Actually getting rid of Trade Secrets. As we can see--based on the simple fact that we have a patent system and yet legal recognition of and protection for Trade Secrets still exists--this has not happened yet.
Throughout history, few things have been as damaging to progress as the trade secret. Did you know that the earliest known samples of steelmaking date back to almost 1500 BC? But because greedy smiths kept the secret to themselves to try and cash in on the benefits of being one of the only ones to supply the local army with this miracle metal, when the smith died off the secret would be lost again. It wasn't until 19th century Britain when the cycle was broken: the patent system required the people who rediscovered steelmaking to publish their secrets, and the rest is history. Steel ended up fueling the Industrial Revolution, and laid the foundation for the modern age.
In this one thing alone, trade secrets held back the progress of mankind by three thousand years. Who knows what else we've lost? It's long past time for the whole concept to die.
The CEO of Nokia, Stephen Elop, used to work at Microsoft. He left to go work for Nokia, and ended up tying Nokia's fate solidly to Windows Phone technologies, which sent the company into a tailspin.
Now Microsoft is not buying Nokia; they're buying a few pieces of Nokia that are still valuable, and leaving the rest of the company to rot. And what they're paying for it is much, much lower than what they were looking at buying Nokia for a few years ago, the proverbial "pennies on the dollar." And meanwhile, Stephen Elop is being welcomed back to Microsoft with open arms, and rumors are circulating that he's a strong candidate for the new CEO.
Does this all seem just a little bit too convenient to anyone else? When I found out he came to Nokia from Microsoft to begin with, I couldn't help but wonder if this might have been the plan all along...
Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.
As with a lot of your posts, I get the feeling that there are some good ideas lurking in there, but they're so crowded by the way you go off in five directions at once that it's hard to get a clear view of the points you're trying to make...
The DOJ is asking for the case to be thrown out, of course. There are a bunch of reasons suggested, including arguing that the ACLU doesn't have standing. That's quite an argument, because the leaked order makes it clear that all customers of Verizon business services have had their data collected, and the ACLU just happens to be a customer. However, the DOJ argues "nuh uh," saying it doesn't actually count until someone in the government looks at the data it collected, and the ACLU has no proof that the government actually looked at the data.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that precisely the question at issue here?
Or, to put it another way, what's the difference between asking them to throw the case out based on this and asking for summary judgment that their acts are not illegal?
Does anyone even care about the Olympics enough for it to matter anymore? They lost all legitimacy a few years back, when they went and took something that was supposed to be a celebration of the dignity of mankind, and let China host it. They didn't even have the excuse that they did with Nazi Germany of not really knowing what was going on inside the country...
"So, like, if you guys don't shape up, you'll still get to keep abusing everything for another two years before we even actually decide if we're going to take away your toys or not. So, yeah, we're totally serious. You really should stop doing that!"
Didn't you get the memo? Any or opinion act that in any way opposes any action or opinion of a minority, for any reason, no matter how legitimate, is racist by default. This is true even if the "perpetrator" is not white, if the "victim" is even less white. (See: the Trayvon Martin case.)
- I want something that the people I want it from aren't going to like.
- I ask them for something far, far worse. They say "no way!" and (metaphorically) slam the door in my face.
- I come back and ask them for what I really wanted all along. They give it to me, because I'm suddenly sounding a lot more reasonable.
Keeping this in mind, let's look at what Microsoft actually said:
After a one-time system set-up with a new Xbox One, you can play any disc based game without ever connecting online again. There is no 24 hour connection requirement and you can take your Xbox One anywhere you want and play your games, just like on Xbox 360.
- What I want: DRM on all games in the form of a universally required activation system. But gamers hate DRM. They wouldn't accept that.
- What I ask for: always-online DRM requiring a persistent Internet connection. Gamers slam the door in my face and let me know that there's no way I'll sell any consoles with an onerous restriction like that.
- What I give them instead: DRM on all games in the form of a universally required activation system. Gamers buy my console because I "listened to them" and did away with the always-on Internet requirement, which I never intended to actually implement in the first place.
- I laugh all the way to the bank.
I remember 2003. Back then, Google had already taken over the world of search, at the very least. True, they didn't start building out the rest of their Internet empire until the next year, when Gmail launched, but in 2003 the writing was clearly on the wall and had been for a long time.