Do not negotiate with terrorists. Simple as that. I am not saying that patent trolls are terrorists. I am just saying the same logic applies here and similar set of incentives - if you ever make deals with terrorists you make terrorism useful and you create an incentive to do terrorist acts. And I say that knowing that sometimes it takes incredible guts not to make a deal with terrorists.
I live in EU and Silicon Valley has always been 'the Paradise' for all start-ups here - everybody dreamed about going to the Valley and those who got there were adored and celebrated. But I feel this is slowly changing. I have nothing to prove it - it's just some anecdotal evidence but when I talk to people sometimes it's like "Silicon Valley is the best... but you get hit by a patent lawsuit as soon as you are successful so what's the point... maybe let's go to Chile or London instead, those places are also cool."
I live in the Czech Republic and it's pretty common here that if you sue someone and you loose you have to pay their legal costs - it's considered fair and 'normal'. I hear that this is very unusual in the United States. Why? It seems to handle this problem reasonably well - and I don't mean just patent trolls but generally legal trolls, entities using high litigation costs as an extortion leverage.
When I was reading that bit "all that money is a means to an end, and the end is to get re-elected" I was like "what the hell does he mean by that? Why would a politician care about voters or being re-elected when he already has the money... and going to politics is just means to get the money, right?" Why would you care about voters after you "sell out" and are financially set for the rest of your life?
Then it hit me - aah, it was not an euphemism, he probably means real legal lobbying... like when a politician can only use the money for the political campaign and not buying yachts and houses at Bahamas. It must be nice to live in a country where you just assume that lobbying is mostly legal and politicians (and therefore laws) cannot just be bought.
I respectfully disagree... even from personal experience. I had the opportunity to compare living in Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic before and after the revolution... and the "after" is way better. I would argue that at least anti-communist revolutions were kind of success.
Even the French revolution - despite guillotines and "regressions" - could be considered great success - it basically laid groundwork for modern democracies - liberté, égalité, fraternité, who could argue wit that, right?
Let me remind you that the revolution does not necessarily need to be bloody. I had the opportunity to witness one revolution that was non-violent and yet capable of overthrowing the regime (the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, 1989). Something like that can happen again... maybe even in the US if things get bad enough.
And a fun fact: I also remember that even few days before the revolution almost nobody believed any revolution would be possible. Things like that can escalate surprisingly quickly.
Although my guess is that in your country things will need to get much worse before regular people start to care. I have not stepped on US soil for almost ten years now but from what I hear it's still too easy to avoid seeing bad things that your government does just by not watching the news.
Wanna free Internet? Don't relay on any legislation - form a group of technical experts and try to think of ways how to make Internet even more decentralized, with transparent end-to-end encryption, no single point of failure, no single address to block, no single server to seize... total cloud.
IMO there is a fallacy - you ignore the difference between word apple and 'Apple computers' brand. Apple computers brand did not exist before Apple created it. And it's much more specific than just some color... or at least should be (specific Apple logotype, not just any apple etc).
The fact that Apple seems to go after any company that just uses any apple is a different thing and I consider it disgusting legal bullying based on power of money, not power of justice and law.
IMO smaller robbery is still robbery. The color is not anything created by Cadbury, it's 'public good' an anyone should be able to use if for whatever they like... including candy, chocolate and foodstuff. What gives Cadbury any right to exclude me from using that color on my candy? What is this supposed right based on?
The fact that Cadbury is 'trying to protect its interest' is not sufficient justification at all... because so does the robber. The fact they want to protect their interest does not mean they have any right to do so.
Do you think anyone should be able to claim ownership over any public good they did not create and exclude others from using it just because they want to? Can you imagine how would society like that work?
What is the opposite of expropriation - is appropriation the correct English term? Because that's exactly what this is - they take something that belongs to everybody - purple color - and give it to some private party.
I grew up in communist country where they confiscated private property and gave it to 'the people' (read 'communists and their minions') and now I have to watch how so called intellectual property is used to rob us from right to use common shared things like colors (trademark) or ideas (obvious or general patents).
I understand that people can protect something they've created - brand (trademark) or invention based on expensive research (patents) - but how can anyone dare to claim ownership over something like color? They cannot say that they created the color... they are just taking something that was already here for everybody to use, public good... and stealing it from us... maybe legally but certainly not rightfully.
When I see proposals like this I think the secure strategy for any on-line business is to avoid US-based payment processors. But VISA, MasterCard, PayPal... they are all US-controlled. Any tips on non-US payment processor for a non-US business?
It seems to me that with proposals like that the right strategic decision for any non-US innovative business would be to not rely on any US-controlled payment processing provider. But Visa, MasterCard, PayPal... they are all US controlled. What else is there?
I keep thinking about that Mike's recent article about different treatment for law-breaking depending on whether or not nou have power ( http://goo.gl/rVs7h ).
Now I see that everywhere - draconian punishments for us low-lifes and slap on the wrist for our corporate masters. You share 31 songs and you are financially ruined for the rest of your life. They try to stole your money... and what happens when they are caught? Nothing... they just happily keep trying.
I am starting to thing there is something about that "we are 99%" thing. Something really needs to be changed - now!
The court. I don't know how exactly the US law system works but I would expect that any system able of sending people to prison must also meet certain criteria to ensure that such power is not abused - having to prove that the defendant has been informed about the court and has been given a fair chance to defend himself would then be one of those criterion.
Yes. of course, but the point is that they have to prove that you knew about the default judgement. That's what the institution of "being served" is about... having supposedly independent witness who can testify that the defendant knew about the court and could properly defend himself. Without that any declaratory judgement should be invalid.
Wait a minute... that does not sound right. Being sentenced without being served? In the USA? I don't really know your constitution but I guess the right to defend yourself in court is a constitutional right in every at least somehow democratic country - and being sentenced without proper chance to defend himself would clearly violate this guy's human rights... so this cannot be final sentence, it's still just some kind of declaratory judgment that he can just deny that and after that the proper court will start, right?
The problem with this argument is that in theory this is not unilateral. In theory the contract is between artists on one side and people represented by government on the other side.
The fact that in reality government represents the other side of the contract than it should is another thing. And if this is the reason for opting out of the law... well than I am opting out of half of the whole legal system.