Look at it again.
... against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination
... in order to-- (1) defend the national security ... and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
Here's the resolution from 1941:
the President is hereby authorized
And the one from now...
The President is authorized
These are rather open ended goals. I mean isn't it already the job of the military to defend us? Isn't enforcement process rather than a goal? From what I understand, Congress doesn't have the power to issue such open ended authority, does it? I mean it's supposed to have limits to its power...
In my opinion, the best solution might be to shorten patent life. If the purpose of patents is to encourage ideas to be published and used, yet allow the inventors to reap the benefits of their ideas and their work, then a shorter lifespan of patents would work well... how long does it generally take for a company to recoup monies invested in research anyway?
An alternative measure of a patent's lifespan to time could be the money. Why not set a limit to how much money is made before a patent dies. Or whichever comes first type of thing: 15 years or $15 million
If I have a good idea but I lack the means to develop it in the near future, is the public not better off if another company is allowed to use my idea after the patent lapses after a few years,
Absolutely, how about requiring patents to have an established licensing fee? This could help avoid the "landmine" situation
instead of allowing me to sit on it for ages, perhaps hoping some company will discover the same idea and then spring my patent on them? I would suggest a patent lifespan of no more than a few years... but perhaps others can come up with reasons longer lifespans would be a necessity.
This would give a lot more credit to ICANN, no? Considering all of the noise about ICANN's current behavior, suppose they actually asked VeriSign to initiate a complaint against them. The public would view this as a voice to which the government will listen (as the article says "today's statement represents one of the most vocal critiques of the organization from the industry it manages.")
When the government sees that VeriSign is complaining about not making enough money, they'll dismiss the complaint.
When you dismiss one of the most vocal dissenters, it makes all others seem rather less important than before. Could it be ICANN is looking to clear the road ahead?