I wrote a system that was still running after three decades (ca 1980,) and for all I know may be celebrating its 35th bday. It did everything the enduser wanted, was flexible, and was built to feed SAS (Statistical Analysis System) as well as produce the reports and graphs needed. The last I heard the only difficult was in getting parts and 5 1/4" diskettes.
There were mainframe systems built in the '60s 1999 whose only problem was that they had to undergo Y2K remediation.
The cost of replacing the software just to keep up with the hardware would be incredible, would stall progress where needed, and would stultify programmer analysts. It is far more cost efficient to write emulators so the old software will run.
This is true for a lot of fields as well as computing. My father told me that many locomotive lathes that had been built during the civil war were still running. These things were so big that a man could had to stand in the lathe pan to adjust the machine.
Why replace something that is working well when that capital can be spent on something worth improving. And yes, there are Amiga OS emulators so that even if the hardware can't be directly replaced, an Amiga environment can be substituted to run the old software.
Google (and the net in general) really have little choice before they aew subject to an untold number of foolish laws.
If the French want the right to be forgotten, then the whole country should be forgotten from every search engine. This kind of thing worked with a special tax in Germany, and it will work everywhere else.
I take it you haven't noticed any right wing Hollywood types espousing smaller government and lower taxes while leaching the taxpayers. And not just Hollywood. This has become a standard practice for for mid to large size business.
Can't really blame Obama, as this kind of nonsense has been going on for as long as governments exist. As a recent, but pre-Obama occurrence, I observed Federal IT staff knowingly violate HIPPA security requirements because it saved time and money.
Just to prove your point a little more strongly, it was Richard Nixon who declared war on drugs.
The Feds began actually began their undeclared war on narcotics in 1914 with the passage of the Harrison Narcotic Tax act. A 101 years of failure for everyone except those who profit by it -- the unlawful criminals and the lawful ones.
By now Sony should have learned that these empty threats only remind people that Sony's not exactly a white hat company. Their threats only serve to stimulate our memories of the Sony BMG rootkit scandal. I believe people should have gone to jail, as installing rootkits on other peoples computers is not exactly legal.
And of course not only removing Linux from the PS3, but also the way that Sony went about it. Never mind that Sony reputedly has a history of being hacked and rehacked, Apparently without the will to make an effort to uphold their responsibilities. Some 100,000,000 people are estimated to have personal data stolen from Sony.
The FBI has been in chronic scandal for its forensic malfeasance for decades. Whether for claiming a test could distinguish between different fertilizers, when it couldn't tell the difference between nitrogen in fertilizer, and nitrogen in urine. To completely made up tests in bullet analysis, and endless more schemes to convict people with only the cachet of the FBI supporting the tests.
I had wondered why there was such a push a year or two ago to make it a crime to violate contractual terms of service, when at most it is a civil issue.
Perjury, conspiracy, Constitutional violations,wiretap violations, abuse under color of law, obstruction and whatever in a knowing and malicious manner. Who is going to be charged, jailed, fired or even given a ten minute time out?
Reading the footnote provided by the EFF, and presented in this article, it certainly appears that the EFF did not take exception to the censorship in order to have their comments considered.
I may have misread the footnote, as I have been know to make mistakes in reading comprehension rarely. But I suggest that you read the footnote which I have copied below. If you still disagree, then we can discuss it further.
"However, EFF also added the following footnote (footnote 8) on page 6: On April 2, 2015, the PTO contacted EFF to request that we remove a portion of these comments on the basis that they constituted an improper “protest.” We respectfully disagree that our comments were a protest under 35 U.S.C. § 122(c). Rather, our comments discussed a specific application to illustrate our broader points about the importance of applying Alice. Nevertheless, to ensure these comments are considered by the Office, we have redacted the relevant discussion in this revised version of our comments. Our original comments remain available to the public at: https://www.eff.org/files/2015/03/18/eff_comments_regarding_ interim_eligibility_guidance.pdf."