I think the pharmaceutical industry would disagree with you. It would be prohibitively expensive to research new drugs without protection, given the relative ease of starting a generic drug manufacture. Also, libertarians are generally for strong property rights, and property is what you get when you combine your work with your environment. Well then, why shouldn't we protect the hundreds of man years of work that go into each new drug? Surely that created some property that belongs to the company.
Company / person has idea. File patent application.
Patent is reviewed and approved. Patent enters implementation phase, which is some fixed period of time during which the idea is allowed to be brought to market by the company / person. Maybe 1 year?
Implementation phase complete. Patent office then reviews patent AND evidence of implementation. If the company / person HAS NOT brought patent to market, then the patent is REJECTED and any and all ideas are now public domain. If they HAVE, then the patent is granted as par. current patent term length, whatever that is (I think it's 10 years?).
Congratulations, you just killed the pharmaceutical industry. And the biotech industry. And much, if not most, long-term science research at universities, including things like semiconductor chip research. I bet your (current or former) school has a technology transfer office.
There are many incredibly useful inventions that can't be brought to market within a year, or five years, or ten years. AI has been '20 years off' for the past 40 years or so.
How vulnerable is the internet to terrorist attack?
Expected damage = Sum(types of damage) [ size of damage * probability of damage ].
So you really need to ask, how likely is it that terrorists will target the internet, considering all the other things they could target instead? And even that is too vague a question, since it presupposes an attack against "the entire internet". How hard would it be to "bring down the internet" whatever that means, and how much money and technical skill do "they" have, whoever they are?
If it was my watch, I'd fire anyone who complained, immediately, and without hesitation. Police officers have a higher responsibility to follow the laws than ordinary citizens, since they have the power to enforce laws. Not only that, but being a police officer is a privilege too. If you don't realize that, you're a danger to the people you're sworn to protect.
2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Before America, most societies were rigidly hierarchical. There was a ruler with near or actual dictatorial power over secular affairs, and a church with absolute power over religious issues.
The Founding Fathers made a startling break from this authoritarian social framework to one largely egalitarian in nature. As a result, the rules of decency and self-restraint concomitant with a strong social hierarchy have been slowly disappearing over the last 200+ years, with the end result that the bounds of human behavior are defined more by the law, and less by the hierarchical rules of the nuclear family, etiquette, and the church.
For example, take obscenity. For a long time, the church simply forbade it, and the populace largely complied. There was no need to work out its delicate legal rules, as the situation rarely reared its head. Now we have laws regarding obscenity, but the current standard was only worked out by the Supreme Court in 1973, after years of unhelpful "I know it when I see it" decisions.
This is the natural progress of our society, governed by the framework of the Constitution. It shouldn't be surprising.
You want to see the stupidest lawsuit involving a failure to serve process? Look no further than Mr. Gerald Mayo's lawsuit against... wait for it... SATAN. I quote:
We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.
The term H-1B derives from the immigration law, more precisely 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). This post is probably tl;dr unless you're really interested.
Section 1101 is definitions. 1101(a) sets out definitions for the entire chapter on immigration, while (b) and (c) give definitions for different subchapters. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) defines "immigrant" as "every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes", then lists 22 classes of "nonimmigrant aliens". For example:
Class A covers foreign ministers, ambassadors, and public officials.
Class C covers people who are stopping over in the US on their way to another country or the UN.
Class K(i) covers people who are engaged and entering the country to get married within 90 days.
Class H covers aliens coming to the US to work, and is probably tl;dr for most people, but I went ahead and read it anyway. H(ii) and H(iii) apply only if the person has "a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning."*
Class H(i) sets out three types of nonimmigrant aliens:
H(i)(b): aliens coming to the US to work in "specialty occupations" or as a fashion model**
H(i)(b1): aliens coming to the US under the free trade agreement with either Chile or Singapore
H(i)(c): aliens coming to the US to be registered nurses.
Admission of nonimmigrants is covered in Section 1184. 1184(i)(1) defines "specialty occupations" as those that require "theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum." In other words, the job doesn't have to be high-tech, but it does require a college degree and some smarts. In order to be allowed into the country to practice such an occupation, 1184(i)(2) requires a nonimmigrant alien to either
be licensed by a State to engage in the occupation (if that licensing is required),
have an appropriate post-secondary degree, or
have experience equivalent to a degree AND "recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty".
The numerical limit comes from 1184(g). According to 1184(g)(1) and (g)(2) there can be up to 65,000 H(i)(b) visas granted per year and 66,000 H(ii)(b) visas, not counting spouses and children. The H(i)(b) quota was as high as 195,000, from 2001 to 2003. 1184(g)(3) says that petitions are granted first-come, first-serve. With 150,000 H(i)(b) applications for 65,000 slots, it's reasonable that the USCIS would refuse further applications.
* H(ii)(a) covers seasonal agricultural workers. H(ii)(b) covers everyone else (except foreign doctors entering to practice medicine), provided that "unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country". H(iii) covers aliens in the US to receive (non-medical) training, if they are not training for the purpose of getting a new job.
** Doctors coming over under H(i)(b) have to meet special requirements. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(j)(2).
all countries are not equal. the US, as the only superpower (for the time being), has a special duty to act responsibly towards other nations. sure, lots of countries have problems with crime, but not every country has the US military to back up their position. you may tolerate or even ignore a garden-variety hypocrite nation, but you will damn well listen to a hypocrite with the 82nd airborne division under its thumb.
I'm not sure what harm the students can claim, but if they have any decent lawyers at all, they'll find some way of doing it.
"[T]he copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits... [for each work]... a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just." 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1). In addition, they can ask the judge for an injunction preventing Turnitin from ever using their work, and force them to delete the work from their database. That's in section 502.
Wrong. All the major party candidates are crappy. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil. Do your homework. Vote for someone who isn't evil, even if you think they won't win. One vote can make a difference.
The idea is to load the drivers license with information proving citizenship
Driver's licenses are not authentication, they are evidence of a license to drive on State roads. They were not designed to satisfy strong authentication protocols. They can only properly be used* once a person has been authenticated in other ways**. To see how massively ineffective they are at authentication, see here.
For the love of all that is right in the world, stop trying to use them for more than they were designed.
* By used, I mean to offer evidence to the person 'using' it that the possessor has permission to drive on the roads. It's only evidence, it's not conclusive. Using it for other things (e.g. checking age at a bar) is foolish.
** For instance, checking the car's registration against the DMV database to see if the driver's name, address, tags, and VIN line up.
The Constitution says that copyright is about advancing society, not about giving authors control over their writings. Usually the two line up, because artists usually want to contribute to society. A business, on the other hand, has no such motivation -- it just wants to contribute to its bottom line. DRM is a tool created by businesses to prevent people from accessing literature and music. It is against advancing art, and therefore wrong. It's as simple as that.
It's not that the degree itself is useless -- it looks nice hung on the wall. What's becoming less useful is what it represents: a top-notch education, earned through pain and sweat, that distinguishes its earner from the unwashed masses. To get that now, you need a PhD, and even that buys you less and less every passing day. In a lot of ways, getting a PhD is worse than not getting one, because a lot of employers don't know what they can give you to do that requires that kind of education (and higher pay), especially in Computer Science. Most of them are just looking for code monkeys.
Employers don't care how 'rewarding' your college experience was for you, they want to know if you can hack it working for their high-pressure business. A college degree used to mean that you had a much better chance than someone without, but it doesn't any more, because people can get a degree by coasting through and not actually learning anything. A lot of people choose which college they go to based on how much of a 'party school' it is. For me that's an automatic (-1, slacker) in any interview. If I see someone who never went to college but who wanted to learn the trade and worked hard at it, that's (+1, motivated) and another (+1, hard-working).
As has already been pointed out, companies who don't want their patents can just fail to pay maintenance fees. These are normally due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years from the date of issue. Also, companies will never do this if there's money to be made. It costs nothing to sit on a patent that might eventually turn into license revenue, but you give up that potential revenue by making a donation. The only conceivable reason a company might do this would be as a tax write-off, which saves them money. Of course, it probably isn't enough to justify the initial investment in obtaining the patent in the first place...
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to make patents only valid while the holder is actively exploiting them
What do you do about the poor genius inventor who figures out cold fusion in his garage but can't afford to take the idea to market? What if no one will buy his patent for anything close to what it's worth?
It sounds to me like your real problem is with patent trolls, and there are other ways of dealing with trolls that won't hurt smaller inventors.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many incredibly useful inventions that can't be brought to market within a year, or five years, or ten years. AI has been '20 years off' for the past 40 years or so.
So you really need to ask, how likely is it that terrorists will target the internet, considering all the other things they could target instead? And even that is too vague a question, since it presupposes an attack against "the entire internet". How hard would it be to "bring down the internet" whatever that means, and how much money and technical skill do "they" have, whoever they are?
If it was my watch, I'd fire anyone who complained, immediately, and without hesitation. Police officers have a higher responsibility to follow the laws than ordinary citizens, since they have the power to enforce laws. Not only that, but being a police officer is a privilege too. If you don't realize that, you're a danger to the people you're sworn to protect.
You won't be in office forever, and you reap what you sow.
Before America, most societies were rigidly hierarchical. There was a ruler with near or actual dictatorial power over secular affairs, and a church with absolute power over religious issues. The Founding Fathers made a startling break from this authoritarian social framework to one largely egalitarian in nature. As a result, the rules of decency and self-restraint concomitant with a strong social hierarchy have been slowly disappearing over the last 200+ years, with the end result that the bounds of human behavior are defined more by the law, and less by the hierarchical rules of the nuclear family, etiquette, and the church. For example, take obscenity. For a long time, the church simply forbade it, and the populace largely complied. There was no need to work out its delicate legal rules, as the situation rarely reared its head. Now we have laws regarding obscenity, but the current standard was only worked out by the Supreme Court in 1973, after years of unhelpful "I know it when I see it" decisions. This is the natural progress of our society, governed by the framework of the Constitution. It shouldn't be surprising.
- People jabbering on their cell phones about useless crap
- Babies crying
- Sticky floors
- 20 minutes of commercials before the previews, 20 minutes of previews, 5 minutes of "don't pirate this movie" and "turn off your phones"
- The volume cranked up way too high because the poor idiot in the booth has lost his hearing listening to death metal?
Pass.Section 1101 is definitions. 1101(a) sets out definitions for the entire chapter on immigration, while (b) and (c) give definitions for different subchapters. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) defines "immigrant" as "every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes", then lists 22 classes of "nonimmigrant aliens". For example:
- Class A covers foreign ministers, ambassadors, and public officials.
- Class C covers people who are stopping over in the US on their way to another country or the UN.
- Class K(i) covers people who are engaged and entering the country to get married within 90 days.
Class H covers aliens coming to the US to work, and is probably tl;dr for most people, but I went ahead and read it anyway. H(ii) and H(iii) apply only if the person has "a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning."*Class H(i) sets out three types of nonimmigrant aliens:
- H(i)(b): aliens coming to the US to work in "specialty occupations" or as a fashion model**
- H(i)(b1): aliens coming to the US under the free trade agreement with either Chile or Singapore
- H(i)(c): aliens coming to the US to be registered nurses.
Admission of nonimmigrants is covered in Section 1184. 1184(i)(1) defines "specialty occupations" as those that require "theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum." In other words, the job doesn't have to be high-tech, but it does require a college degree and some smarts. In order to be allowed into the country to practice such an occupation, 1184(i)(2) requires a nonimmigrant alien to eitherThe numerical limit comes from 1184(g). According to 1184(g)(1) and (g)(2) there can be up to 65,000 H(i)(b) visas granted per year and 66,000 H(ii)(b) visas, not counting spouses and children. The H(i)(b) quota was as high as 195,000, from 2001 to 2003. 1184(g)(3) says that petitions are granted first-come, first-serve. With 150,000 H(i)(b) applications for 65,000 slots, it's reasonable that the USCIS would refuse further applications.
* H(ii)(a) covers seasonal agricultural workers. H(ii)(b) covers everyone else (except foreign doctors entering to practice medicine), provided that "unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country". H(iii) covers aliens in the US to receive (non-medical) training, if they are not training for the purpose of getting a new job.
** Doctors coming over under H(i)(b) have to meet special requirements. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(j)(2).
all countries are not equal. the US, as the only superpower (for the time being), has a special duty to act responsibly towards other nations. sure, lots of countries have problems with crime, but not every country has the US military to back up their position. you may tolerate or even ignore a garden-variety hypocrite nation, but you will damn well listen to a hypocrite with the 82nd airborne division under its thumb.
Prepare for the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the love of all that is right in the world, stop trying to use them for more than they were designed.
* By used, I mean to offer evidence to the person 'using' it that the possessor has permission to drive on the roads. It's only evidence, it's not conclusive. Using it for other things (e.g. checking age at a bar) is foolish.
** For instance, checking the car's registration against the DMV database to see if the driver's name, address, tags, and VIN line up.
The Constitution says that copyright is about advancing society, not about giving authors control over their writings. Usually the two line up, because artists usually want to contribute to society. A business, on the other hand, has no such motivation -- it just wants to contribute to its bottom line. DRM is a tool created by businesses to prevent people from accessing literature and music. It is against advancing art, and therefore wrong. It's as simple as that.
Congress changed the law in 2005. I've made the appropriate changes to Wikipedia.
Employers don't care how 'rewarding' your college experience was for you, they want to know if you can hack it working for their high-pressure business. A college degree used to mean that you had a much better chance than someone without, but it doesn't any more, because people can get a degree by coasting through and not actually learning anything. A lot of people choose which college they go to based on how much of a 'party school' it is. For me that's an automatic (-1, slacker) in any interview. If I see someone who never went to college but who wanted to learn the trade and worked hard at it, that's (+1, motivated) and another (+1, hard-working).
Halliburton affects millions of Iraqis. RIAA affects millions of Americans. You are an American. Do the math.
As has already been pointed out, companies who don't want their patents can just fail to pay maintenance fees. These are normally due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years from the date of issue. Also, companies will never do this if there's money to be made. It costs nothing to sit on a patent that might eventually turn into license revenue, but you give up that potential revenue by making a donation. The only conceivable reason a company might do this would be as a tax write-off, which saves them money. Of course, it probably isn't enough to justify the initial investment in obtaining the patent in the first place...
It sounds to me like your real problem is with patent trolls, and there are other ways of dealing with trolls that won't hurt smaller inventors.
Well, I've got a fart-powered bottle rocket launcher laying around that I'm sure is worth something... Maybe we should join forces.
They have specialists already: Technology Center 2100.