Actually, your argument shows how patents on methods aren't bogus. A patent that protects a method does just that: it protects *one way* of doing something. If it's "obvious", then it shouldn't be patentable. But if it isn't, then there's the innovation you wanted the patent system to produce. Clearly the problem is the definition of obvious, but if something really isn't obvious then we should reward people for spending time producing something truly not obvious. If there's another way to implement the method, then people will try to find it, and when they do we'll have even more methods than before. If they can't find another method, then the original one was truly innovative.
Look at sorting, for example. Some of the methods seem pretty obvious and based on the logical way we sort things in life (take bucket sort (anything alphabetically ordered)), but some of them seem like they would take a fair amount of thought to produce (take comb sort, which wasn't described until 1991). (Then again, Library sort only being proposed in 2004 might defeat my argument.)
I'm not saying software patents are a good idea; they're only good if they spur innovation more than not having them, which a number of researchers have shown (or "shown", if you disagree) isn't the case. But if you couldn't patent a method, and most software patents do that, you could very well argue that many of the innovations in, say, chemistry might not have happened. Just because you redefine obvious or remove patents from software doesn't mean you should throw the whole patent system out with the bathwater.
Also, your straw man doesn't hold. You assume that patented technology is crucial, and then say it isn't crucial and in fact has *exactly* no effect. Then it's not crucial.
a cheap shot dismissing open source projects as existing only to act as a foil for Microsoft
If open source projects acting as a foil for Microsoft causes them to emphasize the traits of Microsoft by contrast, that seems fine to me. Or maybe he meant a comic foil; compared to open source projects, Microsoft certainly looks funny.
In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them - usually, to obtain property or services unjustly.
[...]
Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that person's detriment. A "false representation" can take many forms, such as:
A false statement of fact, known to be false at the time it was made[.]
The sad truth is that partisans are involved in just about every aspect of the voting and elections process, and that's not going to change, ever.
And there's your problem. Elections Canada is an independent agency set up by the Canadian Parliament. Returning Officers are hired for 10-year periods to run the election in every electoral district. All staff, from the Chief Electoral Officer at the top to the poll clerk at the bottom have to be non-partisan and the people at the top can't be members of political parties or have recently held office before their appointments.
You often hear of political scandals in Canada, but not electoral ones. The best example of that is recounts: recounts happen automatically if there is a difference between the top two candidates of 0.1% of the total vote. However, a losing candidate can request one outside that range if they saw instances of electoral fraud. Do you know when the last time a recount (not even a new election, just a recount) was ordered due to electoral fraud? Because I don't. There you go.
Feel free to steal any of our PIPEDA when drafting new privacy laws. I'll let Wikipedia do the talking for me:
The law gives individuals the right to
know why an organization collects, uses or discloses your personal information
expect an organization to collect, use or disclose your personal information reasonably and appropriately, and not use the information for any purpose other than that to which you have consented
know who in the organization is responsible for protecting your personal information
expect an organization to protect your personal information by taking appropriate security measures
expect the personal information an organization holds about you to be accurate, complete and up-to-date
obtain access to your personal information and ask for corrections if necessary
and complain about how an organization handles your personal information if you feel your privacy rights have not been respected.
The law requires organizations to
obtain consent when they collect, use or disclose your personal information
supply an individual with a product or a service even if you refuse consent for the collection, use or disclosure of your personal information unless that information is essential to the transaction
collect information by fair and lawful means
and have personal information policies that are clear, understandable and readily available.
That's the problem with us laymen reading laws: we miss things. Sections 309 and 311 seem to give complete exemption when the statements are true (or reasonably believed to be true) and in the public interest. But you forgot something: that's criminal law; there's also civil law, and that's governed by a completely different set of circumstances.
According to the Canadian Press Stylebook, truth is a complete defence to libel, although it's the defendant's responsibility to prove the truth of the statement, which may be impossible. One can also gain privilege (protection from legal action) if the statements are fair, accurate and without malice, and there is a defence of fair comment if it's opinion that's honest, based upon provable fact and in the public interest.
And then there's one more can of worms: every province has its own definition for libel (the civil law part), so something that's not libel in one province may be libel in another (for instance, it may be in the public interest in one province, but not another). And if a statement is published across the country, the person libeled can choose the venue to sue the libeler (for a US example, see Keeton v. Hustler). Further Quebec's law is based on the French Civil Code, so even if a statement is true it must be proved that it was made in the public interest and without malice.
So yes, a veritable minefield that's nowhere near as simple as one thinks.
Some countries have a national statistics agency that is in charge of setting standards for methodology for things like this. Some countries statistical agencies regularly get rated as the best statistical agency in the world. And some countries get a patchwork of statistics, completely non-standardized across departments and set up by partisan appointees in the pocket of big business. Thank God you guys believe that the Federal Government can't do anything right (I'm not implying they can).
The ad consists of a small child, age around 2 years, cruising down the road... concern from parents about the copycat risk.
Copycat? Do people actually think a toddler could drive a car? This kid is not even potty trained (note the diaper), and people think their kids would be able to get the keys, get out of the house, unlock the car, get up to the seat in an SUV, get the key in the ignition and do that push-in-twist-then-pull-out thing to start it that still trips me up sometimes, figure out how to get the car out of park, have the strength to disengage the handbrake and then be able to reach the pedals while driving? The only way anyone could think this is even remotely plausible is if they were smoking the same highly potent stuff they would have to be smoking when they weren't paying attention to their toddler as their kid did this!
Find me a kid who can actually do this and I'll find you the number to the child welfare office. And the crown prosecutor (district attorney).
The IRS wants people to pay their taxes. People try to justify why they shouldn't have to. People look for technicalities. People find none. People whine. People say income tax is unconstitutional. The rest of us end up paying more taxes because some self-righteous tax-cheats aren't paying their fair share.
What needs to be done is to prevent companies from requiring SSNs unless absolutely required. Just above you, in the land of the sensible, Social Insurance Numbers have been like that for a while:
Unless an organization can demonstrate that the reason they are asking for a person's SIN is specifically allowed by law, or that no alternative identifiers would suffice to complete the transaction, they cannot deny or refuse a product or service on the grounds of a refusal to provide a SIN. Examples of organizations that legitimately require an SIN include employers, banks and investment companies, and federal government agencies. Giving an SIN when applying for consumer credit, such as buying a car or electronics, or allowing it to be used as a general purpose identification number, such as by your cable company, is likely a bad idea.
And now, thanks to the lovely PIPEDA, this is true for any personal information. Obviously if you're at a resort trying to rent a bike or something and they refuse, you're not going to leave and write the privacy commissioner, but next time you'll make it better for everyone, and maybe even educate someone and/or make their business more efficient.
It's sort of surprising that Congress hasn't gotten off its ass and done something about this. (Well, they have, just not enough of them.)
Passports do not exist to protect us. They exist to control us. Governments yearn for the day when every citizen must have their papers, when we are once again serfs for private companies.
Luckily, thanks to section six of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it's unlikely Canadians will lose their right to leave (or right to move) any time soon.
Actually, in Canada politicians seem to think it makes them more popular to admit they've had run-ins with illicit substances. Paul Martin, our last Prime Minister, said he didn't inhale, but alluded to brownies, while the current PM said, and I'm not joking, "I was offered a joint once and I was too drunk."
However, the best story obviously goes to the former Health Minister, Allan Rock, who, when during a scrum about introducing medical marijuana, was asked if he had ever smoked pot:
"As former attorney-general of Canada, I am keenly aware of the right against self-incrimination in this country. I fully intend to invoke that right." Mr. Rock replied with a broad smile.
"I have never smoked marijuana...for medicinal purposes," he insisted yesterday. [ellipsis added for emphasis he used when he said it, as used here]
To be fair, most of the Canadian population is in a short strip within a few hundred miles of the Canada-US border. In fact, half of the Canadian population is in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor, which at about 1,100 km by 100 km makes its population density around 150 people/sq km. Further, the three territories in Northern Canada comprise a third of Canada's area and a three-hundredth of Canada's population (0.03 people/sq km), with half of that three-hundredth living in the three territorial capitals.
I'm not saying that the US doesn't have its own corridors or sparsely populated regions, nor that Canada hasn't done a lot to spread broadband access across its sparsely populated regions (since it said it would and has worked hard to do so), but taking one massive area and assuming the population is homogeneously distributed is lacking of insight at best and disingenuous at worst.
The only reason to keep Netscape alive is brand recognition. Look at how many websites are still "best viewed"/"tested" or have bookmark or printing directions for only Netscape and IE, or just haven't been updated to say anything different: NOAA, part of NASA, NIHsites, govts of Utah and Minnesota, the IOC, a Consumer Reports site and college after college after college. If people keep seeing these notices, especially on government sites, there's no way they'll switch to some "other" browser, and keeping Netscape as a brand will be worthwhile. I mean, do I really have to mention AOL?
Canadian pennies (and all circulation coins under a dollar) have been made of >=90% steel since 2000 (using an apparently highly advanced plating process). And using the steel prices from Oct 2006, 2.2 g of steel costs at most 1/6 of a cent.
Microsoft's plan:
1. Embrace
2. Extend <- They are here
3. Extinguish
It's like there's something missing in this list...a next step. Microsoft...eliminating competition...securing market domination...step 4...what comes next again?
The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending or the copies or advertising that they are available for copying. [BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe]
I really am not trying to sound smug at all; I just happened to be reading your very comprehensive and useful site the other day and read the documents from the only court case you had documents for from a (my!) sane(r) country. And I do recognize that the appellate judges disagreed with the Motion Judge, saying, among other related things in paragraphs 50-53, that "It is not clear that the legislation requires a 'positive act' and no authority is cited in support of [the Motion Judge's] conclusion", and that much of the Motion Judge's conclusions were premature.
I do thank you for all your hard work in trying to fix and publicize your (and my) obviously broken country.
I used to travel to America regularly before 9/11, but I've only been there twice since and both of those were short stops between planes when flying to and from Canada. Why go to a country that will treat me like crap at immigration, then potentially kidnap me and ship me to Cuba if some computer tells them I might be a terrist?
People at Gitmo are at least ostensibly required to follow American law and ostensibly the courts have oversight. If the US really wants to stop completely innocent people connecting through the US to Canada and then ship them off to somewhere to be tortured, their best bet is to choose Syria. Of course, they'd never do that....
The hypnotising show about manufacturing, How It's Made, coveredMega Bloks a few seasons ago. Sadly, I can't find the video online, so you'll have to find it on TV (The Science Channel in the US, as well as many of the Discovery Channels), but you can be hyponotized by other of their videos on YouTube, although considering the drop in frame rate on YouTube, this is one of the worst shows to watch online.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your argument shows how patents on methods aren't bogus. A patent that protects a method does just that: it protects *one way* of doing something. If it's "obvious", then it shouldn't be patentable. But if it isn't, then there's the innovation you wanted the patent system to produce. Clearly the problem is the definition of obvious, but if something really isn't obvious then we should reward people for spending time producing something truly not obvious. If there's another way to implement the method, then people will try to find it, and when they do we'll have even more methods than before. If they can't find another method, then the original one was truly innovative.
Look at sorting, for example. Some of the methods seem pretty obvious and based on the logical way we sort things in life (take bucket sort (anything alphabetically ordered)), but some of them seem like they would take a fair amount of thought to produce (take comb sort, which wasn't described until 1991). (Then again, Library sort only being proposed in 2004 might defeat my argument.)
I'm not saying software patents are a good idea; they're only good if they spur innovation more than not having them, which a number of researchers have shown (or "shown", if you disagree) isn't the case. But if you couldn't patent a method, and most software patents do that, you could very well argue that many of the innovations in, say, chemistry might not have happened. Just because you redefine obvious or remove patents from software doesn't mean you should throw the whole patent system out with the bathwater.
Also, your straw man doesn't hold. You assume that patented technology is crucial, and then say it isn't crucial and in fact has *exactly* no effect. Then it's not crucial.
What's next, modding the parent insightful?
And there's your problem. Elections Canada is an independent agency set up by the Canadian Parliament. Returning Officers are hired for 10-year periods to run the election in every electoral district. All staff, from the Chief Electoral Officer at the top to the poll clerk at the bottom have to be non-partisan and the people at the top can't be members of political parties or have recently held office before their appointments.
You often hear of political scandals in Canada, but not electoral ones. The best example of that is recounts: recounts happen automatically if there is a difference between the top two candidates of 0.1% of the total vote. However, a losing candidate can request one outside that range if they saw instances of electoral fraud. Do you know when the last time a recount (not even a new election, just a recount) was ordered due to electoral fraud? Because I don't. There you go.
You obviously didn't spend your childhood watching Seinfeld.
That's the problem with us laymen reading laws: we miss things. Sections 309 and 311 seem to give complete exemption when the statements are true (or reasonably believed to be true) and in the public interest. But you forgot something: that's criminal law; there's also civil law, and that's governed by a completely different set of circumstances.
According to the Canadian Press Stylebook, truth is a complete defence to libel, although it's the defendant's responsibility to prove the truth of the statement, which may be impossible. One can also gain privilege (protection from legal action) if the statements are fair, accurate and without malice, and there is a defence of fair comment if it's opinion that's honest, based upon provable fact and in the public interest.
And then there's one more can of worms: every province has its own definition for libel (the civil law part), so something that's not libel in one province may be libel in another (for instance, it may be in the public interest in one province, but not another). And if a statement is published across the country, the person libeled can choose the venue to sue the libeler (for a US example, see Keeton v. Hustler). Further Quebec's law is based on the French Civil Code, so even if a statement is true it must be proved that it was made in the public interest and without malice.
So yes, a veritable minefield that's nowhere near as simple as one thinks.
Some countries have a national statistics agency that is in charge of setting standards for methodology for things like this. Some countries statistical agencies regularly get rated as the best statistical agency in the world. And some countries get a patchwork of statistics, completely non-standardized across departments and set up by partisan appointees in the pocket of big business. Thank God you guys believe that the Federal Government can't do anything right (I'm not implying they can).
If this was indeed an attempt to catch someone stealing their data or IP, then it might have been a fictitious entry.
Find me a kid who can actually do this and I'll find you the number to the child welfare office. And the crown prosecutor (district attorney).
The IRS wants people to pay their taxes. People try to justify why they shouldn't have to. People look for technicalities. People find none. People whine. People say income tax is unconstitutional. The rest of us end up paying more taxes because some self-righteous tax-cheats aren't paying their fair share.
Nothing new here. Move along.
It's sort of surprising that Congress hasn't gotten off its ass and done something about this. (Well, they have, just not enough of them.)
On second thought, it's not.
Passports do not exist to protect us. They exist to control us. Governments yearn for the day when every citizen must have their papers, when we are once again serfs for private companies.
Luckily, thanks to section six of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it's unlikely Canadians will lose their right to leave (or right to move) any time soon.
However, the best story obviously goes to the former Health Minister, Allan Rock, who, when during a scrum about introducing medical marijuana, was asked if he had ever smoked pot:
To be fair, most of the Canadian population is in a short strip within a few hundred miles of the Canada-US border. In fact, half of the Canadian population is in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor, which at about 1,100 km by 100 km makes its population density around 150 people/sq km. Further, the three territories in Northern Canada comprise a third of Canada's area and a three-hundredth of Canada's population (0.03 people/sq km), with half of that three-hundredth living in the three territorial capitals.
I'm not saying that the US doesn't have its own corridors or sparsely populated regions, nor that Canada hasn't done a lot to spread broadband access across its sparsely populated regions (since it said it would and has worked hard to do so), but taking one massive area and assuming the population is homogeneously distributed is lacking of insight at best and disingenuous at worst.
The only reason to keep Netscape alive is brand recognition. Look at how many websites are still "best viewed"/"tested" or have bookmark or printing directions for only Netscape and IE, or just haven't been updated to say anything different: NOAA, part of NASA, NIH sites, govts of Utah and Minnesota, the IOC, a Consumer Reports site and college after college after college. If people keep seeing these notices, especially on government sites, there's no way they'll switch to some "other" browser, and keeping Netscape as a brand will be worthwhile. I mean, do I really have to mention AOL?
Canadian pennies (and all circulation coins under a dollar) have been made of >=90% steel since 2000 (using an apparently highly advanced plating process). And using the steel prices from Oct 2006, 2.2 g of steel costs at most 1/6 of a cent.
Telegraph India has a map of the island and some islands nearby in 1969 and in 2001, and Google Maps has a Satellite photo.
I really am not trying to sound smug at all; I just happened to be reading your very comprehensive and useful site the other day and read the documents from the only court case you had documents for from a (my!) sane(r) country. And I do recognize that the appellate judges disagreed with the Motion Judge, saying, among other related things in paragraphs 50-53, that "It is not clear that the legislation requires a 'positive act' and no authority is cited in support of [the Motion Judge's] conclusion", and that much of the Motion Judge's conclusions were premature.
I do thank you for all your hard work in trying to fix and publicize your (and my) obviously broken country.
The hypnotising show about manufacturing, How It's Made, covered Mega Bloks a few seasons ago. Sadly, I can't find the video online, so you'll have to find it on TV (The Science Channel in the US, as well as many of the Discovery Channels), but you can be hyponotized by other of their videos on YouTube, although considering the drop in frame rate on YouTube, this is one of the worst shows to watch online.