I'm saying that political power invites people to spend money to get it. Without lots of discretion (power) for politicians, nobody would be interested enough in politics to spend lots of $ on it.
You're saying that the ability to buy political power invites people to buy power, in order to reap the benefits of power (the ability to steal legally, keep out competitors, etc.).
We're not that far apart. Each feeds on the other.
But if you limit the power of politics (my solution), then the incentive to buy power goes away - because it's not all that valuable to have.
If you limit the ability to spend $ on politics, the incentive to influence those who wield power (either by selecting different politicians or by bribing existing ones) still remains. If you can't spend $ on elections directly, you'll find a loophole - control the media, sponsor slanted "documentaries", etc.
I still think the root of the problem is too much power in the hands of politicians - as long as they have power to choose winners and losers, people WILL find a way to get at that power. Those with $ will always have the advantage.
The only solution is to limit the amount of power that politicians have.
[Other that than, I agree with most of your other proposals.]
"The only way for us to succeed in anything, is to ban money from government elections."
You're confusing the symptom with the disease.
Money in elections is the symptom. The disease is too much ability for government to pick winners and losers. As long as billions of dollars are at stake in elections, people will find ways - fair or foul - to influence them.
The only solution is to cure the disease. Reduce the power of government to pick favorites.
Look at the period of time from when an innovation becomes useful until it's "invented". If the period is short, it's obvious.
I'd say 5 years or so is a good period, but that's debatable.
A couple of examples:
Xerography. Useful anytime since the invention of writing on paper. Invented in the 1950s. Not obvious.
Huffman coding. Useful since the invention of telegraphy (1860s). Invented 1950s. Not obvious.
Backing store for video display terminals. Useful since the invention of video display terminals (1950s). Invented 1950s. Obvious.
Streaming audio on the Internet. Useful since the deployment of broadband Internet. Invented 10 minutes later. Obvious.
The key idea is that most "bad" patents are for things with there is no prior art, because the _field_ is new, but the invention is obvious. The "inventor" is simply the first person to solve a NEW problem in the obvious way and file - the same way that any competent person would have solved the same problem.
The accepted precedent in the UK is that one may NOT 'contract out' of any rights, obligations or duties as specified in legislation or case law made thereunder.
Hang on. Isn't that exactly what a non-disclosure agreement does? If I receive information from someone and sign an NDA agreeing not to disclose it, and to use it only for a particular purpose, it seems to me I've contracted away any fair use rights that would otherwise apply.
I'm pretty sure NDAs are enforced by courts, even in the UK.
Every juror isn't there to impose his or her own version of justice. That's anarchy.
No, anarchy is when there are no enforceable rules.
A jury is a mechanism for making it harder for injustice to occur. The jury mechanism has evolved over more than 1000 years because it is a critical part of successful societies. One key function of juries is to refuse to enforce unjust laws. A jury can't impose arbitrary rule on arbitrary people.
I think you're a troll, Average Joe. I find it hard to believe you mean what you say.
I remember 20+ years ago some game company put a clause in their shrink wrap license saying basically "if you pirate this software, you hereby agree to forfeit your immortal soul to the devil".
It was VERY prominent - they wanted you to see it. The company claimed that this cut down on piracy very significantly - I've always wondered why more vendors don't do that.
Users don't read licenses because we assume it's the usual yada yada mandated by the lawyers. Plus, we assume that any "unreasonable" terms wouldn't be enforced by a court - which I think is the case with click-thru licenses.
It would be far better if some respected organization developed a "standard" click thru license with "reasonable" terms which could be referenced - so the license becomes:
[ ] I agree to the Standard SW Licences Terms.
Then people would KNOW what they're agreeing to. And I think that would make more enforceable, too.
For a long time I thought the attacks on IV were missing the point - I thought what IV was really doing was a GOOD thing - a partial "opt-out" from the patent system: Join my club (for a small fee) and you cross-license all your patents with all the other members, and therefore don't have to worry about MANY patent issues.
Obviously I was wrong; they're just blood-sucking patent trolls.
Or, I suppose, they could be deliberately trying to destroy the patent system by illustrating its unfairness, deception, and innovation-suppressing effects.
Much of the problem of modern journalism stems from the attempt to be "unbiased". This is impossible - reporters and editors are human, they always have their own opinions. It's folly to pretend otherwise.
Following on Brad Templeton's idea, obviousness is easy to determine.
Obvious solutions come quickly. Non-obvious ones take a long time.
Just because a solution is new, doesn't mean it's not obvious.
You have to look at how old the PROBLEM is.
If a solution comes quickly after the emergence of a problem, the solution is probably obvious and will be quickly re-invented by others. If the problem has been around for a long time, the solution is probably not obvious.
Example: Selling books online. Obvious. Before the Web the problem didn't exist.
Example: Xerography. Not obvious. The unsolved problem of making single copies of documents had been around for all of history.