But corporations are. The whole point of corporations is that both shareholders and executive are insulated from certain liabilities that enable them to do things a private person legally could not.
No, corporations were given corporate charters, which grants that limited liability, only if they served the common or public good. Businesses were given limited liability if it was thought the business would help people. The first two corporations given charters, specifically for this reason, was the British East India Company the Dutch East India Company. Corporations have had their corporate chartersrevoked because they no longer served the public good. Petitioners requested Unocal have it's charter revoked after it supported the military in Burma in forcing Karen tribesmen to vacate land they owned and to work as porters and in other low wage positions for Unocal.
The reason is that they will get the patent laws looked at for what they are: INSANE
What makes you think patent laws will be looked at now when they weren't looked at after RIM was sued by NTP over the Blackberry? Even politicians and the wealthy used Blackberries but did they force a review of patent laws? Nope! The US Justice Department even filed a brief in support of RIM, knowing full well that government workers used Blackberries for work. The US Department of Defense (DOD) even stated they were crucial for national security. RIM eventually had to pay NTP $612.5 million (USD).
No matter how many slashdotters have wishful dreams I doubt this case will precipitate a reexamination of patent laws.
They are the bad people here. Would you apply that to someone who goes around killing people if the laws allowed it? The law allows it so he's not bad. I bet a bunch of survivors of the NAZIs, Pot Pol, Sadam, and Rwanda would disagree.
Talk about the ultimate drain on society being upheld by the government... we need to vote against the judges and politicians that allow this to happen under their watch.
We can vote against politicians but not federal judges. Federal judges have to be impeached, and here's list of federal judges who have been investigated for impeachment. Since 1796 some 70 cases have been investigated.
We can dream. But no, I don't think this will do it. We've had others that were supposed to be the end of software patents, such as Eolas vs Microsoft, but weren't. Perhaps if enough of us write to our senators and reps they will get off their collective asses and do something.
How the hell do you even know if your computer works or not if you don't try to actually turn it on, and thus notice that it does not exist?
Not everyone turns their computers off for various reasons. I've had people tell me they have not turned their computer off but left it running for months.
do you think he'd complain that the car wouldn't start? No, he'd file a police report that someone stole his engine.
That would require actually opening the hood and looking to see the engine missing, how many people do that? How many don't call AAA or a tow truck before opening the hood?
Or to collect sales taxes. Or to make sure you're not exploiting employees, or hiring undocumented workers.
Not every state has sales tax on services. Of those that do, how many include grass mowing or lawn care? Boy, I must be abusing myself cutting grass. I guess I'd better run the neighborhood kid's SSN through the system to make sure he isn't undocumented. While I'm at it I might as well collect income, FICA, and other taxes so I can remit them to the IRS as well.
Is it some great conspiracy if the kid gets caught up in the regulations meant for the large landscaping company, some deliberate attempt to keep the kid from mowing lawns? No
Yes it is, well maybe not a "great conspiracy". It takes little effort to include the phrase "teenagers mowing neighbors" lawns are exempted" or some such.
Is that all? Excellent! In that case I think that I can cite an example of prior art.
Tim Berners-Lee the inventor of the web submitted prior art but Eolas' patent was still upheld. The Texas court is corrupt, and therefore does not deserve respect.
It means that, once again, the USPTO's employee drug-testing policy has failed us all.
Just the opposite. If you're high, you're going to read their patent app, chuckle, grab a handful of cheetoes, and throw it in a box never to be seen from again.
You explain why the drug testing policy failed, if it hadn't been for testing patent applications wouldn't of been rubber stamped.
he basically just made a few of his personal opinions anonymously on usenet. Nothing that could ever drag stock prices down.
Overblown? I don't know. If what was said was his opinion that's one thing but if he lied that's something else. And it is possible to drive stock prices up or down based merely on public opinion. In a rational market public opinion wouldn't affect stock prices but we do not have a rational market. Frequently investors see a rise or drop in stock prices when earning are higher or lower in a report than was forecast.
IMO the political parties all need to start on equal ground. Would it really be that bad to have a tax that went into a fund that got split up and given to all of the candidates at the beginning of the campaign?
Equal opportunity not outcome. And yes it would be bad, I want the ability to decide for myself who I will support otherwise I'm not free. I used to be one of those who checked the box on tax forms saying I wanted a dollar to go to the government fund but now I don't.
Why should a wealthy individual's or a corporation's point of view be more important than any other citizen's just because they can afford to dump a large sum of money into their favorite pocket-politician's war chest?
Who is responsible if a corporate lackey is elected" Aren't the voters responsible?
After the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case, where the city of New London used eminent domain to condemn homeowners' property to give the land to a large corporation, people throughout the US protested. Because of the outcry some cities and states made it much harder to use eminent domain to condemn property. People deserve it if they elect corporate politicians. I wonder how many of those politicians who okayed the condemnation in the Kelo case are still in office now.
You seem to be insinuating that somehow "big government" gave birth to the corporate aristocracy. No. Most of what laissez-faire types call "big government" is just an attempt to put some control on the aristocracy.
No big government didn't give birth to the corporate aristocracy but it did give them power. And it's usually big businesses who create regulations that are supposed to control them. Instead however regulations usually drive up costs to reduce or keep out competition. Want to start a lawn care business? Some states require a license as do some counties and cities. Heck in elementary school I was mowing neighbors' grass for spending money. The only reason to have a regulation requiring me to have a license or be certified is to prevent me from doing lawn care.
My contention is that the common use of anonymity on internet message blogs and such is actually making it easier for the rise of things like fascism.
It also makes it easier for others to make corrections. Even news organizations have issued corrections when someone in the blogosphere points out they're wrong.
You don't fight bad speech by regulating it, you fight it by making it easer for others to correct bad information. That's and allowing people to sue for false advertising.
From my point of view (which is admittedly probably limited) it seems like the entities that use it the most are corporations and special interest groups which always seem to be using it to push their rather self-serving agendas that aren't always for the public's good.
Corporations should not be allowed to lobby. Special interest groups are usually formed by citizens. The National Audubon Society is a special interest group. So is the AMA, Consumers Union, and the Shriners.
I suppose when I was talking about "legalized bribes" I was speaking more of things like campaign donations (which definitely need to be gotten rid of)
I shouldn't be allowed to make a campaign donation to a candidate I support? You'd make all those millions of dollars Obama and Ron Paul raised illegal? So only those who are independently wealthy can run for a political office? Does political speech mean nothing them? Who then pays for campaigns? Taxpayers? I certainly don't want any money I work to earn to go to either Hillary or McCain so they can be elected. I'd rather be able to willingly donate to those I support.
If such disclosure materially affects the reader's interpretation of a web post then that post was deliberately attempting to deceive and they get no sympathy from me.
"He's a paid shill, I don't believe a word he says." Does that count? Or only pro product reviews? And what if the reviewer is being paid by someone other than the maker or seller? Say I get paid to write a review for Consumer Reports, should I have to disclose it?
Deception, lying in other words, is not okay whatever some people might like to think.
And of course if you're paid you're a liar. It must be wonderful being independently wealthy so you can pay for everything yourself.
And don't try to say I'll let businesses do whatever they want to make a profit, right here on slashdot I have railed against businesses and repeatedly said corporations should have their charters, which grant the corporation it's limited liability, revoked when they do not serve the common or public good.
And let me direct you to Thomas Jefferson's quote on standing armies. He even warned against the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations". Of course now that we have big government we have the corporate aristocracy as well.
Business buys whatever it wants, including firearms, governments, and public opinion.
Businesses buying firearms? Sure but how many businesses do you see brandishing firearms against people? Government? It only matters if businesses buy government when said government is big and powerful. A small and weak government doesn't have much to offer businesses. Businesses buying public opinion? Sure, businesses can buy some people's opinion, those who can't think for themselves or who are greedy. However people have to power to force businesses to their will. Do you really think apartheid would have ended in South Africa without strong public opinion? Quite simply stockholders big and small forced the corporations they owned shares in to either actively oppose apartheid or to pull out of South Africa, to disinvest.
Even major US corporations are changing, or seeming to. Look at the top 10 companies in the US at least trying to greenwash themselves. One of those is GE with it's $90 million "Ecomagination" advertising campaign. Now I'm not saying all of them are actually trying to clean up, I bet many are only trying to hoodwink the public (where do you think Greenwash comes from?), but with shareholders pushing some corporations are trying to do good.
However what that Huffington Post article does not say is that in the US the government is by far the biggest polluter. Governments routinely exempt themselves from laws they pass. Weak governments don't have that ability.
Actually, they don't say "blog" at all, they say "endorser". If you're an "endorser", it doesn't matter if you're online or not, and you're endorsing a product, and you got compensated for endorsing that product, you need to state so.
What if you review, and get paid to, products or services and you give good or bad reviews do you need a disclaimer? Say a gaming website pays me to review games, do I need to state I'm paid no matter if I hype or denigrate it? Or if I post reviews on a blog that has Google ads, do I need the disclaimer?
Posting a positive review of a product on your facebook page isn't required to have a disclaimer or anything else, unless someone paid you for that review.
And what if you're paid to review something whether the review is good or bad? If I have a blog I post reviews on and I accept Google ads should I need a disclaimer? How about if I start a website like Daily KOS or Huffington Post and someone starts paying me do I need to have the disclaimer? In more than one ruling the US Supreme Court ruled that anonymity was an important prerequisite to political speech.
In that case, just don't bring motherfucking pot on a motherfucking plane.:)
A British citizen flying to Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean was arrested in a US airport because he ran an online casino from Antigua and Barbuda that took bets from the US. In a case Antigua brought against the US however the WTO ruled Antigua could level a US$21 million sanction against the US for criminalizing online offshore gaming when online onshore gambling is allowed. As part of the ruling Antigua had the right to disregard intellectual property obligations to the US. They could have for instance copied and distributed legal copies of MS Windows Vista without paying Microsoft for licenses.
That US$21 million was far less than Antigua asked for, which was US$3.5 billion.
IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.
I'm not suggesting open source is against a free market.
You may not but others have equated it with communism.
I'm just suggesting it is pretty stupid for most engineers and scientists to engage in as a dominant model of their trade.
Scientists have to, science is built on science. That is the work one scientist does depends on work scientists did before. Even Isaac Newton depended on previous scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
But corporations are. The whole point of corporations is that both shareholders and executive are insulated from certain liabilities that enable them to do things a private person legally could not.
No, corporations were given corporate charters, which grants that limited liability, only if they served the common or public good. Businesses were given limited liability if it was thought the business would help people. The first two corporations given charters, specifically for this reason, was the British East India Company the Dutch East India Company. Corporations have had their corporate charters revoked because they no longer served the public good. Petitioners requested Unocal have it's charter revoked after it supported the military in Burma in forcing Karen tribesmen to vacate land they owned and to work as porters and in other low wage positions for Unocal.
Falcon
The reason is that they will get the patent laws looked at for what they are: INSANE
What makes you think patent laws will be looked at now when they weren't looked at after RIM was sued by NTP over the Blackberry? Even politicians and the wealthy used Blackberries but did they force a review of patent laws? Nope! The US Justice Department even filed a brief in support of RIM, knowing full well that government workers used Blackberries for work. The US Department of Defense (DOD) even stated they were crucial for national security. RIM eventually had to pay NTP $612.5 million (USD).
No matter how many slashdotters have wishful dreams I doubt this case will precipitate a reexamination of patent laws.
Falcon
they're just doing what is legally possible.
They are the bad people here. Would you apply that to someone who goes around killing people if the laws allowed it? The law allows it so he's not bad. I bet a bunch of survivors of the NAZIs, Pot Pol, Sadam, and Rwanda would disagree.
Falcon
Talk about the ultimate drain on society being upheld by the government... we need to vote against the judges and politicians that allow this to happen under their watch.
We can vote against politicians but not federal judges. Federal judges have to be impeached, and here's list of federal judges who have been investigated for impeachment. Since 1796 some 70 cases have been investigated.
Falcon
patents.
We can dream. But no, I don't think this will do it. We've had others that were supposed to be the end of software patents, such as Eolas vs Microsoft, but weren't. Perhaps if enough of us write to our senators and reps they will get off their collective asses and do something.
Falcon
How the hell do you even know if your computer works or not if you don't try to actually turn it on, and thus notice that it does not exist?
Not everyone turns their computers off for various reasons. I've had people tell me they have not turned their computer off but left it running for months.
Falcon
do you think he'd complain that the car wouldn't start? No, he'd file a police report that someone stole his engine.
That would require actually opening the hood and looking to see the engine missing, how many people do that? How many don't call AAA or a tow truck before opening the hood?
Falcon
...people still scream in joy in this place whenever MS gets sued by some patent troll....
Oh, really? Back when the Eolas case against MS was being discussed on slashdot I don't recall anybody supporting Eolas though a number supported MS.
Falcon
Or to collect sales taxes. Or to make sure you're not exploiting employees, or hiring undocumented workers.
Not every state has sales tax on services. Of those that do, how many include grass mowing or lawn care? Boy, I must be abusing myself cutting grass. I guess I'd better run the neighborhood kid's SSN through the system to make sure he isn't undocumented. While I'm at it I might as well collect income, FICA, and other taxes so I can remit them to the IRS as well.
Is it some great conspiracy if the kid gets caught up in the regulations meant for the large landscaping company, some deliberate attempt to keep the kid from mowing lawns? No
Yes it is, well maybe not a "great conspiracy". It takes little effort to include the phrase "teenagers mowing neighbors" lawns are exempted" or some such.
Falcon
Is that all? Excellent! In that case I think that I can cite an example of prior art.
Tim Berners-Lee the inventor of the web submitted prior art but Eolas' patent was still upheld. The Texas court is corrupt, and therefore does not deserve respect.
Falcon
It means that, once again, the USPTO's employee drug-testing policy has failed us all.
Just the opposite. If you're high, you're going to read their patent app, chuckle, grab a handful of cheetoes, and throw it in a box never to be seen from again.
You explain why the drug testing policy failed, if it hadn't been for testing patent applications wouldn't of been rubber stamped.
Falcon
he basically just made a few of his personal opinions anonymously on usenet. Nothing that could ever drag stock prices down.
Overblown? I don't know. If what was said was his opinion that's one thing but if he lied that's something else. And it is possible to drive stock prices up or down based merely on public opinion. In a rational market public opinion wouldn't affect stock prices but we do not have a rational market. Frequently investors see a rise or drop in stock prices when earning are higher or lower in a report than was forecast.
Falcon
IMO the political parties all need to start on equal ground. Would it really be that bad to have a tax that went into a fund that got split up and given to all of the candidates at the beginning of the campaign?
Equal opportunity not outcome. And yes it would be bad, I want the ability to decide for myself who I will support otherwise I'm not free. I used to be one of those who checked the box on tax forms saying I wanted a dollar to go to the government fund but now I don't.
Why should a wealthy individual's or a corporation's point of view be more important than any other citizen's just because they can afford to dump a large sum of money into their favorite pocket-politician's war chest?
Who is responsible if a corporate lackey is elected" Aren't the voters responsible?
After the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case, where the city of New London used eminent domain to condemn homeowners' property to give the land to a large corporation, people throughout the US protested. Because of the outcry some cities and states made it much harder to use eminent domain to condemn property. People deserve it if they elect corporate politicians. I wonder how many of those politicians who okayed the condemnation in the Kelo case are still in office now.
Falcon
You seem to be insinuating that somehow "big government" gave birth to the corporate aristocracy. No. Most of what laissez-faire types call "big government" is just an attempt to put some control on the aristocracy.
No big government didn't give birth to the corporate aristocracy but it did give them power. And it's usually big businesses who create regulations that are supposed to control them. Instead however regulations usually drive up costs to reduce or keep out competition. Want to start a lawn care business? Some states require a license as do some counties and cities. Heck in elementary school I was mowing neighbors' grass for spending money. The only reason to have a regulation requiring me to have a license or be certified is to prevent me from doing lawn care.
Falcon
My contention is that the common use of anonymity on internet message blogs and such is actually making it easier for the rise of things like fascism.
It also makes it easier for others to make corrections. Even news organizations have issued corrections when someone in the blogosphere points out they're wrong.
You don't fight bad speech by regulating it, you fight it by making it easer for others to correct bad information. That's and allowing people to sue for false advertising.
Falcon
From my point of view (which is admittedly probably limited) it seems like the entities that use it the most are corporations and special interest groups which always seem to be using it to push their rather self-serving agendas that aren't always for the public's good.
Corporations should not be allowed to lobby. Special interest groups are usually formed by citizens. The National Audubon Society is a special interest group. So is the AMA, Consumers Union, and the Shriners.
I suppose when I was talking about "legalized bribes" I was speaking more of things like campaign donations (which definitely need to be gotten rid of)
I shouldn't be allowed to make a campaign donation to a candidate I support? You'd make all those millions of dollars Obama and Ron Paul raised illegal? So only those who are independently wealthy can run for a political office? Does political speech mean nothing them? Who then pays for campaigns? Taxpayers? I certainly don't want any money I work to earn to go to either Hillary or McCain so they can be elected. I'd rather be able to willingly donate to those I support.
Falcon
If such disclosure materially affects the reader's interpretation of a web post then that post was deliberately attempting to deceive and they get no sympathy from me.
"He's a paid shill, I don't believe a word he says." Does that count? Or only pro product reviews? And what if the reviewer is being paid by someone other than the maker or seller? Say I get paid to write a review for Consumer Reports, should I have to disclose it?
Deception, lying in other words, is not okay whatever some people might like to think.
And of course if you're paid you're a liar. It must be wonderful being independently wealthy so you can pay for everything yourself.
And don't try to say I'll let businesses do whatever they want to make a profit, right here on slashdot I have railed against businesses and repeatedly said corporations should have their charters, which grant the corporation it's limited liability, revoked when they do not serve the common or public good.
Falcon
Let me also direct you to the use of the historical use of the army and National Guard as strike busters.
And let me direct you to Thomas Jefferson's quote on standing armies. He even warned against the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations". Of course now that we have big government we have the corporate aristocracy as well.
Falcon
Business buys whatever it wants, including firearms, governments, and public opinion.
Businesses buying firearms? Sure but how many businesses do you see brandishing firearms against people? Government? It only matters if businesses buy government when said government is big and powerful. A small and weak government doesn't have much to offer businesses. Businesses buying public opinion? Sure, businesses can buy some people's opinion, those who can't think for themselves or who are greedy. However people have to power to force businesses to their will. Do you really think apartheid would have ended in South Africa without strong public opinion? Quite simply stockholders big and small forced the corporations they owned shares in to either actively oppose apartheid or to pull out of South Africa, to disinvest.
Even major US corporations are changing, or seeming to. Look at the top 10 companies in the US at least trying to greenwash themselves. One of those is GE with it's $90 million "Ecomagination" advertising campaign. Now I'm not saying all of them are actually trying to clean up, I bet many are only trying to hoodwink the public (where do you think Greenwash comes from?), but with shareholders pushing some corporations are trying to do good.
However what that Huffington Post article does not say is that in the US the government is by far the biggest polluter. Governments routinely exempt themselves from laws they pass. Weak governments don't have that ability.
Falcon
I can't believe they're doing this. I don't care if a review is paid or not.
It's not just reviews. It's any paid endorsement. It's great.
As long as a review is factual it's terrible. If readers can't make up their own minds, it's not the reviewer's problem.
Falcon
Actually, they don't say "blog" at all, they say "endorser". If you're an "endorser", it doesn't matter if you're online or not, and you're endorsing a product, and you got compensated for endorsing that product, you need to state so.
What if you review, and get paid to, products or services and you give good or bad reviews do you need a disclaimer? Say a gaming website pays me to review games, do I need to state I'm paid no matter if I hype or denigrate it? Or if I post reviews on a blog that has Google ads, do I need the disclaimer?
Falcon
Posting a positive review of a product on your facebook page isn't required to have a disclaimer or anything else, unless someone paid you for that review.
And what if you're paid to review something whether the review is good or bad? If I have a blog I post reviews on and I accept Google ads should I need a disclaimer? How about if I start a website like Daily KOS or Huffington Post and someone starts paying me do I need to have the disclaimer? In more than one ruling the US Supreme Court ruled that anonymity was an important prerequisite to political speech.
Falcon
In that case, just don't bring motherfucking pot on a motherfucking plane. :)
A British citizen flying to Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean was arrested in a US airport because he ran an online casino from Antigua and Barbuda that took bets from the US. In a case Antigua brought against the US however the WTO ruled Antigua could level a US$21 million sanction against the US for criminalizing online offshore gaming when online onshore gambling is allowed. As part of the ruling Antigua had the right to disregard intellectual property obligations to the US. They could have for instance copied and distributed legal copies of MS Windows Vista without paying Microsoft for licenses.
That US$21 million was far less than Antigua asked for, which was US$3.5 billion.
Falcon
IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.
Citizens shouldn't actively influence politics?
Falcon
I'm not suggesting open source is against a free market.
You may not but others have equated it with communism.
I'm just suggesting it is pretty stupid for most engineers and scientists to engage in as a dominant model of their trade.
Scientists have to, science is built on science. That is the work one scientist does depends on work scientists did before. Even Isaac Newton depended on previous scientists.
Falcon