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.
They have the power, sure, but not the right. That's my understanding anyway.
If you, as a juror, have the power to prevent injustice, and you fail to do so, then you are responsible for the injustice. "I was just following orders" doesn't cut it.
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.
The obligation of fiduciary responsibility says nothing about timeframe - there is no obligation to maximize the next quarter's results.
Investing in the long-term future of the firm, so that future profits will be higher, is entirely responsible.
That aside, going after management for breach of fiduciary responsibility in a case like that is just about impossible - it's not a case of outright fraud, it's a matter of judgment and opinion.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Ban money
Interesting viewpoint.
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.]
Re: Ban money
"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.
Re: Chances without a ticket
Yeah, but your chances of winning without a ticket are only a _tiny_ bit lower than with a ticket.
And you save $1.
Anybody remember the CueCat?
Same thing, different decade.
Guess I'm getting old...
Re: Independant invention
it is a truly horrible idea.
There's a better way to measure obviousness.
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.
Boycotting the wrong party (as Dave)
They ought to boycott the US Congress that makes it possible for the patent trolls to thrive. It's hardly the fault of Apple or Google.
Oh - wait - Apple and Google have _competitors_, so they're subject to pressure. While the Congress...
Isn't that what a NDA does?
Anarchy
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.
If you have the power to prevent injustice, you have an obligation to do so (as Dave)
They have the power, sure, but not the right. That's my understanding anyway.
If you, as a juror, have the power to prevent injustice, and you fail to do so, then you are responsible for the injustice. "I was just following orders" doesn't cut it.
If journalists were interested in truth, they wouldn’t pretend to be impartial
They’re human, of course they have opinions of their own.
Instead they’d openly admit their viewpoint and let the reader judge their arguments.
More on this at http://mugwumpery.com/?p=24
"I" can refer to "my" belief in the numbers, not credit
I have to disagree with Mike here. Use of "we" in statements about what the CEO thinks _is_ one way to avoid responsibility (perhaps subconsciously).
It's not taking credit away from anyone to say "I am really pleased with this quarter's results".
Re "lips moving" - do CEOs lie? Of course. As much as politicians? No way.
It's a picture of US government property (as Dave92f1)
It's a photo of a NASA-owned spacesuit. Anybody could be in there. Or nobody.
Smartphones predate the application (as Mugwump)
Qualcomm's PDQ phone (Palm PDA + phone) _shipped_ in 1999, and was announced in 1998.
Wikipedia says the first "smartphone" was sold by IBM in 1992.
Because we assume it's the usual yada yada (as DaveL)
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.
And I thought he was doing something useful (as Dave)
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.
Or, I could be an incurable optimist.
Why journalism is so bad (as DaveL)
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.
See http://mugwumpery.com/?p=24
Re: More Bias (as DaveL)
They're taught to do that in journalism school.
See http://mugwumpery.com/?p=24
(untitled comment) (as DaveL)
The obligation of fiduciary responsibility says nothing about timeframe - there is no obligation to maximize the next quarter's results.
Investing in the long-term future of the firm, so that future profits will be higher, is entirely responsible.
That aside, going after management for breach of fiduciary responsibility in a case like that is just about impossible - it's not a case of outright fraud, it's a matter of judgment and opinion.
Obviousness is easy to determine (as DaveL)
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.
Raise the speed limit (as DaveL)
When a majority of citizens are breaking a law, it's the law that's wrong, not the citizens.
How about raising the speed limit so that 80% of drivers aren't "speeding"?