Do no evil should probably include not getting all snug with a company that designs network topologies as inverted pentagrams for the summoning bonusus, I mean, 'customer data referencing enhancements'.
People are often so taken by Google-rapture that they forget Google's income stream comes from advertising, and much of what it offers is designed to increase that revenue. This sort of "evil" should be expected and was entirely predictable.
If a violation of the law can't end up in court, how is the law relevant to anything?
You make some good points. Still, on general principle it's a good idea if the government abides by the law. Sure, in these cases their violations may not have a direct effect upon the individuals surveilled, but that's not always the case. Best to keep the pressure on, keep them toeing the line. If not, they'll eventually do something we will regret. That's pretty much the nature of government. Our government, at least.
One of the big arguments against this sort thing is that it's usually not very specific. Fishing expeditions have long been looked down upon by the courts, because evidence discovered in an illegal search may very well lead to actionable evidence that otherwise would never have been found. Is that an acceptable way to operate? Courts usually don't think so, and the court (if it comes to that) will probably never be made aware of what originally tipped off law enforcement.
Gets right back to the "if you've nothing to hide" mantra, I suppose. Problem is, in modern society none of us really knows for sure that we don't.
Copyrights and patents have become monsters that must be slain.
Yes. But you essentially agreed with me when you called this a "lawyer's paradise." You haven't really presented an argument against the principle of a patent system, just what ours has currently become. There I agree with you: the system has become worse than useless. However, keep in mind that the original patent system did serve us very well for a long time, and could have continued to do so. Any way you slice it, the old system would have required some modifications to be truly effective in our time, but the changes made were exactly the wrong ones. Well, wrong for We the People, but absolutely perfect if you're an IP lawyer or big rightsholder.
Oh, no argument there, and I wasn't really disputing your point. I just wanted to make a distinction between the patent system itself, and the abuse of said system that is going on.
Whether patents are good or bad is a matter of some debate, mainly because they're both good and bad. I do agree that the U.S. patent system as it currently stands is not serving its Constitutional function. Really it's operating in a way that is diametrically opposed to what the Founders intended. It took a good while, but the reasons why some of them did not want such protections enshrined in the Constitution have become (ahem!) patently obvious.
the fact that we have a crisis-oriented government now, which likes to let matters go all to Hell before jumping in with a "solution" is another problem.
say what? you're blaming the newly elected government (who's president hasnt even been sworn in yet) for letting matters "go to hell" before jumping in with a solution? you dont think the previous 8 years might have had more than a little to do with the current crisis? or am I just completely misunderstanding what you meant?
Yes, you're completely misunderstanding what I meant.
There is also the question of student research going into patents. I can't think of another area of the economy where one person pays money for the priviledge of doing work, which is then auctioned off to the highest bidder for an exclusive contract. This strikes me as the sort of thing that California loves to find unfair.
You're right about that. Given the number of high-profile Universities in California, at some point there's going to be an equally-high-profile case on this very issue. If there hasn't already been, of course.
then the "hurdle cost" of developing proprietary software that is competitive in terms of feature set will be prohibitive.
All open source does is raise the bar in certain areas. The reality is that many closed source companies (if not most) will not make any investment in improving their technology unless forced to do so. Why bother? Just keep milking that same old feature set for all it's worth. That may be good business (at least, in the eyes of shareholders who look at R&D expenditures as cutting into their dividends) but it isn't really in the public interest either. If what open source has done is commoditize some types of software... so be it. In general, that's a good thing for the public. Tough on the closed source company, I suppose, but then again that's what creative destruction is all about (George Gilder reference, in case you're interested.)
On the other hand, there are many areas of the software market not well-served by the open source development model: plenty of room for closed source to compete and make money. But no organization has an intrinsic right to their revenue stream: if what you have to offer is of no value to your customers any longer, that's just too bad. Unfortunately, many corporations feel that they are owed their profit margin, and it's that sense of entitlement (and general resistance to change) that is the root of the problem. Not open source in itself.
Again, patents were created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. They have mutated into trolls that prevent progress. Patents are now a monster that must be slain.
I agree with most of your statement, but eliminating patents entirely may not be the solution. Patents (if properly implemented) can have a beneficial effect on progress... the problem is not that patents are in inherently evil but that (as you say) they've been turned into something that no longer works for the public good. What's worse is that the only organization that can repair the damage caused by a malfunctioning USPTO and lawyer farms like IV is Congress... and they're the ones that got us into this. Congress, and some really bad court decisions over the years.
I don't have much hope that anything will improve, near-term. It's going to have to get much, much worse, and the fact that we have a crisis-oriented government now, which likes to let matters go all to Hell before jumping in with a "solution" is another problem.
Although many patents (both software and hardware) are bogus, the basic concept of the patent system has some validity and there are conditions where patents serve the public interest by encouraging innovation and at the same time making knowledge available to the public which would otherwise be kept as tight trade secrets by companies.
Yes, but the real issue here is not the patent system pre se, but that certain rogue organizations are gaming that system in a way never intended by the Founders.
IV (and other patent troll outfits) are using the acquisition of large numbers of patents to control innovation and extract their pound of flesh from such activity, while providing little or nothing of value in return. In a sense, they're like Microsoft, who did much the same thing in the operating system / office software world. The term "Microsoft Tax" came about because of the level of control that Microsoft exerted (and still exerts) upon the sale of computer equipment and the choice of operating software, and companies like Intellectual Ventures are attempting to levy an "Innovation Tax" upon anyone or anything trying to do something new and valuable.
The net result of this will be an increase in wealth disparity in this country, and continued decline in our research and industrial sectors. This needs to stop before any attempt to design and manufacture useful, innovative products will be stymied by cease-and-desist orders, lawsuits, and what amounts to a tax levied by private organizations.
Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.
Well, there's not much question that the big media companies are little more than international rogue organizations. They're causing damage to legal systems, corporations and individuals around the world. At some point, there are going to have to be international treaties banning such "industry trade organizations", at least the kind that like to sue everyone and corrupt governments.
Are you implying that facilitating music piracy is legally equivalent to genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances?
I doubt the GP is, but you know perfectly well that the media companies would have no problem making that claim. To them, there is no higher crime than copyright infri^H^H^H^H^Htheft of copyrighted materials.
"Depending on their profile, they may or may not ever see a court."
So, it is "USA - the most advanced country in the world, the country of freedom and laws making everyone feel safe...unless is does not suit somebody"?
And instead of "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process", it should be actually "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process unless it does not suit the Americans?"
Exactly, because we're currently a superpower and we can get away with it. And when we're not, when someone else takes the top dog position (maybe China, who knows) then they'll get to behave the same way. And believe me... they will. Just ask the Soviets how they treated people from other countries when they were a superpower. It's just human nature and all that.
Some of you seem to think that international politics is some kind of a popularity contest, where the nicest country wins. In reality, it's exactly the opposite.
Perhaps if the US had not spent the last 8 years riding roughshod over human rights a basic legality
you might have a point. Then again the views of somone so shift key disabled are unlikely to be relevant I guess.
I SUPPOSE THAT HE'D BE MORE RELEVANT IF HE WERE TO KEEP HIS CAPS KEY DEPRESSED AT ALL TIMES?
No. He'd just be louder, and I've noticed that the loudest people are often most irrelevant.
Simply hide the cars under a big "CENSORED BY TOYOTA".
You got a +5 Funny but you know... that's not such a bad idea. I wonder how fast Toyota would back down if they got a black eye of that magnitude. I mean, the guy must get some significant Web traffic if this even came to Toyota's attention at all. Stay in compliance with the law, but take a PR poke at the big corporation.
Car Salesman: "This is the car you're looking for." {passes hands through air}
Prospective Car Buyer: "Uh... this is the car I'm looking for!"
Car Salesman: "It's actually a pretty good car."
Prospective Car Buyer: "It's actually a pretty good car!"
Car Salesman: "Sign here."
Prospective Car Buyer: "Sign here."
There's a secret to Toyota's success. It's not all engineering. One of my friends who was a car mechanic for many years once said, "Face it. ALL cars are crap." They sell because we're told how wonderful they are, via multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns.
Interestingly, in many cases corporate lawyers they behave as if they do not. That is, they use the DMCA to attempt to protect a trademark when they shouldn't (call it DMCA abuse or whatever.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do no evil should probably include not getting all snug with a company that designs network topologies as inverted pentagrams for the summoning bonusus, I mean, 'customer data referencing enhancements'.
People are often so taken by Google-rapture that they forget Google's income stream comes from advertising, and much of what it offers is designed to increase that revenue. This sort of "evil" should be expected and was entirely predictable.
Would you rather see ads about things you have no care for, nor afford?
Yes. They're very easy to ignore that way.
"Somnambulent" is a real word, which makes it unusable to pharma companies. Maybe "Somnioxx," or "Somnagra".
That's just what I want. A pill that puts me to sleep and then gives me a hardon.
If a violation of the law can't end up in court, how is the law relevant to anything?
You make some good points. Still, on general principle it's a good idea if the government abides by the law. Sure, in these cases their violations may not have a direct effect upon the individuals surveilled, but that's not always the case. Best to keep the pressure on, keep them toeing the line. If not, they'll eventually do something we will regret. That's pretty much the nature of government. Our government, at least.
One of the big arguments against this sort thing is that it's usually not very specific. Fishing expeditions have long been looked down upon by the courts, because evidence discovered in an illegal search may very well lead to actionable evidence that otherwise would never have been found. Is that an acceptable way to operate? Courts usually don't think so, and the court (if it comes to that) will probably never be made aware of what originally tipped off law enforcement.
Gets right back to the "if you've nothing to hide" mantra, I suppose. Problem is, in modern society none of us really knows for sure that we don't.
Heisenberger?
whereas prior to 2001 "the statutory language governing pen register or trap-and-trace orders did not appear to cover location tracking technology.
It shouldn't have to. What part of "surveillance of American citizens without judicial oversight is illegal" do they not understand?
Copyrights and patents have become monsters that must be slain.
Yes. But you essentially agreed with me when you called this a "lawyer's paradise." You haven't really presented an argument against the principle of a patent system, just what ours has currently become. There I agree with you: the system has become worse than useless. However, keep in mind that the original patent system did serve us very well for a long time, and could have continued to do so. Any way you slice it, the old system would have required some modifications to be truly effective in our time, but the changes made were exactly the wrong ones. Well, wrong for We the People, but absolutely perfect if you're an IP lawyer or big rightsholder.
At least we can agree there is a real problem.
Oh, no argument there, and I wasn't really disputing your point. I just wanted to make a distinction between the patent system itself, and the abuse of said system that is going on.
Whether patents are good or bad is a matter of some debate, mainly because they're both good and bad. I do agree that the U.S. patent system as it currently stands is not serving its Constitutional function. Really it's operating in a way that is diametrically opposed to what the Founders intended. It took a good while, but the reasons why some of them did not want such protections enshrined in the Constitution have become (ahem!) patently obvious.
Anyone else see the abbreviation "IV" in the summary and immediately think "four"?
No, actually I thought "intravenous" but hey, that's just me.
the fact that we have a crisis-oriented government now, which likes to let matters go all to Hell before jumping in with a "solution" is another problem.
say what? you're blaming the newly elected government (who's president hasnt even been sworn in yet) for letting matters "go to hell" before jumping in with a solution? you dont think the previous 8 years might have had more than a little to do with the current crisis? or am I just completely misunderstanding what you meant?
Yes, you're completely misunderstanding what I meant.
There is also the question of student research going into patents. I can't think of another area of the economy where one person pays money for the priviledge of doing work, which is then auctioned off to the highest bidder for an exclusive contract. This strikes me as the sort of thing that California loves to find unfair.
You're right about that. Given the number of high-profile Universities in California, at some point there's going to be an equally-high-profile case on this very issue. If there hasn't already been, of course.
then the "hurdle cost" of developing proprietary software that is competitive in terms of feature set will be prohibitive.
All open source does is raise the bar in certain areas. The reality is that many closed source companies (if not most) will not make any investment in improving their technology unless forced to do so. Why bother? Just keep milking that same old feature set for all it's worth. That may be good business (at least, in the eyes of shareholders who look at R&D expenditures as cutting into their dividends) but it isn't really in the public interest either. If what open source has done is commoditize some types of software ... so be it. In general, that's a good thing for the public. Tough on the closed source company, I suppose, but then again that's what creative destruction is all about (George Gilder reference, in case you're interested.)
On the other hand, there are many areas of the software market not well-served by the open source development model: plenty of room for closed source to compete and make money. But no organization has an intrinsic right to their revenue stream: if what you have to offer is of no value to your customers any longer, that's just too bad. Unfortunately, many corporations feel that they are owed their profit margin, and it's that sense of entitlement (and general resistance to change) that is the root of the problem. Not open source in itself.
Didn't you mean Führer?
No, he didn't because if he did, then he'd have been wrong and as we all know perfectly well, Grammar Nazis are never wrong. Ever.
Again, patents were created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. They have mutated into trolls that prevent progress. Patents are now a monster that must be slain.
I agree with most of your statement, but eliminating patents entirely may not be the solution. Patents (if properly implemented) can have a beneficial effect on progress ... the problem is not that patents are in inherently evil but that (as you say) they've been turned into something that no longer works for the public good. What's worse is that the only organization that can repair the damage caused by a malfunctioning USPTO and lawyer farms like IV is Congress ... and they're the ones that got us into this. Congress, and some really bad court decisions over the years.
I don't have much hope that anything will improve, near-term. It's going to have to get much, much worse, and the fact that we have a crisis-oriented government now, which likes to let matters go all to Hell before jumping in with a "solution" is another problem.
Although many patents (both software and hardware) are bogus, the basic concept of the patent system has some validity and there are conditions where patents serve the public interest by encouraging innovation and at the same time making knowledge available to the public which would otherwise be kept as tight trade secrets by companies.
Yes, but the real issue here is not the patent system pre se, but that certain rogue organizations are gaming that system in a way never intended by the Founders.
IV (and other patent troll outfits) are using the acquisition of large numbers of patents to control innovation and extract their pound of flesh from such activity, while providing little or nothing of value in return. In a sense, they're like Microsoft, who did much the same thing in the operating system / office software world. The term "Microsoft Tax" came about because of the level of control that Microsoft exerted (and still exerts) upon the sale of computer equipment and the choice of operating software, and companies like Intellectual Ventures are attempting to levy an "Innovation Tax" upon anyone or anything trying to do something new and valuable.
The net result of this will be an increase in wealth disparity in this country, and continued decline in our research and industrial sectors. This needs to stop before any attempt to design and manufacture useful, innovative products will be stymied by cease-and-desist orders, lawsuits, and what amounts to a tax levied by private organizations.
Does that mean some victim's rights group should be able to sue Wilkinson-Sword?
It happens, and sometimes they win.
Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.
Well, there's not much question that the big media companies are little more than international rogue organizations. They're causing damage to legal systems, corporations and individuals around the world. At some point, there are going to have to be international treaties banning such "industry trade organizations", at least the kind that like to sue everyone and corrupt governments.
We all become criminals.
Yes. And then someone comes up with better tools.
Are you implying that facilitating music piracy is legally equivalent to genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances?
I doubt the GP is, but you know perfectly well that the media companies would have no problem making that claim. To them, there is no higher crime than copyright infri^H^H^H^H^Htheft of copyrighted materials.
So, it is "USA - the most advanced country in the world, the country of freedom and laws making everyone feel safe...unless is does not suit somebody"?
And instead of "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process", it should be actually "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process unless it does not suit the Americans?"
Exactly, because we're currently a superpower and we can get away with it. And when we're not, when someone else takes the top dog position (maybe China, who knows) then they'll get to behave the same way. And believe me ... they will. Just ask the Soviets how they treated people from other countries when they were a superpower. It's just human nature and all that.
Some of you seem to think that international politics is some kind of a popularity contest, where the nicest country wins. In reality, it's exactly the opposite.
Perhaps if the US had not spent the last 8 years riding roughshod over human rights a basic legality you might have a point. Then again the views of somone so shift key disabled are unlikely to be relevant I guess.
I SUPPOSE THAT HE'D BE MORE RELEVANT IF HE WERE TO KEEP HIS CAPS KEY DEPRESSED AT ALL TIMES?
No. He'd just be louder, and I've noticed that the loudest people are often most irrelevant.
So your saying that French law is a communicable disease?
Well, given the popularity of this stuff around the world, I'd say it's definitely viral in nature.
Don't remove the images!
Simply hide the cars under a big "CENSORED BY TOYOTA".
You got a +5 Funny but you know ... that's not such a bad idea. I wonder how fast Toyota would back down if they got a black eye of that magnitude. I mean, the guy must get some significant Web traffic if this even came to Toyota's attention at all. Stay in compliance with the law, but take a PR poke at the big corporation.
The problem is that you think it is.
Prospective Car Buyer: "What a piece of junk!"
... this is the car I'm looking for!"
Car Salesman: "This is the car you're looking for." {passes hands through air}
Prospective Car Buyer: "Uh
Car Salesman: "It's actually a pretty good car."
Prospective Car Buyer: "It's actually a pretty good car!"
Car Salesman: "Sign here."
Prospective Car Buyer: "Sign here."
There's a secret to Toyota's success. It's not all engineering. One of my friends who was a car mechanic for many years once said, "Face it. ALL cars are crap." They sell because we're told how wonderful they are, via multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns.
Interestingly, in many cases corporate lawyers they behave as if they do not. That is, they use the DMCA to attempt to protect a trademark when they shouldn't (call it DMCA abuse or whatever.)