Comments on: from insight to action http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/ Blog, news, books Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:36:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21896 Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:03:38 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21896 Although I’m not an expert here, I don’t think Zennie’s idea would work. If the “new” software still does what the patent describes, then it still infringes.

Working around patents is still possible, and I know of at least one case where that happened. Since the workaround was released as open source, the potential value of the patent dropped overnight.

On top of that, open source work that pre-dates a patent may be used to invalidate that patent. Although the patent office checks patent applications only against old patents, any prior art invalidates the patent. The problem here, of course, is that the open source project probably would need to go to court to invalidate the patent.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21895 Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:23:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21895 I would also suspect that farms that have seeds saved from last year’s stock can plant those seeds, since they would be from non-registered plants. In the future farms will be required to watch what they buy and how they handle it. This isn’t new.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21894 Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:15:54 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21894 Thinking over what I posted, I need to state, for the record, that since Bremer wasn’t elected, he really shouldn’t have started new areas of “IP” law for the Iraqis.

On the other hand, the law would be mainly an “industrial” regulation — it would be unlikely to be enforced against personal gardeners.

Raoul wrote, “the entire war doesn�t jive with 50 years of established international law.” However, when a country (Iraq) attacks the military forces of another (the US) for ten years, invading that country is clearly not in violation of international law.

Raoul continued, “just because the implementation of the law does not specifically correlate with your understanding of international patent law (you are self described as not being an expert) is exactly the point.” I agree that this was the point, although not the point that Raoul was trying to make. The article referred to patent law, but if Bremer had created plant patents, seed saving would be entirely legal. Bremer created something of a registry for certain varieties of plants. Saving those seeds from year-to-year is illegal, although farmers have the option of purchasing plants that aren’t pedigreed and registered.

I didn’t vote for Bremer, so I don’t know why I felt a need to defend his actions. Creating new forms of IP law wasn’t his assignment. However, any law Bremer had a hand in can be changed. The Iraqis have already changed other laws Bremer created (most famously capital punishment).

]]>
By: raoul http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21893 Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:37:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21893 �Sorry, Raoul, but I am a little familiar with international patent law (I’m no expert), and this story doesn’t jive with the legal framework.�

Sorry, Max but the entire war doesn�t jive with 50 years of established international law in the first place. Therefore, just because the implementation of the law does not specifically correlate with your understanding of international patent law (you are self described as not being an expert) is exactly the point. This is another example of the Iraqi�s being screwed by the international conglomerates who have hired the US Marine Corps as their mercenaries. Who could possibly think that Monsanto would let Bechtel and Haliburton have all the fun without getting their own piece of hell.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21892 Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:20:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21892 Sorry, Raoul, but I am a little familiar with international patent law (I’m no expert), and this story doesn’t jive with the legal framework.

Problems with “the legal framework”:

Problems with the interpretation of the law:

  • the law permits Iraqi breeders to register for “Plant Variety Protection” (pg. 15), something different than a plant patent;
  • the law is clearly meant to create a form of intellectual property for Iraqi breeders, not for international corporations (see pg. 17);
  • this may prevent farmers from saving seeds, but Iraqi breeders will be permitted to save seeds (in fact, that’s the point);
  • more importantly, saving seeds of family-bred crops is not illegal (just as US copyright law only applies to copyrighted books — handing down family journals and recipes is outside the scope of US copyright restrictions).
]]>
By: raoul http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21891 Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:31:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21891 Intellectual property is a joke. It is just a tool used by the aristocracy to exert control over the masses. The following is a prime example:

Iraqi Farmers Aren’t Celebrating World Food Day
Nov 11, 2004

As part of sweeping “economic restructuring” implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations — including seeds the Iraqis themselves developed over hundreds of years. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo: Pay Monsanto, or starve.
When the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) celebrated biodiversity on World Food Day on October 16, Iraqi farmers were mourning its loss.

A new report [1] by GRAIN and Focus on the Global South has found that new legislation in Iraq has been carefully put in place by the US that prevents farmers from saving their seeds and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations. This is a disastrous turn of events for Iraqi farmers, biodiversity and the country’s food security. While political sovereignty remains an illusion, food sovereignty for the Iraqi people has been made near impossible by these new regulations.

“The US has been imposing patents on life around the world through trade deals. In this case, they invaded the country first, then imposed their patents. This is both immoral and unacceptable”, said Shalini Bhutani, one of the report’s authors.

Becoming Monsanto customers at the barrel of a US gun.
The new law in question [2] heralds the entry into Iraqi law of patents on life forms – this first one affecting plants and seeds. This law fits in neatly into the US vision of Iraqi agriculture in the future – that of an industrial agricultural system dependent on large corporations providing inputs and seeds.

In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers used saved seed from their own stocks from last year’s harvest or purchased from local markets. When the new law – on plant variety protection (PVP) – is put into effect, seed saving will be illegal and the market will only offer proprietary “PVP-protected” planting material “invented” by transnational agribusiness corporations. The new law totally ignores all the contributions Iraqi farmers have made to development of important crops like wheat, barley, date and pulses. Its consequences are the loss of farmers’ freedoms and a grave threat to food sovereignty in Iraq. In this way, the US has declared a new war against the Iraqi farmer.

“If the FAO is celebrating ‘Biodiversity for Food Security’ this year, it needs to demonstrate some real commitment”, says Henk Hobbelink of GRAIN, pointing out that the FAO has recently been cosying up with industry and offering support for genetic engineering [3]. “Most importantly, the FAO must recognise that biodiversity-rich farming and industry-led agriculture are worlds apart, and that industrial agriculture is one of the leading causes of the catastrophic decline in agricultural biodiversity that we have witnessed in recent decades. The FAO cannot hope to embrace biodiversity while holding industry’s hand”, he added.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

From GRAIN Shalini Bhutani in India [Tel: +91 11 243 15 168 (work) or +91 98 104 33 076 (cell)] or Alexis Vaughan in United Kingdom [Tel: +44 79 74 39 34 87 (mobile)]

From Focus on the Global South Herbert Docena in Philippines [Tel:+63 2 972 382 3804]

NOTES

[1] Visit http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=6. GRAIN and Focus’ report is entitled “Iraq’s new patent law: a declaration of war against farmers”. Against the grain is a series of short opinion pieces on recent trends and developments in the issues that GRAIN works on. This one has been produced collaboratively with Focus on the Global South.

[2] Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law of 2004, CPA Order No. 81, 26 April 2004, http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf

[3] GRAIN, “FAO declares war on farmers, not hunger”, New from Grain, 16 June 2004, http://www.grain.org/front/?id=24

source: http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=253 16oct04

]]>
By: raoul http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21890 Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:26:22 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21890 J Toran. You are a first class idiot without anything to say.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21889 Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:14:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21889 I don’t work in the patent office, nor have I ever applied for a patent. My understanding comes from what I’ve been able to find in Nolo’s book on the matter, and the web. A recent Slashdot article said that examiners are graded on how many patents they process. That makes sense, since patent examiners don’t really do anything but review patent applications. However, it’s something of a tragedy because such reviews are meant to prevent “shirking” (i.e., slacking off), but actually encourage it (the examiner has less incentive to do a thorough job if he has to process a certain number of applications). There is actually a whole school of economics that deals with this.

However, this ends up cutting both was. For instance, to get through more applications, examiners often reject the first version of an application. This requires the applicant to make a stronger case for the invention, and often ends up “narrowing” the scope of the invention. For instance, the pie crust patent decision I linked to earlier involves a procedure to make flaky pie crust that was originally rejected. I’m pretty sure that the original technique wasn’t “novel,” so I think the rejection was a good one. The invention was narrowed to only apply to crusts that followed the original technique and were baked at a high temperature. This was enough to get a patent.

The rest of the decision is pretty funny, so if you haven’t read it, I really recommend you take a look. Anyhow, this kind of dance with the patent office ends up creating areas where the patent doesn’t apply. That’s nice. It’s one of the few bearable features of current patent law, but it’s a nice one.

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21888 Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:16:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21888 To Max Lybbert,

I was thinking about your comments. One thing
that is not often said in the public is the
culture or mindset of public government, in
this case, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office.

I will not be surprised that the performance
evaluation of the patent examiners is heavily
tied to the number of patents that they approve.
If my feeling is correct, this may explain why
there are so many patents granted that should not
be granted at first place. The more patents they
approve, the better their performance evaluation
will look. Just imagine the consequence if they
reject too many patent applications more than they
approve. Therefore, the quality in patents is
heavily overshadowed by the quantity in patents.

I don’t have any direct evidence but I think that it
is plausible.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: Rob Rickner http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21887 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:08:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21887 Question to everyone.

Is Myhrvold buying patents or the right to license patents. If this is an ASCAP/BMI type situation it wouldn’t scare me much. In fact, being able to license the rights to a whole sector of the technology industry for a flat rate might actually improve our chances.

Is Myhrvold is buying patents, we have a serious problem on our hands. He’s playing himself like a benevolent dictator. ‘Give me all the power so we don’t have to worry about all the bad people getting their hands on it.’ Yeah right. As soon as his interests diverge from the general public, we’ll feel it. And I’m not going to be explicit as to where we’re gonna feel it.

To quote Daniel Altman in Neoconomy:

“Academic economists have identified the ability to own the fruits of one’s labors as an important incentive behind innovation. In an unequal society, however, achieving that ownership becomes more difficult. Gathering up the materials and money to start a new venture is no easy thing for people who are poor to begin with, especially when many wealthier people are also in line. It’s much easier for them to sell their ideas to someone with the wherewithal to follow through-settling for a small up-front payoff in lieu of a long stream of profit. And when the rewards of creativity and innovation seem so far off as to be unreachable, what is the point of pursuing them? To the extent inequality demoralizes, it results in more wasted ability.”

I don’t think Mhyrvold is evil. He’s just far too invested in the model of one genius who solves all the worlds problem, instead of the far more likely (and academically supported) model that innovation comes from a huge number of people all working together and rebuilding eachother’s ideas. Great things come from great communities, not great men. (I say men because these fairy tales never seem to get beyond their token female innovator, Ms. Curie)

This firm will result in massive inefficiencies. Small inventors will be paid off long before they gain the full benefits of their creations. An even smaller group of companies, of which Intellectual Ventures is only one, will have all the capital to sink into new projects. Small inventors (either a person, school, or start-up company) need the full income of their inventions. 20+ years to finance more inventions. Buying them off quickly, and investors in small ventures will be sure to pressure for the quick payoff, cuts small companies out of the market. Collectively, less people will enter the field.

Furthermore, how will Mhyrvold react to competition? Can another venture compete with him fairly or is he going to leverage his IP against unwelcome newcomers. He’s from Microsoft, you do the math (and it ain’t string theory).

Myhrvold is a big dreamer. He ignores the social cost because he privileges his view of innovation over anyone else (particularly reality). His kurt salon of genius thinkers are going to guide the world for us, whether we like it or not. I’m getting a little tired of not being asked what I’d like technology to do for me.

Once someone decides that they’re heading for paradise, it becomes easier to justify the little bumps along the way. I’m not buying the dream, folks, and it doesn’t make me a bad person. I charge each one of you to rent, read, or go to the theater and watch ‘The Prime of Miss Jean Brody’ by Jay Presson Allen. Trust me.

Rob (3L)

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21886 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:45:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21886 Well, J. Toran, I agree that we likely agree on the patents issue:

/* It would take a bunch of snakeoil professors to invent something that has been incorporated in the i5 since, what?.. ’84 or ’85?
*/

But since they wouldn’t recognize that the technology has existed for 20 years, they would apply for a patent, and the patent office would likely permit it.

/* Data compression is being fancified by the term P2P, is what’s going on at MIT.
*/

And, incidentally, being patented.

/* Btw, I’m not in a mood to read any tripe from RMS, … Meaning, I already agree with most, I assume from reading the first paragraph.
*/

Yes. Although you may not agree with Stallman that all software patents are bad, you can agree that certain ones (including the one critiqued in the article) definitely are. And how do these bad ones come into existance? By people convincing themselves that they, alone, are more creative than the other 5 billion people in the world.

So, to go back to my original thought, lawyers and doctors may come up with ideas that haven’t been patented, and the lawyers may know how to file the papers, but does that imply that their patents will be any more bullet-proof than what we’re already up against? Something like 50% of all court-challenged patents are invalidated because of prior art or because they are poorly-written. OK, so the pie crust patent is legally-valid, although it’s impossible to enforce.

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21885 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:09:07 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21885 To bring these questions back on-topic.

If this dude, very nice man I’m sure.. but.. well if gets a patent on cloning a thylacine, would that patent be infringed by someone doing same on a velociraptor?

I think we should get these patently absurd, science-as-nice-guy images being propagandized in the PRess worked out, BEFORE the research continues.

Or “we” can work on the legal issues involving patents, either one… Or both.

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21884 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:25:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21884 There’s yer answer. Just in the st. nick o time, the U.N. “saves the day”…)-;

And in the absense of a treaty, the work continues.

The default is “if there’s no treaty agreed to, whatever goes”.

Dr. Lakoff, you ever ANALYZE THIS?!? !?!

The question should be, if there is not treaty to ALLOW cloning, then it should NOT continue, imho.

Fuck you all, I’ll probably be dead before the shit hits the fan. So whatdwhycare…?

Heh… It’s just anti-American stuff, same-ole same-o, so what…

The PRess can continue to do it’s PRopaganda thing, and they’ll have all the answers stallmanism can’t come up with, right?

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21883 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:17:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21883 Btw, that question was asked back in Y2K… So what was the answer?

Oh yeah, stallmanism.. and CC license and all that…

All you folks “trying to save the world”.. Wtf you ACTUALLY BEEN DOING?

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21882 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:02:40 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21882 “Btw, I’m not in a mood to read any tripe from RMS…”

Meaning, I already agree with most, I assume from reading the first paragraph.

But I’m just guessing there’s gonna be a case made:

Because SOME patents are bad, there should be NO patents WHATSOEVER (typical “*nix-’nonthink’”) ™ (sm), and the subtle implications that there should mainly or ONLY be Professors working on building software.

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21881 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:58:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21881 Max Lybbert,

It would take a bunch of snakeoil professors to invent something that has been incorporated in the i5 since, what?.. ’84 or ’85?

Data compression is being fancified by the term P2P, is what’s going on at MIT.

Btw, I’m not in a mood to read any tripe from RMS, especially since there was a patent issued around ’95 for a Y2K “windowing” technique which me an my boss, both numnuts, “invented” in 1990. (Needed to get a 2-digit week and a 2-digit year to fit into an existing 3-digit week/last-digit-of-year.)

Yer point? If there is one?

My point, the typing “human” primarily encumbrances the posters of comments, DMCA would fix the problem of comment spam, afaik.

Also, the “Remember Me” function STILL doesn’t work.

And ipso facto, the meme that “Open” Source even IS a software methodology is patently false…;-)-;

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21880 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:50:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21880 Well, J. Toran (regarding patents), I recognize that many software developers simply don’t know some of the more interesting techniques out there. For instance, MIT is working on a P2P system (Chord) that “reduces lost messages (PDF) by use of erasure codes instead of duplication (PDF). Most programmers would simply duplicate all the data.

Since patent examiners really can’t tell if an idea is innovative, they simply base their decision on certain rules of thumb (for instance, combining two different ideas counts as innovative). In this case, erasure codes were developed for use in hard disks, so using them over the network counts as innovative. Perhaps professionals would find an easier time of “thinking out of the box” as it applies to combining different ideas. Then again, maybe they would come up with pretty obvious concepts but simply not realize that they’re obvious (this patent hasn’t expired).

And patent specs are supposed to be written well enough that anybody “skilled in the art” could implement the patented idea with minimal experimentation. Something tells me doctors and lawyers without a technical backgroung simply won’t be able to write such a spec.

Finally, although any previous implementation of an idea makes that idea unpatentable, the patent office only searches previous patented ideas. So many patents are issued although prior art exists, simply because that prior art isn’t patented. This was especially bad when there were no software patents (somebody patented using XOR to flip a bit).

]]>
By: hungerburg http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21879 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:40:26 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21879 fulltext of the memo here:
http://discuss.sarahsbookstores.com/Bill_Gates_Challenges_And_Strategy_Memo

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21878 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:41:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21878 SemiOffTopic(*On *Lengthy)

Since I’m gonna hafta read through The Professor’s political tripe, I may as ‘waste’ your all’s time as well, right?…;-)

“Business understood that social spending could overcome market catastrophes as well as military spending, but social spending has a downside: it has a democratizing and redistributive effect while military spending is a gift to the corporate manager, a steady cushion.”

Umm, looking at results Rather than desired results.. well this is blatantly, patently, and verifiable absurd.

Because social spending has a true downside, not just this facocted downside. Placating the masses to expect the ‘safety net’ to provide them a living, same way Universities provide tenured pProfessors, btw, that’s a huge downside. That’d be great, if the world could make a living being tenured professors. I’ve haven’t ‘run the numbers’ through a calculator, but I believe we’ve got too many people on the planet for all of ‘us’ to be tenured professors teaching the have-nots. Icbw, I s’pose.

What struck me when I started reading the first paragraph, was the date of the interview. I’d always felt similar, but feelings don’t drive economies entirely. Feelings don’t control what the al Zaraqiwi’s of the world want to do with their power, for but one tiny li’l example from a ‘tiny’ li’l part of the world, in the whole scheme of things.

Not so tiny, to the families that have brave men and women serving their, from different parts around the global economy, of course! And as I just pointed out over at BarlowFriendz (may be deleted by now, dunno.. still there as of this time ‘incredibly’…?), the divergence of funds was overly-towards social spending, but that’s pretty easy to see in retrospect, to those who can see (as some obviously are rigidly stuck in pre-9-11-call false-economic models, ‘apparently’).

“A great deal of it is high-tech R&D.”

This and the part quoted above is essentially true. That’s how the Universities sell the myth, btw, “you NEED us to do all our research at your expense, because that’s where the INHERENT BEAUTY OF DISCOVERY COMES FROM!! as well as the collateral damage/benefits of self-defense/offense, of course!)

So I’m essentially agreeing with this part of The Professor’s diatribe, however would point out that the fundamental R & D in all these fields can (and was) done by very few individuals. The leveraging into a market, often by relatively few individuals. The mass-marketing, that’s something else entirely but again by somewhat-relatively few individuals.

The maintaining of humongous mass markets.. seems to accrue to very large enterprises, for the most part.

Don’t know the whys and wherefores..

I would emphasize again, the myth of Christopher Reeve’s walking again, may he RIP.. is just more of this that Dr. Chomsky (I presume) is talking about.

“…for the state-supported corporate sector [and even moreso the state-supported Education Combine]…”

Anybody discussing the Haiti crisis (not to diminish), would be so far-sighted as to be myopic, im(ns)ho…;-D

I assume it’s a given that The PRess is incompetent, but the reasons will probably not be touched on much. Unfortunately I’ve claimed ignorance of history on many occasions, and it won’t fail me now. Meaning.. I’m afraid I tend to agree with the analysis (no matter how semi-inconsequential in the whole scheme of things, im-very-ho), but wouldn’t have a clue… Except that, yes, The PRess is incompetent and it apparently has NOT covered the story in the past 4 years since I’ve had the ‘leisure’ time to be catching up on history/current events…

Agree with the next, and confirms what I’d mostly known in my lay studies. However,

“..the pretexts of “self-defense” conjured up by Bush propagandists..”

I’m afraid an ignorant news-slut such as myself would be rather brutal in defense of the truth of the matter, which is contra-indicated by most everything I’ve seen, read and smelt. Iow, the pretext is that there was a pretext.

As indicated by the misstatement of fact:

“The Bush administration is at the extreme savage and brutal end of a narrow policy spectrum.”

Pre-9-11, I would have agreed with this view.

“Events are the teacher.”

Haha!! This is a line that puts the journalist Jon Stewart to shame!!!

“In 2004, more appears to be at stake and interest is greater, but there is a continuation of the long process of disengagement mainly on the part of poor and working class Americans, who simply do not feel that they are represented.”

Ummm, I just put this piece in it’s historical context, which is pre-election. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say I have no idea who Professor Chomsky voted for (because I really don’t…;-), but I’d expect it would not be Mr. Bush..

?

Umm.. And the facts of the matter are that the poor and working class, which excludes tenured professors and students, btw, by definition..

..well they ARE NOT REPRESENTED, in either the pseudo-intellectual elites or The PRess. NOT a question of them FEELING they are under-represented, aTALL~!~

So, I believe, the poor did as I did, which in my case was switch from lifelong “Democrat-leaning Independent” (like voted for every Demz Candidate for Prez since McGovern, my bad?).. to voting (mainly but not entirely) AGAINST THE PR MACHINE AND THE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS RUNNING IT.

Polls will tell a different tale, because the pollsters lie like a rug. Have a recent clip that demonstrates the how’s and why’s, but too tired now to look for it.

“In Brazil, in dramatic contrast, there was an authentic democratic election. The organized public were able to elect their own candidate, a person from their own ranks, despite barriers far higher than in the US:…”

You know sumpin, Professor, they had a similar election (for Mayor, iirc) of San Diego. Candidate announced they were a Populist and began campaigning THE MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION, again iirc and I believe I do. What caught my eye was that she got elected.

Great advance fer the po’ peeps, right here in the (blue-)States!!! Yeah!!

Iow, sheesh…)-;

“Part of the reason is that the activism of the intervening years has led to much more civilized societies in both countries.”

The Professor hasn’t travelled the blog circuit much, I gather…)-; Granted, this was prior to the result of this election, but “civility”…? ? ? Mebbe someplaces, but not anywhere near The PRess nor Blogaria, the stereoEchoChambers of The Elite!

Unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with the rest of that paragraph, so I’m not sure where the civility is, even more.

I’m too busy trying not to become a “heroic victim” so am not familiar with all this that follows in this section of the interview, but I can assure you we can predict fairly easily how far these “ridiculously called ‘anti-globalization’ movements” can reach.

They can reach to their toes, if they lose about 100 or 2 pounds of fat, imho.

Iow, this one-world crap is just that. Sorry, and be glad to be shown to be wrong if I live that long. Probably either are impossibilities, afaik.

Well crap, I dunno what “trope” means, so I dislike it as well… Is that some post-modern form of “tripe”…? Anyhoo, I really do NOT care to find myself in agreement with Professor Chomsky, because I’ve seen some snippets of his comments which implied that the victim of 9-11 deserved it, which is pure academic Piled Higher and Deeper Pimpin’ ‘Ho’s Downtown, afaik.

Are we innocent as lambs, nup…

“The reasons are understood by health professionals: privatization..”

Btw, this is pure 100% bull manure. It is politics in the guise of economic analysis. Show me the stats that prove this, and I’ll show you a liar. Like the liars that do the studies of human sexuality, btw, as well as those participating. (Subtle hint there.)

While I agree with the over-arching point raised, I’d sure like to Professor Chomsky and Russell Means get in a fight to the death about the “advantages” of National Health Care (one-a the few points I’ve found myself in partial agreement with Russell Means, btw).

If it was that easy, then why are the lines so long in English Health Care system, I would ask them both.

Anyhoo, this is obviously tangential to the initial point, which is that Dr. Chomsky doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about when it comes to technology and innovation.

I may not either, but I know (more-or-less) what I’ve stated above.

Regarding using public National and/or International resources to fund different vehicles for advancement of..

First of all, define the “of…” and second of all, sure.. works well in some cases, exceedingly POORLY especially for THE POOR FOLKS FOOTING THE BILL, in MANY others.

Operating Systems and Software?

Ummmmm.. there’d be many better ways, let’s put it that way, but “stallmanism” has more-or-less taken them outta the picture. One by one.

My final point is that it’s a heckuva lot easier to pick apart spoken words than it is to pick apart the written word, except when bloggers or “j”ournalists-these-days are writing. Imo/o.

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21877 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:12:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21877 crap, jes after i hit [post]…

“…first [software] patent…”

Also, the essence of the problem is the crappy software is just accepted as good ’nuff. The “Remember Me” function doesn’t…;-0…;-D

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21876 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:10:37 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21876 “Why would a lawyer have a better idea of what counts as revolutionary software than a programmer that knows what software can do today? “

This would be the essence of the problem the past decade-and-a-half. I believe I still have a clip of the article on the first patent issued, circa 1980-1, mebbe ’82.

Pandara’s box (but only 1 of many)-;.. Problem was in how it was implemented in practice, more than the theory. Was discussing problem of ‘process patents’ just recently. Patenting a method.. When is it sufficiently “unique” or “revolutionary” and when is it mere technology advance building on the shoulders of those who’ve gone before?…?

*SardonicWitticism{{Eye of the “best” lawyers ‘thingee’…}}

Problem is so far gone now, that the programmers/analysts/architects who SHOULD know what can be done today don’t even know what HAS GONE ON. And many, if not most, have ‘gone into politics’ in various forms (at least part-time) a few years back, almost without exception. Because power is a fundamental that gear-heads and ‘fear-heads’ seem to share in common.

Point is, otherwise these Tech folk and the Tech PRess’d-a BEEN working on and covering i5 these past few years. It’s not like the biggies weren’t ‘warned’ by me, if not others, years ago.

Advantage: bloggers. (cough)-;

Can I give this proper emphasis?

“Why would a lawyer have a better idea of what counts as revolutionary software than a programmer that knows what software can do today? “

Because the programmers themselves don’t know. That’s why. So, by default.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21875 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:06:15 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21875 On the way home today, I wondered why lawyers would come up with better inventions than, say, computer scientists, enginners, etc. I know, the idea is that lawyers know what can be patented — but patent law requires something revolutionary and different from anything that currently exists.

Why would a lawyer have a better idea of what counts as revolutionary software than a programmer that knows what software can do today? Sure, a lawyers might be able to file the right papers for a patent, but that won’t put any good ideas in their heads.

In other words, I doubt there’s anything to worry about from this company.

]]>
By: J. Toran http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21874 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:58:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21874 I’m jes waking up, and won’t today…)-; So not entirely following the above:

~~

I wasn’t familiar with BSA, but have studied their goals (tho not their specific goals on 15-second Yahoo search). I’m not entirely in disagreement, if the question is: Do patents help or hurt?

Point is, you folks are attempting to draw analogies between hardware and software.

‘Nuff said?

What has happened is that there’s been a CONSENSUS that Operating Systems are now in a commodity-market phase. By virtue of the fact that that’s what you get when the cost (probably more accurately, margin) of some product approaches zero.

Well wtf you expect when the cost of an Operating System *EQ zero, again by consensus and collusion?

Now, who does that benefit?

People that produce crap, primarily…)-;

~~

Btw, wrt:

“instantaneous data transfer so we dont waste our 30 minutes calling someone.”

I look at observable results. How’s this working out, for example my Outlook has been whiggin’ out past 2 days (goes to “not responding” status after a minute or two), so WHO do I call?

Personal problem.

How’d that work out when the power grid took a hit here in Ohio, summer before last?

Iow, goals don’t make results in all cases, and frequently result in the opposite of the intended goal. Like “Free …”…

]]>
By: Tayssir John Gabbour http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21873 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:52:55 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21873

“The argument is of technology where the public bore the costs and risks, until a market could be found, upon which time companies like Microsoft take over with “embrace and extend” or patent strategies.”

To finetune my sentence, I mean a market that we’re not essentially subsidizing.

]]>
By: Tayssir John Gabbour http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/from-insight-to-action/#comment-21872 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:40:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/from_insight_to_action.html#comment-21872 I will personally research these and find the results, with unassailable citations. It is very simple to make “snap judgments” which turn out to be wrong: in the case of containerism, it’s quite easy to believe Malcolm McClean invented it.

I certainly have no intention of saying that consumer invention was any intended goal; science doesn’t work that way. That would be short/medium term R&D, instead of fundamental and incredibly costly research. The argument is of technology where the public bore the costs and risks, until a market could be found, upon which time companies like Microsoft take over with “embrace and extend” or patent strategies. Those of us conditioned by the BSA might consider that IP theft, at least on some intuitive level.

If you have a citation for your claims, I would be grateful and would analyze it.

]]>