That may well be so, but there have been specific requirements in the GPL/LGPL that restrict usage of GPL/LGPL'd software that in no way relate to copyright; these requirements so broadly degrade the scope of the "freedom" that is the main talking point for the GPL that the license is of no interest to me except as an example of how not to distribute software.
Yea that's why I think BSD style licenses are freer and I prefer them. For instance a person can take BSD code and close the source they add to it. If I'm right all that's required is proper attribution of those who contributed code. The original code is still available but you can close your own code.
After reading on and on in the GPL about what you have to do, what you can't do, what you have to accept, etc., I am left completely without any feeling that I've been given something "free", or, were I to adopt it for my own work, that I would be creating something "free."
The way I look at it is the GPL's freedom is for users not programmers, there are just too many restrictions on programmers in it.
I'm 100% guilty of carrying forward the attitude I started with back in the 1960's, where software was a fabulously interesting thing that we shared with each other without any thought whatsoever for moderating that behavior because the other party might actually make use of it.
Ah, it was in part because of the hackers and their culture in the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT as well as the hardware hackers on the West Coast in the 1970s that in high school I wanted go into computer research. I wanted to be a hardware and a software hacker.
On that basis, entire magazines existed that shared code, talked about various design issues, laid out hardware designs, etc.
I recall a few magazines from the '70s but not many. "Creative Computing", "Interface Age", and my fav "Byte" I recall but that's it. I especially loved Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" and Steve Ciarcia's "Circuit Cellar" columns. The one computer magazine I wish were still in print is "Byte".
I REALLY think Microsoft, Best Buy, AT&T, Exxon-Mobil, you-name-it would be more circumspect in their dealings if a death penalty was an option for certain outragious acts by the corporation.
It used to be that corporations could have their charters, limited liability, revoked. Originally corporate charters were only granted if the corporation served the public or common good. The first 2 corporate charters I know of that were granted was granted to Honourable East India Company in 1600 and Dutch East India Company in 1602 for this very reason. Both were shipping companies and owned ships that carried cargo between India and south Asia, and Europe and the New world. Back then shipping was a risky business between ships wrecking or sinking due to weather and having ships attacked by pirates. When one of these happened the ship owner was liable for both the cargo and the sailors. Loosing one ship could bankrupt an owner. So the British and Netherlands started granting corporate charters which limited liability. If someone invested in a corporate shipper all they were liable for is the amount they invested, they wouldn't lose everything including their home, unless they used their home as collateral. This served the public good as it increased trade.
However Thomas Jefferson foresaw the problem corporations have become: "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." Writing to George Logan on November 12, 1816 he wrote:
"We have already reached the point where the "moneyed corporations" no longer feel any need to "challenge" the government. They have already fully integrated themselves into it. The executive branch is already peopled by corporate men, the law makers find it nearly impossible to be elected without corporate financing and the administrators of the regulatory agencies (such as the SEC) are selected by an executive branch whose main concern is to avoid any threat to the corporate world's ability to act unilaterally and without serious regulation of any kind."
car accidents are special---as the car insurance corp is obligated to pay your medical care (irrelevant of whose fault it is) if you apply within a certain timeframe of the accident
I was a college student riding my bike and didn't have car insurance, why would I need car insurance if I weren't driving? And as for health insurance I was a college student and couldn't afford to pay for my own insurance.
and it would be the first thing they setup. most states also have a thing for hit and run type of accidents, to which car insurance corps pool money
Again, I wasn't driving and didn't have any insurance.
and paying a lawyer to collect evidence instead of going to one of them `lawyer gets paid only if you win' lawyers is just...amm...weird.
Neither I nor my family paid the lawyer to collect evidence, he paid his costs out of pocket.
The only reason my family was able to hire an attorney was because he took the case on contingency.
and paying 100k to a lawyer is just stupid. median salary for a lawyer employed at a lawfirm is ~90k a year. in other words, the lawyer was taking advantage of your situation.
He, well they because he partnered with another law firm, got 1/3 of the settlement.
sorry, and I hope you're well.
Having survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, I now have a permanent disability. At the tyme of the accident, as stated above, I was a college student, majoring in Computer Engineering. While living in a rehab house, I had to move into it when I left the hospital to learn how to live and take care of myself, I came to find out how bad my memory was damaged. Even after taking all the math classes needed for the degree I found out I couldn't do a simply calc problem a first semester calc student could do less than half way through the class. Thinking I'll just have to repeat all those classes a year later I started taking classes again. It didn't take long for me to realize the simplest classes would be a struggle for me. Forget a PhD, which is what I wanted to get, a BS degree would be real hard.
Lack of education and professional skills shuts out a lot of jobs, so what's left? Manual labor jobs. However I'm shut out of many of these jobs as well because I tire easily now. Whereas before I was able to work in construction 50 hours a week, for three years I worked in construction full tyme while taking classes when I could, now I tire after a couple of hours of manual labor.
While I "survived" the accident, the docs told my family it's be a miracle if I lived, I wish I hadn't. As far as I'm concerned it would have been better if I had died, my life is a living hell.
Like the Reason article you're overlooking the fact that unlike the US many other countries have single payer or universal health insurance.
And many don't, yet still have a working loser pays system. This is an insignificant objection.
What countries are these? As for insignificant objects, I seriously doubt that. While in college and without health insurance I was hit by someone who should not have been driving. While I was in a coma my family hired an attorney for compensation from the driver's employer, he was working driving his employer owned vehicle. If we had had a loser pays system then I doubt my family would have hired the attorney, my family is low income and not wealthy. This would have been real bad for me, not only were my medical bills more than $120,000 but I am now a survivor of a permanent disability, a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI.
should have clarified that i wouldn't count any money not directly spent (lawyers working pro bono/on contingency). they spent $0 of their own money on the lawyer, so in my example, they would be liable for exactly $0 in the defendant's legal fees if they were to lose. being as no sensible lawyer would take a frivolous case on contingency (it's simply a bad risk), that should be safe from abuse.
Ok. As it was in my case their insurance decided to settle with the amount of the coverage before going to trial. What I have trouble understanding about it, maybe it's my injury which is a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI, was that even though they chose to settle the judge in the case still had to approve it.
The fact that loser pays works virtually everywhere else really calls into question the validity of most anti-loser pays arguments.
Like the Reason article you're overlooking the fact that unlike the US many other countries have single payer or universal health insurance. If you're hurt in an accident that you did not cause under a loser pays system you can end up with hugh bills.
The most significant thing that would curtail frivolous lawsuits in this country would be the requirement that whoever loses a case or drops out has to pay all of the legal fees.
I hope you never get hurt in an accident that not your fault. I was and my medical bills were more than $120,000 not including the more than 1 year I spent in therapy.
I don't like saying this, but faced between surrendering, even if I was in the right, and losing everything I've worked for this last 15 years, I wouldn't even hesitate.
Have you thought of the possibility that if you settle you're making yourself a target for the next entity that wants to sue you? "Hey, he's paid once, maybe we can get him to pay us as well."
I am also for the corporate death penalty for the RIAA and others that abuse the legal system for profit. I think they should forfeit their charter, have their assets sold at public auction, and their board of directors forbiden from ever serving on another board of directors.
a sensible manner (which is used in some places, i believe) would be something like equal claimable fees. if you (the plaintiff) spend $1000 on your lawyer and you lose, you won't have to pay more than $1000 worth of legal fees to the defendant (and the $1000 to your lawyer, of course). if you win, they pay your legal fees ($1000) and whatever they spent on (a) lawyer(s). this would also have the effect of making it less viable to attempt russian army tactics by throwing 30 high priced lawyers at you.
And what if your attorney spends more? One day riding my bike after classes I had in college I was hit by a moving van. While in a coma my family hired an attorney, and in the first 3 months he spent $100,000 of his own money gathering evidence. My parents are low income and the only reason my family could hire an attorney was because he took it on contingency, 1/3 of the award. If my family could be held to paying the defendant's legal bills I doubt they would have hired the lawyer, and as it was we had a pretty good case because the person who hit me had a record of causing accidents, and witnesses had to chase the person down after he hit me.
I can see why people argue that having the losing side shoulder all legal fees is a bad idea (even if I'm not sure I necessarily agree), but if somebody sues YOU and then just drops the case later on before there's actually any decision, why shouldn't they be required to reimburse you for the trouble they caused you for absolutely no reason at all? I'm not talking about millions in damages, but paying your lawyer fees and so on would be the least you'd expect.
I can see, like in this case, the person or entity that brought the lawsuit paying for the defendant's legal bills if the plaintiff drops the case. But I disagree with loser pays if it goes to trial. Poor Joe Smoe may not have a solid case they can show the defendant was responsible, especially when high priced defendant's attorneys may be able to convince the jury Joe deserved it.
If any of what you claim in your post were true, then we wouldn't see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries (which is essentially, the whole civilized world apart from the US and a few other countries).
However that Reason article does not take into consideration the fact that European nations has single payer or universal health insurance whereas the US does not. Some injured in an accident in France say with a disability will still have health coverage, even if they lose a laqwsuit. I live in the US and survived an injury which is now a permanent disability. And because of the injury I have been denied health insurance even though "I" "won" a lawsuit. Now I'm pretty sure my family would not have filed the lawsuit if they had known that if the case was lost they would have had to pay the defendants' legal bills. As it was, the lawyer representing me spent more than $100,000 out of pocket and my medical bills were more than $120,000. And that does not count more than a year's therapy, when last in therapy I was in it 15 hours a week and it cost $100 an hour.
I noticed one big problem with TFA, European nations have universal or single payer health insurance. The US does not. Because of an injury a survived due to an accident I have been denied health insurance. Unlike where in the US even if you win a lawsuit you can be denied health insurnace, in Europe even losers still have health coverage. Loser pay may work in the US if the US had single payer health insurance however as a libertarian foundation Reason opposes single payer health insurance.
The best solution is that you pay an amount based on your own legal costs.
I was involved in a civil lawsuit myself. While I was in a coma after being hit while riding my bike my family hired an attorney. In the first 3 months he spent $100,000 of his own money on the case.
Similarly, if you want to sue a large corp, and you spend $2k on a lawyer, they can only get back what you paid for your lawyer, meaning $2k (even if they spend $20k defending their case).
They'll either have to get cheaper lawyers, or stop suing folks.
I was hit by a moving van and while in a coma my family hired an attorney. In the first 3 months he spend $100,000 on collecting evidence. My medical bills came to more than $120,000. Now what's the likelihood my family would have hired a lawyer when if the case was lost we would have had to pay the defendants' attorneys' $100,000 plus my medical bills?
The problem is, if we change the rules so that the successful defendant AUTOMATICALLY gets their legal fees, the precedent will not be restricted to RIAA cases, and the chilling effect on consumers may well be "bad"
The problem is is these cases are already bad. How many people can afford to pay a lawyer when sued by the RIAA? On the other hand how many people would file suit if they had to pay the defendant's costs if they lose? Luckily "I" didn't face having to pay the defendant's attorney fees if I lost but when while riding my bike after class in college I was hit by a moving van. While I was in a coma my family hired an attorney to sue the employer of the van's driver, and by the tyme I first met him 3 months later he had already paid more than $100,000 out of pocket for the case. I don't know how much he paid in the end but my medical bills were more than $120,000.
If that's Microsoft's position, than clearly this organization is just another profiteer.
And a polluter which causes some of the problems the foundation is supposedly working to alleviate. It's one of the investors in the Italian petroleum giant Eni which has a bad environmental record.
Okay, so in the strictest sense of the terms, he's probably right. Software development isn't a charity.
Free Software (GPL/LGPL) is definitely not a charity, it's a give and take trading system. You put in, and you get out, and it largely self-improves through feedback, patches, bug reports, etc.
BSD comes closer, but still required attribution in the past, and of course, the developers were (back in the day) originally producing it as part of various university projects (ie, they get status in return), and more recently, are developing it as for-profit work, but are releasing it. Again, not charity.
Putting it that way there is no charity. Not even the Bill and Mellisa Gate Foundation is charity.
"Do as I say and not as I do shall be the whole of the law".
I don't know if he said that but it sounds like him. And this reverses the saying in Kabalism as well as Wicca, in Wicca: "An it harm none so mote it be."
What Microsoft - and the GPL-fans, for that matter - have oh-so-conveniently forgotten is the mechanism of PD software. Write it, share it, go on with your life. The more people do that, the more useful things will get created. Personally, I find the GPL just as corrosive as software patents, and for very similar reasons. I try to stay away from both. But that's just me.
Actually the only reason the GPL exists is because copyrights exist, if copyrights didn't exist the GPL wouldn't either. It it called copyleft for a reason.
What Microsoft says is technically true though. Yes, there are many developers who write code for no money, but at the same time, I don't know anyone who does it entirely for selfless, charitable reasons.
Perhaps this makes a good koan. Actually I doubt anyone does charity for selfless reasons. In one way or another everyone who donates, money or tyme and effort, to charity gets something out of it.
Many of the most active open source coders are poster children for being self absorbed. It's just that, instead of being self absorbed with money and material possessions, they prefer to be paid in the form of being well known, having prestige, and generally getting their ego stroked.
Ah but they don't need software patents to do so. The only reason for software patents now is what the SA minister says, as an anticompetitive measure to keep out competition. Unfortunately though TFA doesn't really have much to say, especially on what MS said about software patents. For the reasons you list people will write software without patents. On the other hand software patents are used by businesses with large patent portfolios as a bludgeon to hold over others' heads to reduce and eliminate competition.
Many others program just to stick it to the man because they have some sort of grudge against govt. or corporations, and others because they simply want lots and lots of software for free (thinking if they give theirs away, others will too). Stallman probably fits into both of these camps.
Within reason, it shouldn't matter why software is written, only that software that people find helpful, useful, or fun is written and people can afford it.
The thing the Africans need to realize is that most programmers prefer to get money in exchange for their coding, and if you don't allow patents, and therefore don't allow programmers to get money in exchange for coding, you have cut off about 98% of your source of new code.
Not even programmers need patents to get paid. Many software businesses exist without any need for patents. Programmers get paid for the tyme they spend programming. If a business wants to protect their source code then they can issue binary code without source code. If someone copies and distributes the program to others then they are infringing on copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
That may well be so, but there have been specific requirements in the GPL/LGPL that restrict usage of GPL/LGPL'd software that in no way relate to copyright; these requirements so broadly degrade the scope of the "freedom" that is the main talking point for the GPL that the license is of no interest to me except as an example of how not to distribute software.
Yea that's why I think BSD style licenses are freer and I prefer them. For instance a person can take BSD code and close the source they add to it. If I'm right all that's required is proper attribution of those who contributed code. The original code is still available but you can close your own code.
After reading on and on in the GPL about what you have to do, what you can't do, what you have to accept, etc., I am left completely without any feeling that I've been given something "free", or, were I to adopt it for my own work, that I would be creating something "free."
The way I look at it is the GPL's freedom is for users not programmers, there are just too many restrictions on programmers in it.
I'm 100% guilty of carrying forward the attitude I started with back in the 1960's, where software was a fabulously interesting thing that we shared with each other without any thought whatsoever for moderating that behavior because the other party might actually make use of it.
Ah, it was in part because of the hackers and their culture in the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT as well as the hardware hackers on the West Coast in the 1970s that in high school I wanted go into computer research. I wanted to be a hardware and a software hacker.
On that basis, entire magazines existed that shared code, talked about various design issues, laid out hardware designs, etc.
I recall a few magazines from the '70s but not many. "Creative Computing", "Interface Age", and my fav "Byte" I recall but that's it. I especially loved Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" and Steve Ciarcia's "Circuit Cellar" columns. The one computer magazine I wish were still in print is "Byte".
Yeah, I'm an old hippie. :-)
Same here except smoking marijuana.
FalconI REALLY think Microsoft, Best Buy, AT&T, Exxon-Mobil, you-name-it would be more circumspect in their dealings if a death penalty was an option for certain outragious acts by the corporation.
It used to be that corporations could have their charters, limited liability, revoked. Originally corporate charters were only granted if the corporation served the public or common good. The first 2 corporate charters I know of that were granted was granted to Honourable East India Company in 1600 and Dutch East India Company in 1602 for this very reason. Both were shipping companies and owned ships that carried cargo between India and south Asia, and Europe and the New world. Back then shipping was a risky business between ships wrecking or sinking due to weather and having ships attacked by pirates. When one of these happened the ship owner was liable for both the cargo and the sailors. Loosing one ship could bankrupt an owner. So the British and Netherlands started granting corporate charters which limited liability. If someone invested in a corporate shipper all they were liable for is the amount they invested, they wouldn't lose everything including their home, unless they used their home as collateral. This served the public good as it increased trade.
However Thomas Jefferson foresaw the problem corporations have become: "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." Writing to George Logan on November 12, 1816 he wrote:
"We have already reached the point where the "moneyed corporations" no longer feel any need to "challenge" the government. They have already fully integrated themselves into it. The executive branch is already peopled by corporate men, the law makers find it nearly impossible to be elected without corporate financing and the administrators of the regulatory agencies (such as the SEC) are selected by an executive branch whose main concern is to avoid any threat to the corporate world's ability to act unilaterally and without serious regulation of any kind."
Falconcar accidents are special---as the car insurance corp is obligated to pay your medical care (irrelevant of whose fault it is) if you apply within a certain timeframe of the accident
I was a college student riding my bike and didn't have car insurance, why would I need car insurance if I weren't driving? And as for health insurance I was a college student and couldn't afford to pay for my own insurance.
and it would be the first thing they setup. most states also have a thing for hit and run type of accidents, to which car insurance corps pool money
Again, I wasn't driving and didn't have any insurance.
and paying a lawyer to collect evidence instead of going to one of them `lawyer gets paid only if you win' lawyers is just...amm...weird.
Neither I nor my family paid the lawyer to collect evidence, he paid his costs out of pocket.
The only reason my family was able to hire an attorney was because he took the case on contingency.
and paying 100k to a lawyer is just stupid. median salary for a lawyer employed at a lawfirm is ~90k a year. in other words, the lawyer was taking advantage of your situation.
He, well they because he partnered with another law firm, got 1/3 of the settlement.
sorry, and I hope you're well.
Having survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, I now have a permanent disability. At the tyme of the accident, as stated above, I was a college student, majoring in Computer Engineering. While living in a rehab house, I had to move into it when I left the hospital to learn how to live and take care of myself, I came to find out how bad my memory was damaged. Even after taking all the math classes needed for the degree I found out I couldn't do a simply calc problem a first semester calc student could do less than half way through the class. Thinking I'll just have to repeat all those classes a year later I started taking classes again. It didn't take long for me to realize the simplest classes would be a struggle for me. Forget a PhD, which is what I wanted to get, a BS degree would be real hard.
Lack of education and professional skills shuts out a lot of jobs, so what's left? Manual labor jobs. However I'm shut out of many of these jobs as well because I tire easily now. Whereas before I was able to work in construction 50 hours a week, for three years I worked in construction full tyme while taking classes when I could, now I tire after a couple of hours of manual labor.
While I "survived" the accident, the docs told my family it's be a miracle if I lived, I wish I hadn't. As far as I'm concerned it would have been better if I had died, my life is a living hell.
FalconLike the Reason article you're overlooking the fact that unlike the US many other countries have single payer or universal health insurance.
And many don't, yet still have a working loser pays system. This is an insignificant objection.
What countries are these? As for insignificant objects, I seriously doubt that. While in college and without health insurance I was hit by someone who should not have been driving. While I was in a coma my family hired an attorney for compensation from the driver's employer, he was working driving his employer owned vehicle. If we had had a loser pays system then I doubt my family would have hired the attorney, my family is low income and not wealthy. This would have been real bad for me, not only were my medical bills more than $120,000 but I am now a survivor of a permanent disability, a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI.
FalconList two software innovations done by Microsoft, done by not bought by Microsoft.
1. Clippy
2. MS Bob
Now that I think of it, I'd add Activation. However none of these are progress.
Falconshould have clarified that i wouldn't count any money not directly spent (lawyers working pro bono/on contingency). they spent $0 of their own money on the lawyer, so in my example, they would be liable for exactly $0 in the defendant's legal fees if they were to lose. being as no sensible lawyer would take a frivolous case on contingency (it's simply a bad risk), that should be safe from abuse.
Ok. As it was in my case their insurance decided to settle with the amount of the coverage before going to trial. What I have trouble understanding about it, maybe it's my injury which is a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI, was that even though they chose to settle the judge in the case still had to approve it.
FalconThe fact that loser pays works virtually everywhere else really calls into question the validity of most anti-loser pays arguments.
Like the Reason article you're overlooking the fact that unlike the US many other countries have single payer or universal health insurance. If you're hurt in an accident that you did not cause under a loser pays system you can end up with hugh bills.
FalconThe most significant thing that would curtail frivolous lawsuits in this country would be the requirement that whoever loses a case or drops out has to pay all of the legal fees.
I hope you never get hurt in an accident that not your fault. I was and my medical bills were more than $120,000 not including the more than 1 year I spent in therapy.
FalconI don't like saying this, but faced between surrendering, even if I was in the right, and losing everything I've worked for this last 15 years, I wouldn't even hesitate.
Have you thought of the possibility that if you settle you're making yourself a target for the next entity that wants to sue you? "Hey, he's paid once, maybe we can get him to pay us as well."
FalconI am also for the corporate death penalty for the RIAA and others that abuse the legal system for profit. I think they should forfeit their charter, have their assets sold at public auction, and their board of directors forbiden from ever serving on another board of directors.
Ah, so you know about the revocation of corporate charters?
Falcona sensible manner (which is used in some places, i believe) would be something like equal claimable fees. if you (the plaintiff) spend $1000 on your lawyer and you lose, you won't have to pay more than $1000 worth of legal fees to the defendant (and the $1000 to your lawyer, of course). if you win, they pay your legal fees ($1000) and whatever they spent on (a) lawyer(s). this would also have the effect of making it less viable to attempt russian army tactics by throwing 30 high priced lawyers at you.
And what if your attorney spends more? One day riding my bike after classes I had in college I was hit by a moving van. While in a coma my family hired an attorney, and in the first 3 months he spent $100,000 of his own money gathering evidence. My parents are low income and the only reason my family could hire an attorney was because he took it on contingency, 1/3 of the award. If my family could be held to paying the defendant's legal bills I doubt they would have hired the lawyer, and as it was we had a pretty good case because the person who hit me had a record of causing accidents, and witnesses had to chase the person down after he hit me.
FalconI can see why people argue that having the losing side shoulder all legal fees is a bad idea (even if I'm not sure I necessarily agree), but if somebody sues YOU and then just drops the case later on before there's actually any decision, why shouldn't they be required to reimburse you for the trouble they caused you for absolutely no reason at all? I'm not talking about millions in damages, but paying your lawyer fees and so on would be the least you'd expect.
I can see, like in this case, the person or entity that brought the lawsuit paying for the defendant's legal bills if the plaintiff drops the case. But I disagree with loser pays if it goes to trial. Poor Joe Smoe may not have a solid case they can show the defendant was responsible, especially when high priced defendant's attorneys may be able to convince the jury Joe deserved it.
FalconIf any of what you claim in your post were true, then we wouldn't see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries (which is essentially, the whole civilized world apart from the US and a few other countries).
However that Reason article does not take into consideration the fact that European nations has single payer or universal health insurance whereas the US does not. Some injured in an accident in France say with a disability will still have health coverage, even if they lose a laqwsuit. I live in the US and survived an injury which is now a permanent disability. And because of the injury I have been denied health insurance even though "I" "won" a lawsuit. Now I'm pretty sure my family would not have filed the lawsuit if they had known that if the case was lost they would have had to pay the defendants' legal bills. As it was, the lawyer representing me spent more than $100,000 out of pocket and my medical bills were more than $120,000. And that does not count more than a year's therapy, when last in therapy I was in it 15 hours a week and it cost $100 an hour.
FalconLoser pays is the situation in a lot of countries. People are still quite able to sue large companies. Litigation happens less often, but America is seen as pretty damn litigious.
I noticed one big problem with TFA, European nations have universal or single payer health insurance. The US does not. Because of an injury a survived due to an accident I have been denied health insurance. Unlike where in the US even if you win a lawsuit you can be denied health insurnace, in Europe even losers still have health coverage. Loser pay may work in the US if the US had single payer health insurance however as a libertarian foundation Reason opposes single payer health insurance.
The best solution is that you pay an amount based on your own legal costs.
I was involved in a civil lawsuit myself. While I was in a coma after being hit while riding my bike my family hired an attorney. In the first 3 months he spent $100,000 of his own money on the case.
FalconSimilarly, if you want to sue a large corp, and you spend $2k on a lawyer, they can only get back what you paid for your lawyer, meaning $2k (even if they spend $20k defending their case).
They'll either have to get cheaper lawyers, or stop suing folks.
I was hit by a moving van and while in a coma my family hired an attorney. In the first 3 months he spend $100,000 on collecting evidence. My medical bills came to more than $120,000. Now what's the likelihood my family would have hired a lawyer when if the case was lost we would have had to pay the defendants' attorneys' $100,000 plus my medical bills?
FalconI doubt any judge is ballsy enough to want to set that precedent- though I agree it would drastically cut down the frivolous cases.
It would cut down on legitimate lawsuits as well.
FalconThis might set precident if SCOTUS rules in favor of it for the US going to a loser pays court system which I think would be a great idea.
Would you think it was a great idea if through their own fault somebody injured you?
FalconThe problem is, if we change the rules so that the successful defendant AUTOMATICALLY gets their legal fees, the precedent will not be restricted to RIAA cases, and the chilling effect on consumers may well be "bad"
The problem is is these cases are already bad. How many people can afford to pay a lawyer when sued by the RIAA? On the other hand how many people would file suit if they had to pay the defendant's costs if they lose? Luckily "I" didn't face having to pay the defendant's attorney fees if I lost but when while riding my bike after class in college I was hit by a moving van. While I was in a coma my family hired an attorney to sue the employer of the van's driver, and by the tyme I first met him 3 months later he had already paid more than $100,000 out of pocket for the case. I don't know how much he paid in the end but my medical bills were more than $120,000.
Falconeveryone has the right to free legal defense from the public defender if they cannot afford it on their own
This is only true in criminal cases, not in civil cases.
FalconIf that's Microsoft's position, than clearly this organization is just another profiteer.
And a polluter which causes some of the problems the foundation is supposedly working to alleviate. It's one of the investors in the Italian petroleum giant Eni which has a bad environmental record.
FalconList two software innovations (i.e. something not copied) done by the linux/hobbyist community please.
List two software innovations done by Microsoft, done by not bought by Microsoft.
FalconOkay, so in the strictest sense of the terms, he's probably right. Software development isn't a charity.
Free Software (GPL/LGPL) is definitely not a charity, it's a give and take trading system. You put in, and you get out, and it largely self-improves through feedback, patches, bug reports, etc.
BSD comes closer, but still required attribution in the past, and of course, the developers were (back in the day) originally producing it as part of various university projects (ie, they get status in return), and more recently, are developing it as for-profit work, but are releasing it. Again, not charity.
Putting it that way there is no charity. Not even the Bill and Mellisa Gate Foundation is charity.
Falcon"Do as I say and not as I do shall be the whole of the law".
I don't know if he said that but it sounds like him. And this reverses the saying in Kabalism as well as Wicca, in Wicca: "An it harm none so mote it be."
FalconWhat Microsoft - and the GPL-fans, for that matter - have oh-so-conveniently forgotten is the mechanism of PD software. Write it, share it, go on with your life. The more people do that, the more useful things will get created. Personally, I find the GPL just as corrosive as software patents, and for very similar reasons. I try to stay away from both. But that's just me.
Actually the only reason the GPL exists is because copyrights exist, if copyrights didn't exist the GPL wouldn't either. It it called copyleft for a reason.
FalconWhat Microsoft says is technically true though. Yes, there are many developers who write code for no money, but at the same time, I don't know anyone who does it entirely for selfless, charitable reasons.
Perhaps this makes a good koan. Actually I doubt anyone does charity for selfless reasons. In one way or another everyone who donates, money or tyme and effort, to charity gets something out of it.
Many of the most active open source coders are poster children for being self absorbed. It's just that, instead of being self absorbed with money and material possessions, they prefer to be paid in the form of being well known, having prestige, and generally getting their ego stroked.
Ah but they don't need software patents to do so. The only reason for software patents now is what the SA minister says, as an anticompetitive measure to keep out competition. Unfortunately though TFA doesn't really have much to say, especially on what MS said about software patents. For the reasons you list people will write software without patents. On the other hand software patents are used by businesses with large patent portfolios as a bludgeon to hold over others' heads to reduce and eliminate competition.
Many others program just to stick it to the man because they have some sort of grudge against govt. or corporations, and others because they simply want lots and lots of software for free (thinking if they give theirs away, others will too). Stallman probably fits into both of these camps.
Within reason, it shouldn't matter why software is written, only that software that people find helpful, useful, or fun is written and people can afford it.
The thing the Africans need to realize is that most programmers prefer to get money in exchange for their coding, and if you don't allow patents, and therefore don't allow programmers to get money in exchange for coding, you have cut off about 98% of your source of new code.
Not even programmers need patents to get paid. Many software businesses exist without any need for patents. Programmers get paid for the tyme they spend programming. If a business wants to protect their source code then they can issue binary code without source code. If someone copies and distributes the program to others then they are infringing on copyright.
Falcon