Look around. Get to know your generation. You're not cynical enough. You'll get there eventually.
If anything, we're seeing a shift from clueless sheep who care to clueless sheep who don't. Some have made the case that it wasn't invading barbarians that truly destroyed Rome, but the Colosseum. We're entertaining ourselves towards collective idiocy and eventual destruction.
It's the same disease that infected MMS and probably contributed to the Gulf oils spill. It ultimately stems from politicians who are corrupt, blind, or both.
Oh, and they quash any attempt to label food as "GMO free", as it apparently hurts the[ir] business... Which would be Monsanto, the single most evil corporation in the solar system.
It's actually much simpler than that. The party is not about Democracy any more than the GOP is about the Republic. They (and the Republicans) are about their members and holding power. As their members are called Democrats, it is only natural refer to them colloquially as the Democrat Party. It is even easier to make this mistake if someone is a member of the Republican Party. It's not meant pejoratively. It's just a tini-tiny mistake (and not one that matters).
Clearly Google just wants the MAC addresses to have as a GPS backup in the future...
Do you mean IP addresses? That would at least be believable. What good would a map of MAC addresses be?
... wasn't intentionally recorded (according to Google, which is believable.)
I don't believe that for a second. Perhaps permission wasn't acquired from management and legal council, but that's not the same thing as unintentional.
(I know that I'm responding to AC, but this is roughly akin to what the industry is saying, so I'll respond to it.)
Lets say the hammer was made of hollow balsa wood and irresponsibly hardened iron. Hammering is an inherently risky business, does that excuse the hammer manufacturer from selling a shoddy (or downright dangerous) product? Of course not.
There's lots of blame to spread around. Let's not leave out some of the substantially responsible parties.
Ditto for Debian... - they are just too much work that is actually a distraction from real productivity
And what does Ubuntu, et al., do for you that makes setting up a server so much faster than Debian? Your comparison of Slackware and Gentoo to Debian makes me think that you've not touched Debian in many, many years.
(I use Debian on the desktop regularly. I don't recommend Linux on the desktop to average users at all. I keep waiting for it to actually be ready. We were making progress at one point, but Ubuntu is stuck on Gnome, and KDE is taking steps backwards.)
However, does this mean that derivatives as a whole should be banned?
Only the most ill informed make that claim. Rest assured that I do not. Certain classes of derivatives need to be reevaluated (and regulated at a minimum).
... I try to follow the ongoing investigation. An executive officer of Goldman Sachs made the statement, "We gave our customers as much risk as they wanted." I certainly don't know whether the customers knew the risks (that seems to be what's under investigation), but on face value, that statement is exactly the goal of an investment firm.
Then you know that the deregulation PopeRatzo referred to (with no specificity whatsoever) was the separation between commercial and investment banking. His depiction was certainly long-winded, over-simplified, and lacked some accuracy, but is very close to what happened.
And yes, Goldman's made that claim. That is the theory -- providing reward-potential tied to risk to investors. Personally, I think their employees knew they were selling junk. They don't hold sole responsibility for the meltdown, but I believe they own a share of it. Saying "Our clients are sophisticated" is no excuse for lying to them. (Sometimes the best of lies are to convince someone to ignore the truth.)
Many of those derivatives really are treated as lotto tickets (you brought up options), and the those MBS tied to the CDS really were sold in a fictitious way (using imaginary non-truths). Yes, GPP likes to talk. That doesn't make him wrong.
Do you work for Goldman Sachs? You sound just like them.
I think you've misunderstood my intent. You made a silly statement in support of your claim. I was working to debunk the silliness, not discredit the entire notion of patents.
As a summary: I think a working patent system is a good thing which encourages innovation. I think our current patent system does more harm than good, particularly in IT. I would like to see it fixed, not scrapped.
(And I would like to see big-pharma stop complaining about competition, and use their funds wisely. If advertising to doctors and hospitals is insufficient, then they're researching the wrong products. cf:solution in search of a problem.)
Who comes up with the bizarre contracts, cowardly EULAs, and wacky tort ideas? Lawyers.
Most lawyers are usually requested to do so by someone else. It's those people that are to blame. Lawyers just supply a service. Some of those interested people may also be lawyers, but that doesn't mean all lawyers have interests in copyright-related industries.
And why are lawyers paid for that service? It's because of their knowledge and expertise in coming up with such things. You could just as easily dismiss a hit-man from guilt as these particular lawyers. The specific dirty legal tactics they employ came from lawyers. They may have been copied from other documents, but ultimately they can be traced back to a "creative" lawyer somewhere, sometime.
And yes, there exist valid contracts, reasonable EULAs, and legitimate tort claims. Unfortunately, lawyers are required to handle such things properly.
Who decides that this nonsense is valid law? Usually judges, almost all of whom are lawyers.
I don't know how things are in the US, but in other countries there's a clear distinction between lawyers, judges, notaries, legal advisors etc. They all must have law degrees but the qualifications are different. The point being that a judge may not have necessarily been a lawyer.
There's no legal requirement that I'm aware of that a judge must be a lawyer. It just happens that way naturally. Those who believe they understand the legal system sufficiently (having worked as a lawyer for years), and have ambition may try to get appointed as a judge. I think it's perceived as advancing their careers. I heard recently that all remaining SCOTUS judges are lawyers. (I have not fact checked this, but neither did it surprise me to hear.)
On a side note, it seems to me the average folk have a much simpler way of fighting back: the old "vote with your wallet". Don't buy what MAFIAA is selling. But don't stop there. Don't pirate it either. Simply altogether refuse to consume anything they're selling.
Whose stretching what now? That technique requires critical mass. It also requires a relief valve of other vectors to transmit culture and entertainment. This could be satisfied by a Creative Commons or by non-evil companies. All these things have a long, long ways to go before they could support the kind of movement you're advocating. I'm not telling you to stop. Just don't get your hopes too high.
It sounds like you're suggesting a Statute of Limitations for patent infringement. I think there is a sound theory there. If you're unaware that you're patent is being infringed, then you're probably not losing sales. It's something to think about (not that either of us can enact it).
No problem. Just come up with a solution to the free rider problem and we won't need patents or copyright. A Nobel prize in economics awaits your brilliance.
Forget the award. Think what you could make by patenting that!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Knockoffs compete just fine. Ask any drug manufacturer if generics (a knock off even though a legal one) hurt their business.
Of course they will. Competition hurts any business competing in a free market. That's life. That won't keep them from complaining about it. Yes, they need money for their R&D budget. If they've got enough money to bombard me with ED commercials, then they've got too much money. No, I"m not talking about merely getting the word out. You advertise to doctors for that. I'm talking about the unending barrage of cures for whatever illness of the year they've picked. There is a phara commercial playing on some channel somewhere 24-7 (ignoring radio and print). The sun never sets on their empire.
I get the point that you were trying to make. Knock-offs do compete just fine. I think that sometimes there is nothing wrong with that. Ideally, the patent system would encourage knock-offs.
The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.
Sure it is. The laws and patent system just have loop holes and faults that are creating unintended problems. The problem isn't with the idea of patents it's with the implementation.
The idea of patents is fine. The patent system itself is one big loophole. I think you've understated the problem.
The US Constitution is an imperfect document formed by many imperfect men of different beliefs and opinions.
I really wish that people would remember that. The Constitution is a great document, but it isn't infallible in either method or ethics. We should always be on the lookout for better ways to live and act. Because of the protections it affords, the Constitution should not be changed lightly. We must, however, remember that it can be changed, and that the framers did get a few things flat wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
Both of you bring up good points, but I think that it is "Man On Pink Corner" that identifies the vital missing piece. Individual patent examiners really should adopt the progress clause as a personal mandate. A lot of the problems could be fixed from within the patent office if just a few of them stood for principle. (They need an organizational refit, and their budget should be re-examined, but those would be much more effective if internal reform has already begun.)
Personally, I think the progress clause ought to be enforced by the courts*. The patent office gets its authority from congress. Congress gets its mandate from the Constitution (its authority comes from both the legitimate election by the people and the Constitution). Congress cannot delegate authority that it doesn't have, and the progress language reads as binding to me. The framers didn't include much that was extraneous, and those few words seem quite important. Note that it does not say: "The Congress shall have power to... secure for limited times... exclusive rights." Rather it says: "The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." Let me say that again, for emphasis. They have power "To promote", not "To secure rights". They may promote by securing rights, but securing rights is subordinate to promoting. It is that way in the language of the Constitution, it should be that way in our legal system.
Or just change the law. No more copyrights-patents.
All the film makers have to do is pack up and move out west, where the patent holders can't get to them.
Worked before, didn't it?
For those who don't get the reference, that is exactly why Hollywood has been the capital of film for so long. Before travel became easy, long distance litigation was difficult at best, and California was just about as far away as one could get and remain in the US. Every time you hear the name Hollywood in reference to the film industry, you can think about patent law.
Thank goodness patents don't last that long. Only copyright (still far too long). Of course, IT related patents last much too long. If the technology is deprecated before its patents expire, then something is dreadfully wrong.
Lawyers might not be the problem, but the problems are lawyers. Think about it.
Who comes up with the bizarre contracts, cowardly EULAs, and wacky tort ideas? Lawyers. Who decides that this nonsense is valid law? Usually judges, almost all of whom are lawyers. Who writes the law in the first place? Politicians, a great many of whom are lawyers. Who decides who is eligible to run? Sometimes lawyers (with the implicit threat of court battles).
There are many great lawyers out there, fighting for freedom and justice on the small (but very meaningful) scale. We need more of such people. Regardless, there is a particular variety that is causing mayhem in our political system. We really need to find a way to --err... dissuade them.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the entire second half of his post, didn't you?
Look around. Get to know your generation. You're not cynical enough. You'll get there eventually.
If anything, we're seeing a shift from clueless sheep who care to clueless sheep who don't. Some have made the case that it wasn't invading barbarians that truly destroyed Rome, but the Colosseum. We're entertaining ourselves towards collective idiocy and eventual destruction.
It's the same disease that infected MMS and probably contributed to the Gulf oils spill. It ultimately stems from politicians who are corrupt, blind, or both.
Oh, and they quash any attempt to label food as "GMO free", as it apparently hurts the[ir] business ... Which would be Monsanto, the single most evil corporation in the solar system.
If not, they're darn close:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food
(Warning: weak ending / pitiful call-to-action. Has a decent rundown of Monsanto, though.)
That depends entirely on how you define "crippling". I'd much rather lose a leg than have autism.
It's actually much simpler than that. The party is not about Democracy any more than the GOP is about the Republic. They (and the Republicans) are about their members and holding power. As their members are called Democrats, it is only natural refer to them colloquially as the Democrat Party. It is even easier to make this mistake if someone is a member of the Republican Party. It's not meant pejoratively. It's just a tini-tiny mistake (and not one that matters).
Not true. If the epicenter is off the coast (as the summary suggests), then the nearby coast is at grave risk. This specific coast is a risk.
For more information: http://www.hulu.com/watch/135843/how-the-earth-was-made-tsunami
And yes, this is old news. (But it is scary.)
Clearly Google just wants the MAC addresses to have as a GPS backup in the future...
Do you mean IP addresses? That would at least be believable. What good would a map of MAC addresses be?
... wasn't intentionally recorded (according to Google, which is believable.)
I don't believe that for a second. Perhaps permission wasn't acquired from management and legal council, but that's not the same thing as unintentional.
Oh, get over it. It was funny. (context)
(I know that I'm responding to AC, but this is roughly akin to what the industry is saying, so I'll respond to it.)
Lets say the hammer was made of hollow balsa wood and irresponsibly hardened iron. Hammering is an inherently risky business, does that excuse the hammer manufacturer from selling a shoddy (or downright dangerous) product? Of course not.
There's lots of blame to spread around. Let's not leave out some of the substantially responsible parties.
Ditto for Debian... - they are just too much work that is actually a distraction from real productivity
And what does Ubuntu, et al., do for you that makes setting up a server so much faster than Debian? Your comparison of Slackware and Gentoo to Debian makes me think that you've not touched Debian in many, many years.
(I use Debian on the desktop regularly. I don't recommend Linux on the desktop to average users at all. I keep waiting for it to actually be ready. We were making progress at one point, but Ubuntu is stuck on Gnome, and KDE is taking steps backwards.)
Uhmm... I don't think they were trying to be sarcastic...
(Granted, one can certainly get less usable than Slackware.)
It's been a while since you've used Windows, apparently ;)
(The "blue screen" is equivalent to a Kernel Panic=> full system lockup-> nothing to click on.)
However, does this mean that derivatives as a whole should be banned?
Only the most ill informed make that claim. Rest assured that I do not. Certain classes of derivatives need to be reevaluated (and regulated at a minimum).
... I try to follow the ongoing investigation. An executive officer of Goldman Sachs made the statement, "We gave our customers as much risk as they wanted." I certainly don't know whether the customers knew the risks (that seems to be what's under investigation), but on face value, that statement is exactly the goal of an investment firm.
Then you know that the deregulation PopeRatzo referred to (with no specificity whatsoever) was the separation between commercial and investment banking. His depiction was certainly long-winded, over-simplified, and lacked some accuracy, but is very close to what happened.
And yes, Goldman's made that claim. That is the theory -- providing reward-potential tied to risk to investors. Personally, I think their employees knew they were selling junk. They don't hold sole responsibility for the meltdown, but I believe they own a share of it. Saying "Our clients are sophisticated" is no excuse for lying to them. (Sometimes the best of lies are to convince someone to ignore the truth.)
Many of those derivatives really are treated as lotto tickets (you brought up options), and the those MBS tied to the CDS really were sold in a fictitious way (using imaginary non-truths). Yes, GPP likes to talk. That doesn't make him wrong.
Do you work for Goldman Sachs? You sound just like them.
I think you've misunderstood my intent. You made a silly statement in support of your claim. I was working to debunk the silliness, not discredit the entire notion of patents.
As a summary: I think a working patent system is a good thing which encourages innovation. I think our current patent system does more harm than good, particularly in IT. I would like to see it fixed, not scrapped.
(And I would like to see big-pharma stop complaining about competition, and use their funds wisely. If advertising to doctors and hospitals is insufficient, then they're researching the wrong products. cf:solution in search of a problem.)
Most lawyers are usually requested to do so by someone else. It's those people that are to blame. Lawyers just supply a service. Some of those interested people may also be lawyers, but that doesn't mean all lawyers have interests in copyright-related industries.
And why are lawyers paid for that service? It's because of their knowledge and expertise in coming up with such things. You could just as easily dismiss a hit-man from guilt as these particular lawyers. The specific dirty legal tactics they employ came from lawyers. They may have been copied from other documents, but ultimately they can be traced back to a "creative" lawyer somewhere, sometime.
And yes, there exist valid contracts, reasonable EULAs, and legitimate tort claims. Unfortunately, lawyers are required to handle such things properly.
I don't know how things are in the US, but in other countries there's a clear distinction between lawyers, judges, notaries, legal advisors etc. They all must have law degrees but the qualifications are different. The point being that a judge may not have necessarily been a lawyer.
There's no legal requirement that I'm aware of that a judge must be a lawyer. It just happens that way naturally. Those who believe they understand the legal system sufficiently (having worked as a lawyer for years), and have ambition may try to get appointed as a judge. I think it's perceived as advancing their careers. I heard recently that all remaining SCOTUS judges are lawyers. (I have not fact checked this, but neither did it surprise me to hear.)
On a side note, it seems to me the average folk have a much simpler way of fighting back: the old "vote with your wallet". Don't buy what MAFIAA is selling. But don't stop there. Don't pirate it either. Simply altogether refuse to consume anything they're selling.
Whose stretching what now? That technique requires critical mass. It also requires a relief valve of other vectors to transmit culture and entertainment. This could be satisfied by a Creative Commons or by non-evil companies. All these things have a long, long ways to go before they could support the kind of movement you're advocating. I'm not telling you to stop. Just don't get your hopes too high.
Now THAT is a great definition.
(In some places judges are elected, not appointed, but it still hold that they know themselves.)
I didn't say that all lawyers are to blame, only a cross section of them.
And to your argument: only a small fraction of programmers are to blame for DRM, but some of those who are to blame are programmers.
I stand by my case.
It sounds like you're suggesting a Statute of Limitations for patent infringement. I think there is a sound theory there. If you're unaware that you're patent is being infringed, then you're probably not losing sales. It's something to think about (not that either of us can enact it).
No problem. Just come up with a solution to the free rider problem and we won't need patents or copyright. A Nobel prize in economics awaits your brilliance.
Forget the award. Think what you could make by patenting that!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Knockoffs compete just fine. Ask any drug manufacturer if generics (a knock off even though a legal one) hurt their business.
Of course they will. Competition hurts any business competing in a free market. That's life. That won't keep them from complaining about it. Yes, they need money for their R&D budget. If they've got enough money to bombard me with ED commercials, then they've got too much money. No, I"m not talking about merely getting the word out. You advertise to doctors for that. I'm talking about the unending barrage of cures for whatever illness of the year they've picked. There is a phara commercial playing on some channel somewhere 24-7 (ignoring radio and print). The sun never sets on their empire.
I get the point that you were trying to make. Knock-offs do compete just fine. I think that sometimes there is nothing wrong with that. Ideally, the patent system would encourage knock-offs.
The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.
Sure it is. The laws and patent system just have loop holes and faults that are creating unintended problems. The problem isn't with the idea of patents it's with the implementation.
The idea of patents is fine. The patent system itself is one big loophole. I think you've understated the problem.
The US Constitution is an imperfect document formed by many imperfect men of different beliefs and opinions.
I really wish that people would remember that. The Constitution is a great document, but it isn't infallible in either method or ethics. We should always be on the lookout for better ways to live and act. Because of the protections it affords, the Constitution should not be changed lightly. We must, however, remember that it can be changed, and that the framers did get a few things flat wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
Both of you bring up good points, but I think that it is "Man On Pink Corner" that identifies the vital missing piece. Individual patent examiners really should adopt the progress clause as a personal mandate. A lot of the problems could be fixed from within the patent office if just a few of them stood for principle. (They need an organizational refit, and their budget should be re-examined, but those would be much more effective if internal reform has already begun.)
Personally, I think the progress clause ought to be enforced by the courts*. The patent office gets its authority from congress. Congress gets its mandate from the Constitution (its authority comes from both the legitimate election by the people and the Constitution). Congress cannot delegate authority that it doesn't have, and the progress language reads as binding to me. The framers didn't include much that was extraneous, and those few words seem quite important. Note that it does not say: "The Congress shall have power to... secure for limited times... exclusive rights." Rather it says: "The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." Let me say that again, for emphasis. They have power "To promote", not "To secure rights". They may promote by securing rights, but securing rights is subordinate to promoting. It is that way in the language of the Constitution, it should be that way in our legal system.
*(I won't be, but I can dream.)
All the film makers have to do is pack up and move out west, where the patent holders can't get to them.
Worked before, didn't it?
For those who don't get the reference, that is exactly why Hollywood has been the capital of film for so long. Before travel became easy, long distance litigation was difficult at best, and California was just about as far away as one could get and remain in the US. Every time you hear the name Hollywood in reference to the film industry, you can think about patent law.
Thank goodness patents don't last that long. Only copyright (still far too long). Of course, IT related patents last much too long. If the technology is deprecated before its patents expire, then something is dreadfully wrong.
Lawyers might not be the problem, but the problems are lawyers. Think about it.
Who comes up with the bizarre contracts, cowardly EULAs, and wacky tort ideas? Lawyers. Who decides that this nonsense is valid law? Usually judges, almost all of whom are lawyers. Who writes the law in the first place? Politicians, a great many of whom are lawyers. Who decides who is eligible to run? Sometimes lawyers (with the implicit threat of court battles).
There are many great lawyers out there, fighting for freedom and justice on the small (but very meaningful) scale. We need more of such people. Regardless, there is a particular variety that is causing mayhem in our political system. We really need to find a way to --err... dissuade them.