Well, if this bit of code was open sourced at any point, ordinary users could just distribute an app to replace the functionality.
More advanced users could reflash their device to include the code that was removed.
All an open source model needs is one patent to completely remove functionality from a closed source, walled garden, model permanently. A closed source, walled garden, model needs complete control over all communication to and from the open source device to remove the functionality. Apple cannot win this fight.
Libertarianism is about using the government to prevent the tragedy of the commons by assigning limited property rights over common resources. Better education through better technology is not a tragedy. Cheaper and more efficient entertainment options is not a tragedy.
Perhaps these people need a refresher about what LIMITED property rights really means.
"4) Data Mining and ADA Regulations have nothing to do with each other. ADA doesn't mine data, ADA doesn't have logs of visits, that would be the webhost / domain register, and really is a completely separate topic."
The ADA protects those with disabilities/medical conditions from discrimination in hiring, and other places. If certain data can't be sold to certain people, it may go a long way toward compliance. If you think these are separate topics, you don't understand how data mining is done.
However, there does need to be some sense of rationality when it comes to who gets what patent for how long. Software patents are ridiculous. Software is equivalent to a thought process. If it deserves any patent protection, it should be very very limited.
We don't, and probably never will, have a silicon shortage. Silicon is the third most common element on the earth. It is wonderful that we can make many great advances with silicon that will help us all have better lives, but does rationing through the patent process make sense? The limiting factor to most silicon and/or carbon technologies that may replace it are probably going to be energy costs. Therefore, if limited rationing needs to be done it should always encourage the more energy efficient technology and not limit its widespread adoption. This is especially true since less efficient technologies are already out of patent and could be reproduced anywhere.
Humanity is starting to realize that critical shortages may soon affect our food and medical supplies worldwide. Sane intellectual property laws could help us navigate these problems. The current system is broken.
"1) That is not "some redesign", that is a radical change of business model that would be legally impossible without the cooperation of third parties, and in any case could easily change a viable, innovative business into a non-starter. Calling that "some redesign" is like calling aggressive chemotherapy "an adjustment of diet"."
Would it be impossible? I haven't seen their contracts but if netflix doesn't include a clause that gives them latitude to comply with all applicable laws, they should really have a talk with the lawyers that told them the contracts were okay to sign in the first place. :/
"2) Ah, you want a free, open-source speech-to-text library for Java. Built and maintained by Somebody Else."
I wouldn't mind helping maintain it. However, I don't currently have any use for it from a business or user standpoint, so it probably would be someone else.
1) Netflix would have to create or license some close captioned streams to go with their offerings. If they have a decent contract that allows them latitude in making changes to comply with federal laws that shouldn't be too high a barrier.
2) To me, java seems like a good place to start for implementing some speech to text for youtube, netflix, or whoever. I'm betting youtube could even require users to do it in their TOS. These things don't have to be perfect. I often turn on the news with low volume and CC while I'm busy. The CC are never exactly right. Sometimes, it's not even close to right. If TV is any precedent, all you have to do is make a minimal effort.
3) IANAL and I don't have more than a passing familiarity with ADA law. Don't companies usually have a reasonable amount of time to implement after being sued? I don't think you have to close down your store immediately because you forgot to paint in a handicapped spot.
4) If ADA law is going to be enforced on the internet, how long will it be for companies who see you visited a page devoted to a drug, medical condition, eating habits, or other things that may be covered under ADA to start watching their step? If that data mining executive is worried about his insurance finding out about his eating habits, maybe it indicates they're looking to target potentially obese people. I have also heard stories that some companies sell the fact you looked at pages concerning STD medications to HR departments.
Personally, I'm in decent health but who knows what could happen tomorrow? The whole practice is creepy.
I don't think it will wreck any businesses. It will require some redesign, and a few new classes built into java, but there is no reason that it can't be done. I think it will wreck the very worst abuses of data mining, not the whole industry, and I'm okay with that.
If you keep making martyrs out of people like O'Dwyer, you will always be hated. Do you think your market will grow or shrink due to your machine gun to the foot tour around the world? With the expanding market of choices, how difficult will it be to simply choose not to do business with you again if consumers decide you leave a bad taste in your mouth?
I don't care a lot about O'Dwyer. However, it appears a lot of your potential audience does. This is not in your best interest.
I disagree to a certain extent. I believe there is a certain level of income that becomes a liability to everyone once reached. If the worker cannot afford to take care of their own health, or become unable to educate themselves about making certain basic economic choices, they become a massive liability to all of us. (i.e. taking out massive amounts of bad loans and have too many children) I know many (unfortunately) won't take the opportunities they do have to educate themselves about these very basic things, but it shouldn't be due to lack of means.
I still don't agree with the "non market means" term. Just because a market doesn't use a dollar as an official currency, doesn't mean it can't be defined as a market. I think a vote could easily be thought of as a unit of currency in the democratic system. Our politicians actually do exchange them for dollars regularly, as I understand it.
I agree with your other points. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks for humoring an amateur economist.
Also, I don't understand why economists say "non-market means". This is not specific to you. I just object to the term in general. Since the reality is we do commoditize human beings through the labor market, we must acknowledge that war, disease, taxes, government, and the various other risks of the human condition are a natural part of that market and factor it into the price. Pretending that they aren't market forces seems disingenuous.