Is there really anyone to whom this is not obvious?
When I started work, almost 30 years ago, in the Functional Verification team at IBM this was day one training.
"Test around the limits" (or bounds testing as it was known) was practically beaten into you.
This is not a pleasant situation, I wish I had good advice for you.
What I want to comment on are the assumptions made in many of these posts regarding US laws on copyright and ownership.
It is unclear from the OP what country you are in and whether you were an employee or an independent contractor; from your use of the term client my assumption is the latter, but I cannot know for sure. If you were in the US and an employee then ownership and copyright will invariably reside with the 'client', however, if you were an independent contractor in the US the situation is very different, can be complex and State laws can complicate it further. I would encourage you to read at least one of these articles 123 each of which give a good overview of the situation.
Basically, unless it is clearly stated in a contract that the 'client' will own the copyright it is unlikely that anyone other than you, the independent contractor, is the copyright owner. Simply stating that it is a work-for-hire is normally not enough in the case of software, the copyright must be explicitly transferred to the client, or it will often be yours by default. This is because, in general, a computer program falls under the copyright category of literary work, a category not included in the nine categories of work-for-hire defined by Section 101 of the US copyright laws. As always, there are exceptions, but my experience (and legal advice I have been given), indicate that they are not the norm.
Note: IANAL, but I am an independent contractor and have dealt with copyright issues and lawyers several times.
Total National Health Expenditure (NHE) was $8086 per person
Medicare cost 20% of this, medicaid 15%, for a total of 35% = $8086*.35 = $2830
Which is roughly $235 per month.
So to recap:
US: $235 per month in taxes per head to partially cover a fraction of the population.
UK: $200 per month in taxes per head to cover every person in the country from cradle to grave.
Note: I can't tell whether the US figures include the additional taxpayer burdens of insuring government workers, medical care for those in prison (see...I'm on topic!), or medical expenses borne by the states and other non-Federal Government entities.
Oh and by the way there are many other hidden costs. Have those of you in the US ever looked at what the medical coverage part of your auto and homeowner insurance costs you? How about those of you in the UK? Oh wait...you don't have to pay that in the UK do you!
Thank you for saying that, it really is a shame it needed to be said.
Our children are now eight and nine, they have been homeschooled since kindergarten. My wife and I are both atheists and our reason for homeschooling is definitely not religious, in fact we have gone out of our way to teach comparative religion so the kids will understand all the cultural influences of, and references to, the major religions.
Initially we had two main reasons for homeschooling:
I am originally from the UK and we still spend as much as 3 months a year in the UK. Having to deal with pulling the kids in and out of school would have been disruptive for them and made it difficult to maintain continuity in their lessons.
We do not believe in the lowest common denominator theory where classes move at the pace of the slower students. Where I grew up the school's classes were banded by ability within each subject so you could easily be band 1 for English but band 3 or 4 for Maths. My wife grew up without banding and personally experienced the issues with always being ahead of the class.
We priced private school options and decided that on balance we would rather downsize and reduce our income (I went from full time employee to just doing part time consulting work and my wife closed her part time hobby business and found a full-time job with health benefits) in order for one of us to stay home and take care of the education ourselves.
On the subject of socialization, we have observed our kids 'socializing', we deliberately chose a house in an area with a lot of families with school age children and they play together outside after school almost every evening and at weekends without any issues.
In order to give them more interaction with other kids in a structured environment they played in a soccer league for several seasons (5-8), we ended up coaching a team but that is another story. My observations in that environment were that the public school kids did not have better socialization skills, if anything the homeschoolers on the teams stood out as leaders and mediators. In fact I would go as far as to say that the homeschoolers in general had good social skills, being cooperative and enthusiastic team players, going out of their way to both motivate and involve other kids and speaking up loudly and clearly, whereas the majority of the public school kids had what could only be called anti-social skills often being rebellious, moody, shy and exhibiting poor listening skills.
As I type this my 3rd/4th graders are hand coding web pages for their sites on our home web server. We use these websites for them to be creative and publish information they are interested in, mostly animal pictures and art for our daughter but Lego and video games for our son. In addition each of their home pages have a link to their school work where they publish their book reports, essays and scanned images of their art work. I just fielded a question from my eight year old on how to use CSS to give the first element in a list a different format to the rest of the list! They both keep bugging me to start teaching them how to make their pages more dynamic and include input fields to gather data.
On the flip side...there are very few good resources for secular homeschoolers. Most of the support groups and a lot of the available curriculums are very religious and of no use to us. The major national home school groups typically cater to the majority religiously focused home school families and even include prayer and other more distasteful activities at their meetings and conferences.
At the end of the day the real test of whether something should be patentable or not should be related to the reason patents were instituted in the first place...to incent investment in R&D by rewarding that investment in innovation. The reward, in the form of artificial protection from competition for a limited time, is enough to ensure the investor(s) profit from the investment. Obvious or not, if a company or individual has invested significant time/money in a program aimed at solving a problem and come up with a new and unique (even if obvious by hindsight) solution they should be rewarded not for the idea, but for the investment, thus incenting investment in innovation.
The fundamental problem with the patent system today is that it has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. Remember, the patent system is not something that has to exist; it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society. Patenting of business processes, software patents and incidental patents (my own personal winner for least deserving) are all the result of this move away from the original intention. Combine this shift with the allegations of overworked and wrongly incented employees and the patent system certainly looks broken
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
Reward investment in deliberate innovation...The benefit to society is clear...by granting a temporary monopoly on an innovation, individuals and companies are incented to invest in areas that would otherwise not have a decent return on investment due to the ease of duplicating any innovation.
Retroactively profit from incidental innovation...The benefit to individual companies is clear in the form of profits...however the benefit to the general economy and society is less clear but possibly present in the form of eliminating duplication of effort. A company or individual can retroactively identify innovations (that were not the primary goal of the investment) and patent these in order to license the technology to others. The societal benefit of this activity is significantly lower than (1) and certainly does not require or deserve the massive incentive that a patent delivers in the form of a monopoly on that innovation.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were encouraged to regularly trawl through our developed code for potentially patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that should be protected by other laws (copyright?); it should not be a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology/solution from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
Today, if a company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off they typically have to patent the trade secret (even if only defensively) and then license it. This behaviour (licensing developed solutions) should be incented but not using the same system as that which incents investment in innovation.
So how about taking this approach...
Patents should be returned to their original goal...a way to incent innovation by protecting those innovations that result from deliberate investments in R&D.
Encourage a parallel system that allows companies to profit from incidental innovations if they have value. A way of facilitating the offering of such incidental innovations as commodities
I suspect you would win the bet but not for the reason given!
According to BARB... Out of the estimated overnight viewing figure of 8.4 million, the figures showed 1.3 million 4-15 year olds (51% of those watching TV).
The Appreciation Index (which attempts to measure how well the show was liked) averaged 88 (an exceptionally high value) and was highest amongst women aged 35-55.
Hmm...pot meet kettle
Nowhere in my post did I even start to suggest that the giver of the computer was in any way likely to have deliberately boobytrapped it. My post (including the example I gave) was clearly aimed at pointing out that the curiousity of kids of that age will frequently get them in trouble and that hampering my ability to monitor and keep my kids safe was not acceptable.
Safe in the context I quoted means removing dangerous apps (for kids of that age who don't understand the pitfalls and ramifications) such as P2P, and installing net filtering software.
Definition of paranoia: baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others
You might like to examine your own paranoia!
As the parent of two children currently aged 6 and 7, I must say there is no way I would ever let them have unfettered access to a computer that I could not monitor, especially if it were online. Parents are held responsible for what their kids do at this age and are responsible for their protection. Any attempt to bypass parental authority is extremely dangerous and short-sighted. If some 'kind' family member had donated such a machine to one of our kids it would be removed immediately until I could prepare it myself and ensure it was safe.
Our kids are very computer literate and do have their own computers that are set up in a 'school' area. I sat and watched my son (aged 7) one day without interrupting. He started playing Civilization IV(his favourite game) then after about 40 minutes saved his game and opened a web browser, went to the LEGO website to play one of their Mars Mission flash games, shortly thereafter he was on Google searching for Mars Mission LEGO items and ended up on EBay where he would quite happily have signed up and then bid on some attractive LEGO items.
Who knows where he would have ended up if left unmonitored for a few days.
I do give the children their own sign ins...and every few days I change their passwords to new words and give each of them a simple clue. They don't get to use the computer again until they solve the clue and learn to spell the password!
At the end of the day the real test of whether something should be patentable or not should be related to the reason patents were instituted in the first place...to incent investment in R&D by rewarding that investment in innovation. The reward, in the form of artificial protection from competition for a limited time, is enough to ensure the investor(s) profit from the investment. Obvious or not, if a company or individual has invested significant time/money in a program aimed at solving a problem and come up with a new and unique (even if obvious by hindsight) solution they should be rewarded not for the idea, but for the investment, thus incenting investment in innovation.
The fundamental problem with the patent system today is that it has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. Remember, the patent system is not something that has to exist; it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society. Patenting of business processes, software patents and incidental patents (my own personal winner for least deserving) are all the result of this move away from the original intention. Combine this shift with the allegations of overworked and wrongly incented employees and the patent system certainly looks broken
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
Reward investment in deliberate innovation...The benefit to society is clear...by granting a temporary monopoly on an innovation, individuals and companies are incented to invest in areas that would otherwise not have a decent return on investment due to the ease of duplicating any innovation.
Retroactively profit from incidental innovation...The benefit to individual companies is clear in the form of profits...however the benefit to the general economy and society is less clear but possibly present in the form of eliminating duplication of effort. A company or individual can retroactively identify innovations (that were not the primary goal of the investment) and patent these in order to license the technology to others. The societal benefit of this activity is significantly lower than (1) and certainly does not require or deserve the massive incentive that a patent delivers in the form of a monopoly on that innovation.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were encouraged to regularly trawl through our developed code for potentially patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that should be protected by other laws (copyright?); it should not be a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology/solution from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
Today, if a company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off they typically have to patent the trade secret (even if only defensively) and then license it. This behaviour (licensing developed solutions) should be incented but not using the same system as that which incents investment in innovation.
So here is my strawman proposal...
Patents should be returned to their original goal...a way to incent innovation by protecting those innovations that result from deliberate investments in R&D.
Institute a parallel system that allows companies to profit from incidental innovations if they have value. A way of facilitating the offering of such incidental innovations as commodities r
Your point on discontinuing expensive temporary but futile life extending treatment is well made, but not applicable in this case where the cancer is curable and will hopefully soon be in remision. What is simply unreal to me is that a reasonably well off family with good insurance and finances can be struck down in this way. The really shocking part is that the US is the only major western industrialized nation that I am aware of (and I have lived in several in Europe and North America) where this choice would have been forced upon them.
No amount of good money management would have prepared an average middle income family for this or similar situations.
Being forced to make not just difficult but totally unconscionable choices (in this case death or bankruptcy with a chance of life) due to insufficient finances is actually a pretty good definition of poor to me.
*Note: I don't believe anyone in America is truly "poor", except by choice. I'll be sure to tell my friend who was self-employed, his wife got cancer and over the next three years they exhausted their health insurance, sold their house and belongings and now they and their kids have to live with other family because they have no money left and still need medical treatment. He'll be fascinated to know that he could have chosen not to be POOR. Damn, blanket statements like that make me mad.
Apologies for the dupe (I posted this link deep in another thread) but I thought it was worth highlighting at the top level.
Here is the URL http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id =962 for the piece by author Julian Dibbell that is referenced in the article. It makes for very interesting reading, especially when an IRS specialist is quoted as saying...
"...it sounds to us like [the online trades you've described] would be--yes--Internet barter." Here she paused, whether to catch her breath or to let the conclusion sink in, I couldn't tell. "However," she went on, "there are no regs, there is no code, there are no rulings, to rely upon. This is our opinion."
By the way, the IRS does consider Internet Barter taxable, but the rules are complicated (doh!).
Which is of course why I used the word 'may'. The thing is...if the IRS observes a thriving market on Ebay for such swords then they 'may' decide that the sword does have a substantial real world value especially since by executing many skillful in-game trades you could eventually realize a substantial real world gain.
My hope would be that the IRS will, at best, stay well away or, at the very worst, percieve this as a Capital Gains issue.
Unfortunately hope is often all you have once the IRS looks your way and in fact a little more digging online came up with this nugget on legalaffairs.com regarding author Julian Dibbell's own investigation into this subject
Because he wasn't in a position to offer a final word, however, Knight gave me a number for the IRS's Business and Specialty Tax Line. "Specialty" sounded about right, so I called and told my story to a telereceptionist, who routed me to a small-business specialist, who passed me along to a barter-income specialist, who identified herself as "Mrs. Clardy, badge number 7500416," and listened in silence to my query about virtual economics--and then put me on hold.
When Mrs. Clardy returned, she was a bureaucrat transformed. "We just had this little discussion," she said, almost giggling. "And it sounds to us like [the online trades you've described] would be--yes--Internet barter." Here she paused, whether to catch her breath or to let the conclusion sink in, I couldn't tell. "However," she went on, "there are no regs, there is no code, there are no rulings, to rely upon. This is our opinion."
Mrs. Clardy suggested I seek a more authoritative judgment. A "private letter ruling," she assured me, was the IRS's definitive opinion, in writing, on a particular taxpayer's situation. And a letter ruling in my case, she believed, would probably be the closest the IRS had ever come to an opinion on the status of virtual income.
"The ramifications are enormous," Mrs. Clardy exhorted. "Break new ground!"
Ah, but if you trade in-game assets for other in-game assets that may be (in the eyes of the tax code) a form of barter, and barter is most definitely taxable. So, if that painter bartered his/her paintings for another good/service of equal worth both parties are legally liable for tax on the fair market value of the good/service exchanged.
From the IRS...
Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services exchanged must be included in the income of both parties.
and...
You own a small apartment building. In return for 6 months rent-free use of an apartment, an artist gives you a work of art she created. You must report as rental income on Schedule E (Form 1040) the fair market value of the artwork, and the artist must report as income on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) the fair rental value of the apartment.
From the IRS page on Narcotic-Related Investigations...
When the Internal Revenue Service astounded Public Enemy Number 1, Alphonse Capone by obtaining a conviction for tax evasion and demanding millions of dollars in back taxes, Capone said, "They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." But it's really pretty simple: No matter what the source of income -- all income is taxable.
Taxes on real money obtained for selling in-game assets, no problem, except...is that income or capital gains...
...if its capital gains how do I calculate the adjusted tax basis, since I either bought the asset with dollars and then maintained and improved it using in-game money OR I both bought and maintained/improved the asset with in-game money? Who is going to define the rules for this?
...if its income, does that mean I can file a schedule C, and if so expense the money I spent both in real life and in-game? Because don't forget that in-game money could have been used to buy additional actual (virtual) assets that I could have sold for a real-world profit, so there is some cost there if I instead use it to maintain virtual assets!
As you can see even when real world profits occur (which should be taxable) we can fall foul of the lack of an exchange rate from GPs to Dollars. The IRS doesn't get to set arbitrary exchange rates, so who does?
Of course I also want to sue 8 year old Billy for the uninsured damage his character caused to the castle I bought on ebay last year that I could have sold in real life next year for a significant capital gain.
Taxes on virtual money have even more issues as the bureaucratic quagmire that is the IRS Code would result in too many unanswerable questions for this to work without legislation. (Which I'm sure we all agree should be a top priority for the incoming congress)
The list is as endless as it is amusing...
Who's Liable for the Taxes?. I for one will be getting my Mum in the UK to buy me a years subscription to Everquest. Now, how do they work out who to tax? What will tax treaties with other countries say about this? How would the location of the game servers affect residency requirements?
Material involvement, I'm pretty sure when I file my Schedule C that it asks if I 'materially participated' in the business I am filing for. How does one Materially Participate in a virtual business?
Gift Taxes. If I give something extremely valuable to another player (in exchange for my continued virtual existence) are they going to tax my gift? In the real world this would be extortion or some similar crime, so how will they recognize this is not a simple gift as covered by the tax code.
Inheritance Tax! My character died, but there's no death certificate, need I say more.
If I gift my incredible valuable in-game asset to a charity, can I deduct it?
Can I depreciate my +2 Vorpal Blade using Section 175 or does it have to be over time?
If I pay my friend Sally from Australia to help in my latest quest am I employing an illegal alien? What about my friend Bill from Chicago, do I have to send him a 1099 for the help I paid him for.
If I lend my in-game friend money do I have to charge the prevailing interest rate or risk issues with the IRS.
Is Gringott's FDIC insured? Hold on...sorry...that's Harry Potter.
Anyway as you can tell I'm having trouble arresting my descent into absurdity. The point is I could go on and on and on listing actual absurdities and the first tax court that had to rule on any of these issues would certainly have some fun challenges!
[GratuitousPoliticalCommentary]Besides, what's the Government going to do with all these GPs they get in taxes. Build up a massive in-game military and eliminate that evil heathen Magic User in the next valley whose hoarding all the manna producing mines. How will they get the Orcs and Goblins to coexist peacefully after the mission is accomplished?[/GratuitousPoliticalCommentary]
At the end of the day the real test of whether something should be patentable or not should be related to the reason patents were instituted in the first place...to incent investment in R&D by rewarding that investment in innovation. The reward, in the form of artificial protection from competition for a limited time, is enough to ensure the investor(s) profit from the investment. Obvious or not, if a company or individual has invested significant time/money in a program aimed at solving a problem and come up with a new and unique (even if obvious by hindsight) solution they should be rewarded not for the idea, but for the investment, thus incenting investment in innovation.
The fundamental problem with the patent system today is that it has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. Remember, the patent system is not something that has to exist; it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society.
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
Reward investment in deliberate innovation...The benefit to society is clear...by granting a temporary monopoly on an innovation, individuals and companies are incented to invest in areas that would otherwise not have a decent return on investment due to the ease of duplicating any innovation.
Retroactively profit from incidental innovation...The benefit to individual companies is clear in the form of profits...however the benefit to the general economy and society is less clear but possibly present in the form of eliminating duplication of effort. A company or individual can retroactively identify innovations (that were not the primary goal of the investment) and patent these in order to license the technology to others. The societal benefit of this activity is significantly lower than (1) and certainly does not require or deserve the massive incentive that a patent delivers in the form of a monopoly on that innovation.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were encouraged to regularly trawl through our developed code for potentially patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that should be protected by other laws (copyright?); it should not be a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
Today, if a company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off they typically have to patent the trade secret (even if only defensively) and then license it. This behaviour (licensing developed solutions) should be incented but not using the same system as that which incents investment in innovation.
So here is my strawman proposal...
Patents should be returned to their original goal...a way to incent innovation by protecting those innovations that result from deliberate investments in R&D.
Institute a parallel system that allows companies to profit from incidental innovations if they have value. A way of facilitating the offering of such incidental innovations as commodities rather than legislating them as monopolies is what is needed and far more in keeping with a truly capitalist approach to this, i.e. let the market decide if the innovation is valuable. It would avoid the negative effect of a making these trade secrets patentable, which actually makes innovation in related areas harder to ach
In my opinion the problem is with the way the patent system as a whole has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. The patent system is not something that has to exist, it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society.
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
Incent investment in innovation...The benefit to society is clear...by granting a temporary monopoly on an innovation, individuals and companies are incented to invest in areas that would otherwise not have a decent return on investment due to the ease of duplicating any innovation.
Retroactively profit from innovation...The benefit to individual companies is clear in the form of profits...however the benefit to the general economy and society is less clear but possibly present in the form of eliminating duplication of effort. A company or individual can retroactively identify innovations (that were not the primary goal of the investment) and patent these in order to license the technology to others. The societal benefit of this activity is significantly lower than (1) and certainly does not require or deserve the massive incentive that a patent delivers in the form of a monopoly on that innovation.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were incented to regulary trawl through our developed code for potential patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that is protectable by other laws (copyright?), not a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
So, this is the tricky part...if the company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off the way this works today is to patent the trade secret and then license it. This is behaviour that should be incented but not using the same system as incents investment in innovation.
Patents should be reserved as a way to protect investment that will otherwise be rendered valueless (thus disincenting the original investment).
A separate system that allows companies to profit from trade secrets as commodities not monopolies is what is needed and far more in keeping with a truly capitalist approach to this, i.e. let the market decide if the innovation is valuable. It would avoid the negative effect of a making these trade secrets patentable, which actually makes innovation in related areas harder to achieve. After all, projects which have a decent return on investment without patents will continue to get investment without patents. Why would we as a society give free profits (effectively simply raising the price for all of us) for work that would be done anyway.
This proposal would drastically reduce the number of innovations that qualify for patents, but continue to encourage the licensing of incidental innovations as commodities, exposing them to market forces that would determine how obvious they were (i.e. if they truly have value people will pay for them, if they are obvious or exist elsewhere then they won't pay for them...simple.)
In my opinion the problem is not specifically with software patents but with the way the patent system as a whole has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. The patent system is not something that has to exist, it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society.
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
Incent investment in innovation...The benefit to society is clear...by granting a temporary monopoly on an innovation, individuals and companies are incented to invest in areas that would otherwise not have a decent return on investment due to the ease of duplicating any innovation.
Retroactively profit from innovation...The benefit to individual companies is clear in the form of profits...however the benefit to the general economy and society is less clear but possibly present in the form of eliminating duplication of effort. A company or individual can retroactively identify innovations (that were not the primary goal of the investment) and patent these in order to license the technology to others. The societal benefit of this activity is significantly lower than (1) and certainly does not require or deserve the massive incentive that a patent delivers in the form of a monopoly on that innovation.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were incented to regulary trawl through our developed code for potential patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. In the example given by the parent, the oil company got a clear benefit from the investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not. What they developed should be a trade secret that is protectable by other laws, not a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
So, this is the tricky part...if the company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off the way this works today is to patent the trade secret and then license it. This is behaviour that should be incented but not using the same system as incents investment in innovation.
Patents should be reserved as a way to protect investment that will otherwise be rendered valueless (thus disincenting the original investment).
A separate system that allows companies to profit from trade secrets as commodities not monopolies is what is needed and far more in keeping with a truly capitalist approach to this, i.e. let the market decide if the innovation is valuable. It would avoid the negative effect of a making these trade secrets patentable, which actually makes innovation in related areas harder to achieve. After all, projects which have a decent return on investment without patents will continue to get investment without patents. Why would we as a society give free profits (effectively simply raising the price for all of us) for work that would be done anyway.
This proposal would drastically reduce the number of innovations that qualify for patents, but continue to encourage the licensing of incidental innovations as commodities, exposing them to market forces that would determine how obvious they were (i.e. if they truly have value people will pay for them, if they are obvious or exist elsewhere then they won't pay for them...simple.)
Contrary to the belief of many, the Constitution does not determine the rights of the people (It enumerates those powers that are granted by the people to the Government.), and the Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive list of those rights that Government allows the people.
The Bill of Rights was created (after much debate as I understand it, with many feeling it was a redundant and potentially dangerous document) to give examples of those rights which the people are most certainly not giving up to their Government. Pay particular attention to Amendment IX, it states...
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This is where the right to privacy falls, in those rights not enumerated...yet clearly retained by the people.
It is the opinion of some (perhaps many), myself included (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) that the creation of the Bill of Rights, whilst noble in purpose has emphasized the subset of rights enumerated therein to the detriment of other equally important rights, such as privacy.
I can respect your opinion as well even though on my side I find the implication behind your words dangerous and abhorrent to anyone wanting to live in a civilized society that truly respects the rights of every single citizen.
Even child porn, bad though it is, isn't a valid reason to surrender our right to free speech. The witch hunt that has resulted from the ban has created a culture of fear that far exceeds the damage to the children involved. I would suggest that the appropriate response to this should be to attack the production, and accept the product as a bad result of necessary freedom.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this...what does attack the production mean if not restricting the right to this form of speech. This whole sentence feels like an attempt to wriggle out of an uncomfortable acceptance of the need for restriction on personal expression too barbaric to be acceptable.
There is a line that must be drawn, total personal freedom is not possible without impinging on someone elses total personal freedom. I too will defend until my last breath your right to think and verbally express any opinion, without exception, but some methods of expression must be controlled because they have either a direct and enduring effect on the inalienable rights of others. In addition the maturity level of those on the receiving end of the expression should be considered, which is why it is, for example, illegal to show pornography to minors.
If you won't accept child pornography as the line then how about my desire to express myself with art constructed using the blood and body parts of ritually sacrificed teenagers, how ridiculous do I have to get in order to prove the point.
There is a price to pay for our inalienable rights as a society and it is recognizing that compromise is necessary in order to prevent the strong in society trampling all over the rights of the weak.
Let me start by saying I really appreciate the calm and reasoned tone of your responses it is a pleasure to discuss this issue without flames. Thank you.
Clearly we have a disconnect here because I do not see this as giving up any rights but rather enabling the right of the child to safety.
My reference to the medical situation was not intended to highlight parents denying children medication or 'killing them' it was to highlight the defeatist attitude embodied in the 'we can't fix all cases so why fix this one.' I do not believe the polio example is relevant because there is a clear and very high opportunity cost involved in dedicating resources to curing polio that must be justified versus other possible investments. In the case of this law the opportunity cost is negligible compared to the potential of saving even a handful of lives. I must also take exception to using the term prevent with reference to homicide crimes, prevention is the goal but most laws today do not prevent crime they deter people from commiting crimes through the threat of punishment, an important distinction. The law we are discussing is rare in that it focuses on prevention rather than deterrence.
Adding laws does not necessarily restrict freedoms, when done right it prevents the strong from impinging on the rights and freedoms of the weak and defenceless. This is not a double-coverage law...the current law provides a deterrent not a realistic alternative for the child. It is my opinion that deterrents do not work when passions are likely to run high and that a better job should be done of protecting those that cannot protect themselves, merely punishimg those that hurt them after they become victims is simply not enough.
Rights are never as black and white as they are presented, many (and it would not surprise me if it were most) rights laid down in the Bill of Rights have subsequently had limits placed on them. The debate is about where those limits should be. Very few would argue that (to quote extremes) child pornography should be covered by the first amendment just as very few would argue that criticism of politicians should not be covered. The limit is a fact, the debate is over where the line should be drawn. Most of those limits have been placed in cases where the exercise of the right either directly of indirectly could lead to the harm of others. The really difficult cases are where the rights of individuals are at odds (my right to enjoy loud music vs. your right to enjoy peace and quiet) since there is often no clear way to reconcile these and the result is often a mishmash of laws that for example allow noise only at particular hours. When someones safety is at threat is when my line is crossed, I know that for others the line is drawn differently and can respect that. The tricky part then becomes recognizing which rights are inalienable and which are subject to the will of the majority.
I support laws that ensure rights and freedoms are available equally not just to those with the loudest voice or the strongest arm.
So your argument is...since we can't protect children in all similar situations it makes no sense to protect them for this special case. Wow. We can apply that argument to other situations and see how much sense it makes, for example, since we can't cure all disease with a single medicine should we do away with treatment for those that do have 'special case' cures?
If the child is in a dysfunctional family and pregnant so young it is unlikely they have been taught how to behave as the responsible citizen you mention in case #3 or have developed a sense of trust in society and the people that enforce society's rules. You cannot put yourself in their position and say how would I react you have to consider their unique perspective on life and how best to protect them given their likely reaction.
And yes pregnancy is a special case anyway. It is a special case because society and life itself makes it a special case. This isn't like an auto accident, it isn't about damage to piece of property this is about a devastating life event for a teenager who doesn't yet have all the life skills to make good decisions and think clearly in a situation like this. Surely you can see the difference between an car accident and a teenage pregnancy when (rightly or wrongly) some parents feel there is a stigma that comes with teenage pregnancy in todays society. It is that perception that makes all the difference for both the parent and the child.
Let's examine the stark alternatives in a scenario where a minor is pregnant and the parents are highly volatile and liable to react violently.
No special case law
Kid may end up beaten, maimed or dead, parent ends up in prison, family is devastated.
Special case law in place
Kid is not a victim, parent is not a criminal and family remains whole.
Which seems the better option to you? Explain to me how the existing laws protect the victim cause I don't see it. What I see is laws that attempt to deter (which is next to ludicrous for crimes of anger and passion) and so we end up with a victim and then punish the parent and by proxy the entire family.
Seriously there really is too much emphasis on punishment after the fact and not enough on identifying preventable crimes in this country already. This type of law that shows some awareness of real world situations, how people become victims and how to avoid tragedies is a step in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there really anyone to whom this is not obvious?
When I started work, almost 30 years ago, in the Functional Verification team at IBM this was day one training.
"Test around the limits" (or bounds testing as it was known) was practically beaten into you.
This is not a pleasant situation, I wish I had good advice for you.
What I want to comment on are the assumptions made in many of these posts regarding US laws on copyright and ownership.
It is unclear from the OP what country you are in and whether you were an employee or an independent contractor; from your use of the term client my assumption is the latter, but I cannot know for sure. If you were in the US and an employee then ownership and copyright will invariably reside with the 'client', however, if you were an independent contractor in the US the situation is very different, can be complex and State laws can complicate it further. I would encourage you to read at least one of these articles 1 2 3 each of which give a good overview of the situation.
Basically, unless it is clearly stated in a contract that the 'client' will own the copyright it is unlikely that anyone other than you, the independent contractor, is the copyright owner. Simply stating that it is a work-for-hire is normally not enough in the case of software, the copyright must be explicitly transferred to the client, or it will often be yours by default. This is because, in general, a computer program falls under the copyright category of literary work, a category not included in the nine categories of work-for-hire defined by Section 101 of the US copyright laws. As always, there are exceptions, but my experience (and legal advice I have been given), indicate that they are not the norm.
Note: IANAL, but I am an independent contractor and have dealt with copyright issues and lawyers several times.
This whole conversation is getting me tensor and tensor, I wish I was like my wife, it doesn't a vector at all.
Which is slightly less than taxpayers in the US pay just to fund medicare/medicaid, which partially cover only a fraction of the population.
Calculation: (figures as of 2009 from U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services)
Total National Health Expenditure (NHE) was $8086 per person
Medicare cost 20% of this, medicaid 15%, for a total of 35% = $8086*.35 = $2830
Which is roughly $235 per month.
So to recap:
Note: I can't tell whether the US figures include the additional taxpayer burdens of insuring government workers, medical care for those in prison (see...I'm on topic!), or medical expenses borne by the states and other non-Federal Government entities.
Oh and by the way there are many other hidden costs. Have those of you in the US ever looked at what the medical coverage part of your auto and homeowner insurance costs you? How about those of you in the UK? Oh wait...you don't have to pay that in the UK do you!
Thank you for saying that, it really is a shame it needed to be said.
Our children are now eight and nine, they have been homeschooled since kindergarten. My wife and I are both atheists and our reason for homeschooling is definitely not religious, in fact we have gone out of our way to teach comparative religion so the kids will understand all the cultural influences of, and references to, the major religions.
Initially we had two main reasons for homeschooling:
We priced private school options and decided that on balance we would rather downsize and reduce our income (I went from full time employee to just doing part time consulting work and my wife closed her part time hobby business and found a full-time job with health benefits) in order for one of us to stay home and take care of the education ourselves.
On the subject of socialization, we have observed our kids 'socializing', we deliberately chose a house in an area with a lot of families with school age children and they play together outside after school almost every evening and at weekends without any issues. In order to give them more interaction with other kids in a structured environment they played in a soccer league for several seasons (5-8), we ended up coaching a team but that is another story. My observations in that environment were that the public school kids did not have better socialization skills, if anything the homeschoolers on the teams stood out as leaders and mediators. In fact I would go as far as to say that the homeschoolers in general had good social skills, being cooperative and enthusiastic team players, going out of their way to both motivate and involve other kids and speaking up loudly and clearly, whereas the majority of the public school kids had what could only be called anti-social skills often being rebellious, moody, shy and exhibiting poor listening skills.
As I type this my 3rd/4th graders are hand coding web pages for their sites on our home web server. We use these websites for them to be creative and publish information they are interested in, mostly animal pictures and art for our daughter but Lego and video games for our son. In addition each of their home pages have a link to their school work where they publish their book reports, essays and scanned images of their art work. I just fielded a question from my eight year old on how to use CSS to give the first element in a list a different format to the rest of the list! They both keep bugging me to start teaching them how to make their pages more dynamic and include input fields to gather data.
On the flip side...there are very few good resources for secular homeschoolers. Most of the support groups and a lot of the available curriculums are very religious and of no use to us. The major national home school groups typically cater to the majority religiously focused home school families and even include prayer and other more distasteful activities at their meetings and conferences.
Well said!
At the end of the day the real test of whether something should be patentable or not should be related to the reason patents were instituted in the first place...to incent investment in R&D by rewarding that investment in innovation. The reward, in the form of artificial protection from competition for a limited time, is enough to ensure the investor(s) profit from the investment. Obvious or not, if a company or individual has invested significant time/money in a program aimed at solving a problem and come up with a new and unique (even if obvious by hindsight) solution they should be rewarded not for the idea, but for the investment, thus incenting investment in innovation.
The fundamental problem with the patent system today is that it has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. Remember, the patent system is not something that has to exist; it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society. Patenting of business processes, software patents and incidental patents (my own personal winner for least deserving) are all the result of this move away from the original intention. Combine this shift with the allegations of overworked and wrongly incented employees and the patent system certainly looks broken
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were encouraged to regularly trawl through our developed code for potentially patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that should be protected by other laws (copyright?); it should not be a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology/solution from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
Today, if a company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off they typically have to patent the trade secret (even if only defensively) and then license it. This behaviour (licensing developed solutions) should be incented but not using the same system as that which incents investment in innovation.
So how about taking this approach...
I suspect you would win the bet but not for the reason given!
According to BARB...
Out of the estimated overnight viewing figure of 8.4 million, the figures showed 1.3 million 4-15 year olds (51% of those watching TV).
The Appreciation Index (which attempts to measure how well the show was liked) averaged 88 (an exceptionally high value) and was highest amongst women aged 35-55.
Hmm...pot meet kettle Nowhere in my post did I even start to suggest that the giver of the computer was in any way likely to have deliberately boobytrapped it. My post (including the example I gave) was clearly aimed at pointing out that the curiousity of kids of that age will frequently get them in trouble and that hampering my ability to monitor and keep my kids safe was not acceptable. Safe in the context I quoted means removing dangerous apps (for kids of that age who don't understand the pitfalls and ramifications) such as P2P, and installing net filtering software. Definition of paranoia: baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others You might like to examine your own paranoia!
As the parent of two children currently aged 6 and 7, I must say there is no way I would ever let them have unfettered access to a computer that I could not monitor, especially if it were online. Parents are held responsible for what their kids do at this age and are responsible for their protection. Any attempt to bypass parental authority is extremely dangerous and short-sighted. If some 'kind' family member had donated such a machine to one of our kids it would be removed immediately until I could prepare it myself and ensure it was safe.
Our kids are very computer literate and do have their own computers that are set up in a 'school' area. I sat and watched my son (aged 7) one day without interrupting. He started playing Civilization IV(his favourite game) then after about 40 minutes saved his game and opened a web browser, went to the LEGO website to play one of their Mars Mission flash games, shortly thereafter he was on Google searching for Mars Mission LEGO items and ended up on EBay where he would quite happily have signed up and then bid on some attractive LEGO items.
Who knows where he would have ended up if left unmonitored for a few days.
I do give the children their own sign ins...and every few days I change their passwords to new words and give each of them a simple clue. They don't get to use the computer again until they solve the clue and learn to spell the password!
At the end of the day the real test of whether something should be patentable or not should be related to the reason patents were instituted in the first place...to incent investment in R&D by rewarding that investment in innovation. The reward, in the form of artificial protection from competition for a limited time, is enough to ensure the investor(s) profit from the investment. Obvious or not, if a company or individual has invested significant time/money in a program aimed at solving a problem and come up with a new and unique (even if obvious by hindsight) solution they should be rewarded not for the idea, but for the investment, thus incenting investment in innovation.
The fundamental problem with the patent system today is that it has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. Remember, the patent system is not something that has to exist; it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society. Patenting of business processes, software patents and incidental patents (my own personal winner for least deserving) are all the result of this move away from the original intention. Combine this shift with the allegations of overworked and wrongly incented employees and the patent system certainly looks broken
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were encouraged to regularly trawl through our developed code for potentially patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that should be protected by other laws (copyright?); it should not be a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology/solution from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
Today, if a company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off they typically have to patent the trade secret (even if only defensively) and then license it. This behaviour (licensing developed solutions) should be incented but not using the same system as that which incents investment in innovation.
So here is my strawman proposal...
Your point on discontinuing expensive temporary but futile life extending treatment is well made, but not applicable in this case where the cancer is curable and will hopefully soon be in remision. What is simply unreal to me is that a reasonably well off family with good insurance and finances can be struck down in this way. The really shocking part is that the US is the only major western industrialized nation that I am aware of (and I have lived in several in Europe and North America) where this choice would have been forced upon them.
No amount of good money management would have prepared an average middle income family for this or similar situations.
Being forced to make not just difficult but totally unconscionable choices (in this case death or bankruptcy with a chance of life) due to insufficient finances is actually a pretty good definition of poor to me.
Apologies for the dupe (I posted this link deep in another thread) but I thought it was worth highlighting at the top level.
Here is the URL http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id =962 for the piece by author Julian Dibbell that is referenced in the article. It makes for very interesting reading, especially when an IRS specialist is quoted as saying...
"...it sounds to us like [the online trades you've described] would be--yes--Internet barter." Here she paused, whether to catch her breath or to let the conclusion sink in, I couldn't tell. "However," she went on, "there are no regs, there is no code, there are no rulings, to rely upon. This is our opinion."By the way, the IRS does consider Internet Barter taxable, but the rules are complicated (doh!).
Which is of course why I used the word 'may'. The thing is...if the IRS observes a thriving market on Ebay for such swords then they 'may' decide that the sword does have a substantial real world value especially since by executing many skillful in-game trades you could eventually realize a substantial real world gain.
My hope would be that the IRS will, at best, stay well away or, at the very worst, percieve this as a Capital Gains issue.
Unfortunately hope is often all you have once the IRS looks your way and in fact a little more digging online came up with this nugget on legalaffairs.com regarding author Julian Dibbell's own investigation into this subject
Because he wasn't in a position to offer a final word, however, Knight gave me a number for the IRS's Business and Specialty Tax Line. "Specialty" sounded about right, so I called and told my story to a telereceptionist, who routed me to a small-business specialist, who passed me along to a barter-income specialist, who identified herself as "Mrs. Clardy, badge number 7500416," and listened in silence to my query about virtual economics--and then put me on hold. When Mrs. Clardy returned, she was a bureaucrat transformed. "We just had this little discussion," she said, almost giggling. "And it sounds to us like [the online trades you've described] would be--yes--Internet barter." Here she paused, whether to catch her breath or to let the conclusion sink in, I couldn't tell. "However," she went on, "there are no regs, there is no code, there are no rulings, to rely upon. This is our opinion." Mrs. Clardy suggested I seek a more authoritative judgment. A "private letter ruling," she assured me, was the IRS's definitive opinion, in writing, on a particular taxpayer's situation. And a letter ruling in my case, she believed, would probably be the closest the IRS had ever come to an opinion on the status of virtual income. "The ramifications are enormous," Mrs. Clardy exhorted. "Break new ground!"See the whole article here...http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly .msp?id=962
From the IRS...
Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services exchanged must be included in the income of both parties.and ...
You own a small apartment building. In return for 6 months rent-free use of an apartment, an artist gives you a work of art she created. You must report as rental income on Schedule E (Form 1040) the fair market value of the artwork, and the artist must report as income on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) the fair rental value of the apartment.Be afraid...be very afraid...
Yes, yes it is, exactly.
From the IRS page on Narcotic-Related Investigations...
When the Internal Revenue Service astounded Public Enemy Number 1, Alphonse Capone by obtaining a conviction for tax evasion and demanding millions of dollars in back taxes, Capone said, "They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." But it's really pretty simple: No matter what the source of income -- all income is taxable.Taxes on real money obtained for selling in-game assets, no problem, except...is that income or capital gains...
...if its capital gains how do I calculate the adjusted tax basis, since I either bought the asset with dollars and then maintained and improved it using in-game money OR I both bought and maintained/improved the asset with in-game money? Who is going to define the rules for this?
...if its income, does that mean I can file a schedule C, and if so expense the money I spent both in real life and in-game? Because don't forget that in-game money could have been used to buy additional actual (virtual) assets that I could have sold for a real-world profit, so there is some cost there if I instead use it to maintain virtual assets!
As you can see even when real world profits occur (which should be taxable) we can fall foul of the lack of an exchange rate from GPs to Dollars. The IRS doesn't get to set arbitrary exchange rates, so who does?
Of course I also want to sue 8 year old Billy for the uninsured damage his character caused to the castle I bought on ebay last year that I could have sold in real life next year for a significant capital gain.
Taxes on virtual money have even more issues as the bureaucratic quagmire that is the IRS Code would result in too many unanswerable questions for this to work without legislation. (Which I'm sure we all agree should be a top priority for the incoming congress)
The list is as endless as it is amusing...
Anyway as you can tell I'm having trouble arresting my descent into absurdity. The point is I could go on and on and on listing actual absurdities and the first tax court that had to rule on any of these issues would certainly have some fun challenges!
[GratuitousPoliticalCommentary]Besides, what's the Government going to do with all these GPs they get in taxes. Build up a massive in-game military and eliminate that evil heathen Magic User in the next valley whose hoarding all the manna producing mines. How will they get the Orcs and Goblins to coexist peacefully after the mission is accomplished?[/GratuitousPoliticalCommentary]
At the end of the day the real test of whether something should be patentable or not should be related to the reason patents were instituted in the first place...to incent investment in R&D by rewarding that investment in innovation. The reward, in the form of artificial protection from competition for a limited time, is enough to ensure the investor(s) profit from the investment. Obvious or not, if a company or individual has invested significant time/money in a program aimed at solving a problem and come up with a new and unique (even if obvious by hindsight) solution they should be rewarded not for the idea, but for the investment, thus incenting investment in innovation.
The fundamental problem with the patent system today is that it has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. Remember, the patent system is not something that has to exist; it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society.
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were encouraged to regularly trawl through our developed code for potentially patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that should be protected by other laws (copyright?); it should not be a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
Today, if a company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off they typically have to patent the trade secret (even if only defensively) and then license it. This behaviour (licensing developed solutions) should be incented but not using the same system as that which incents investment in innovation.
So here is my strawman proposal...
In my opinion the problem is with the way the patent system as a whole has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. The patent system is not something that has to exist, it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society.
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were incented to regulary trawl through our developed code for potential patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. If a company got a clear benefit from an investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not then there is no point in society (i.e. the rest of us) granting them a patent! What they have is a trade secret that is protectable by other laws (copyright?), not a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
So, this is the tricky part...if the company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off the way this works today is to patent the trade secret and then license it. This is behaviour that should be incented but not using the same system as incents investment in innovation.
Patents should be reserved as a way to protect investment that will otherwise be rendered valueless (thus disincenting the original investment).
A separate system that allows companies to profit from trade secrets as commodities not monopolies is what is needed and far more in keeping with a truly capitalist approach to this, i.e. let the market decide if the innovation is valuable. It would avoid the negative effect of a making these trade secrets patentable, which actually makes innovation in related areas harder to achieve. After all, projects which have a decent return on investment without patents will continue to get investment without patents. Why would we as a society give free profits (effectively simply raising the price for all of us) for work that would be done anyway.
This proposal would drastically reduce the number of innovations that qualify for patents, but continue to encourage the licensing of incidental innovations as commodities, exposing them to market forces that would determine how obvious they were (i.e. if they truly have value people will pay for them, if they are obvious or exist elsewhere then they won't pay for them...simple.)
In my opinion the problem is not specifically with software patents but with the way the patent system as a whole has been warped over the years into something it was not intended to be. The patent system is not something that has to exist, it is something that we as a society agree to have in order to incent individuals and companies to perform activities that are of benefit to society.
There appear to be two basic uses for the patent system that unfortunately are sometimes at odds with each other.
[Aside: When I worked for a large s/w company we were incented to regulary trawl through our developed code for potential patentable algorithms, this is clearly a case of (2) not (1)]
Surely the only useful purpose for a patent system is to incent companies to make investments that would otherwise not have been made. In the example given by the parent, the oil company got a clear benefit from the investment and would continue to benefit whether granted a patent or not. What they developed should be a trade secret that is protectable by other laws, not a patentable innovation. Other companies should have the right to make a similar investment to develop a similar solution (or license the technology from the original company if that is agreeable and makes more economic sense)
So, this is the tricky part...if the company has a trade secret that they feel they could make money off the way this works today is to patent the trade secret and then license it. This is behaviour that should be incented but not using the same system as incents investment in innovation.
Patents should be reserved as a way to protect investment that will otherwise be rendered valueless (thus disincenting the original investment).
A separate system that allows companies to profit from trade secrets as commodities not monopolies is what is needed and far more in keeping with a truly capitalist approach to this, i.e. let the market decide if the innovation is valuable. It would avoid the negative effect of a making these trade secrets patentable, which actually makes innovation in related areas harder to achieve. After all, projects which have a decent return on investment without patents will continue to get investment without patents. Why would we as a society give free profits (effectively simply raising the price for all of us) for work that would be done anyway.
This proposal would drastically reduce the number of innovations that qualify for patents, but continue to encourage the licensing of incidental innovations as commodities, exposing them to market forces that would determine how obvious they were (i.e. if they truly have value people will pay for them, if they are obvious or exist elsewhere then they won't pay for them...simple.)
Contrary to the belief of many, the Constitution does not determine the rights of the people (It enumerates those powers that are granted by the people to the Government.), and the Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive list of those rights that Government allows the people.
The Bill of Rights was created (after much debate as I understand it, with many feeling it was a redundant and potentially dangerous document) to give examples of those rights which the people are most certainly not giving up to their Government. Pay particular attention to Amendment IX, it states...
This is where the right to privacy falls, in those rights not enumerated...yet clearly retained by the people.
It is the opinion of some (perhaps many), myself included (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) that the creation of the Bill of Rights, whilst noble in purpose has emphasized the subset of rights enumerated therein to the detriment of other equally important rights, such as privacy.
I can respect your opinion as well even though on my side I find the implication behind your words dangerous and abhorrent to anyone wanting to live in a civilized society that truly respects the rights of every single citizen.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this...what does attack the production mean if not restricting the right to this form of speech. This whole sentence feels like an attempt to wriggle out of an uncomfortable acceptance of the need for restriction on personal expression too barbaric to be acceptable.
There is a line that must be drawn, total personal freedom is not possible without impinging on someone elses total personal freedom. I too will defend until my last breath your right to think and verbally express any opinion, without exception, but some methods of expression must be controlled because they have either a direct and enduring effect on the inalienable rights of others. In addition the maturity level of those on the receiving end of the expression should be considered, which is why it is, for example, illegal to show pornography to minors.
If you won't accept child pornography as the line then how about my desire to express myself with art constructed using the blood and body parts of ritually sacrificed teenagers, how ridiculous do I have to get in order to prove the point.
There is a price to pay for our inalienable rights as a society and it is recognizing that compromise is necessary in order to prevent the strong in society trampling all over the rights of the weak.Let me start by saying I really appreciate the calm and reasoned tone of your responses it is a pleasure to discuss this issue without flames. Thank you.
Clearly we have a disconnect here because I do not see this as giving up any rights but rather enabling the right of the child to safety.
My reference to the medical situation was not intended to highlight parents denying children medication or 'killing them' it was to highlight the defeatist attitude embodied in the 'we can't fix all cases so why fix this one.' I do not believe the polio example is relevant because there is a clear and very high opportunity cost involved in dedicating resources to curing polio that must be justified versus other possible investments. In the case of this law the opportunity cost is negligible compared to the potential of saving even a handful of lives. I must also take exception to using the term prevent with reference to homicide crimes, prevention is the goal but most laws today do not prevent crime they deter people from commiting crimes through the threat of punishment, an important distinction. The law we are discussing is rare in that it focuses on prevention rather than deterrence.
Adding laws does not necessarily restrict freedoms, when done right it prevents the strong from impinging on the rights and freedoms of the weak and defenceless. This is not a double-coverage law...the current law provides a deterrent not a realistic alternative for the child. It is my opinion that deterrents do not work when passions are likely to run high and that a better job should be done of protecting those that cannot protect themselves, merely punishimg those that hurt them after they become victims is simply not enough.
Rights are never as black and white as they are presented, many (and it would not surprise me if it were most) rights laid down in the Bill of Rights have subsequently had limits placed on them. The debate is about where those limits should be. Very few would argue that (to quote extremes) child pornography should be covered by the first amendment just as very few would argue that criticism of politicians should not be covered. The limit is a fact, the debate is over where the line should be drawn. Most of those limits have been placed in cases where the exercise of the right either directly of indirectly could lead to the harm of others. The really difficult cases are where the rights of individuals are at odds (my right to enjoy loud music vs. your right to enjoy peace and quiet) since there is often no clear way to reconcile these and the result is often a mishmash of laws that for example allow noise only at particular hours. When someones safety is at threat is when my line is crossed, I know that for others the line is drawn differently and can respect that. The tricky part then becomes recognizing which rights are inalienable and which are subject to the will of the majority.
I support laws that ensure rights and freedoms are available equally not just to those with the loudest voice or the strongest arm.
So your argument is...since we can't protect children in all similar situations it makes no sense to protect them for this special case. Wow. We can apply that argument to other situations and see how much sense it makes, for example, since we can't cure all disease with a single medicine should we do away with treatment for those that do have 'special case' cures?
If the child is in a dysfunctional family and pregnant so young it is unlikely they have been taught how to behave as the responsible citizen you mention in case #3 or have developed a sense of trust in society and the people that enforce society's rules. You cannot put yourself in their position and say how would I react you have to consider their unique perspective on life and how best to protect them given their likely reaction.
And yes pregnancy is a special case anyway. It is a special case because society and life itself makes it a special case. This isn't like an auto accident, it isn't about damage to piece of property this is about a devastating life event for a teenager who doesn't yet have all the life skills to make good decisions and think clearly in a situation like this. Surely you can see the difference between an car accident and a teenage pregnancy when (rightly or wrongly) some parents feel there is a stigma that comes with teenage pregnancy in todays society. It is that perception that makes all the difference for both the parent and the child.
Let's examine the stark alternatives in a scenario where a minor is pregnant and the parents are highly volatile and liable to react violently.
Kid may end up beaten, maimed or dead, parent ends up in prison, family is devastated.
Kid is not a victim, parent is not a criminal and family remains whole.
Which seems the better option to you? Explain to me how the existing laws protect the victim cause I don't see it. What I see is laws that attempt to deter (which is next to ludicrous for crimes of anger and passion) and so we end up with a victim and then punish the parent and by proxy the entire family.
Seriously there really is too much emphasis on punishment after the fact and not enough on identifying preventable crimes in this country already. This type of law that shows some awareness of real world situations, how people become victims and how to avoid tragedies is a step in the right direction.