| |||||||||||||
Where's the action?Where's the action?Posted Jul 16, 2009 18:49 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104)Parent article: Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek) I believe there is too little action against software patents in the United States. Google search for terms like "against software patents" finds mostly concerned with the situation in Europe. Electronic Frontier Foundation is mostly busy with busting specific patents and doesn't appear to oppose software patents in general. I'm afraid we are missing an opportunity. Democrats are naturally more receptive to arguments against businesses abusing protections granted them by the government. Democrats control the White House and the Capitol now. And the free software is a stronger position than ever before. Go to a local computer store, and you'll find computers, GPS devices and cell phones running free software. So, where's the action?
(Log in to post comments)
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 19:10 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
"Democrats are naturally more receptive to arguments against businesses abusing protections granted them by the government."
Are you sure? Now that the Dems in government have taken over large businesses (and are planning to take over more), I don't think they will be inclined to take away those large businesses ability to screw smaller competitors.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 21:02 UTC (Thu) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] FWIW, nationalization started under Bush II.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 22:31 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> FWIW, nationalization started under Bush II.
Nationalization started massively under Roosevelt in the 1930's.
Luckily back then the Congress and Supreme Court used a little thing called 'The US Constitution' to shut down most of the more outrageous grabs at power. But nowadays they don't let that sort of thing stop them.
Remember that it's the Congress that is responsible for raising taxes, writing/signing bills, and all that happy stuff. Obama or Bush have actually very little to say about the matter other then just getting public opinion to put pressure on Congress. The USA president is more of a easy scapegoat (or figurehead, depending on current public mood) then any effective force. They have virtually no power to affect the economy or write bills or do anything of that nature on their own. The President office is suppose to be more concerned about things like the military or international matters then anything else.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 23:05 UTC (Thu) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
Nationalization started under Teddy Roosevelt with the progressivist movement and the trust busting.
FDR had a very compliant congress, who backed everything he did until the "Conservative Coalition" of Republicans and racist southern Democrats began to form in 1938.
The supreme court at the time was majority conservative (like now) with a general 5-4 conservative split, until the switch in time, when it reversed its overall ideology. Prior to the switch it did overturn a rash of new-deal reforms in the mid-1930s.
FDR was operating in an environment in which the prevailing socio-economic order had led to a dramatic collapse of the economy. He had a mandate to rework the entire system and he did. He was one of the most transformative presidents in history. So it's pretty hard to swallow that his democratic congress and a conservative-leaning supreme court were the valiant defenders of of the wonderful laissez-faire invisible hand of your wacked-out little libertarian world.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:39 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> FDR was operating in an environment in which the prevailing socio-economic order had led to a dramatic collapse of the economy. He had a mandate to rework the entire system and he did. He was one of the most transformative presidents in history. So it's pretty hard to swallow that his democratic congress and a conservative-leaning supreme court were the valiant defenders of of the wonderful laissez-faire invisible hand of your wacked-out little libertarian world.
Uhuh. And I am sure that his economic policies and political actions did nothing to extend and deepen the depression either and if he did nothing then I am sure that the depression would of lasted for ever and ever and ever and everybody would of starved to death and the whole world would of turned into a gigantic dust bowl, right?
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:47 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
Your comment is pure troll. Why did you post?
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 1:29 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I forgot that responding to a insulting troll sounds very trollish itself.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 19, 2009 2:36 UTC (Sun) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
umm ... I would also suggest that that previous comment may not have been the best you ever wrote (and you do write good comments, very often, I know). At the very least, most history books (and I read some _before_ the present crisis) suggests that _no action_ was exactly what deepened the great depression to what it was. (And it may be worth pondering that very carefully - the present crisis was handled differently _exactly_ because of the lessons from 1929-1933.)
But, I forgot what all this has to do with the original discussion.
Patent action Posted Jul 19, 2009 20:43 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] There is an excellent explanation of this inactivity in the wikipedia. Just wanted to point out that it was the Federal Reserve which didn't act, but it did so following government policy (as explained in the main article).Just to come back to the present topic, I am not sure if the current US administration would see restrictions on the current patent model as pro-business (and therefore helping businesses to navigate the crisis) or against (making companies lose one source of income). Maybe they need some additional help from their constituencies to see that patents are harmful to the software industry as a whole. I know that the Spanish government doesn't have a flying clue about the patent issue, and for once have more faith on European authorities to do the right thing here and continue disallowing software patents.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 19:51 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
Democrats have just favored a slightly different mix of businesses -- more shaded to movie studios, record stampers, and telecomm, where Republicans have traditionally been more involved with finance, insurance, and coal. Both have traditionally been hostile to patent busters.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 20:10 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] Democrats have just favored a slightly different mix of businesses -- more shaded to movie studios, record stampers, and telecomm, where Republicans have traditionally been more involved with finance, insurance, and coal." Do you have any facts to back this up besides ideology? Do you think the "recovery" $780B from Obama went to different businesses than the $780B from Bush? I believe that elected politicians from all parties favor giving money to businesses of all sorts with very little discrimination. I think that you would find it hard to actually scientifically differentiate blindly between either elected democrat or republican officials' voting habits and decisions. Both groups are fairly "centrist" and favor large governments. Of course, to expect voters to actually look at behavior instead of propaganda... that would be Un-American! ;)
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 2:53 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Oh please give it away. LWN has a large international readership. There's nothing so mindnumbingly boring as the minutae of some other country's politics. The Internet has no shortage of other places you lot can fling mud in support of your political allegiances.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 22:39 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> And the free software is a stronger position than ever before.
I am sure that is extremely unlikely. I am sure that, like most large businesses, Microsoft gives more money to the Democrats then they give to the Republicans.
Anyways. Start a letter writing campaign to your congressman... That is the person that has the power to do something about it right now.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 22:43 UTC (Thu) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] Electronic Frontier Foundation is mostly busy with busting specific patents and doesn't appear to oppose software patents in general.If one is too idealistic nothing gets done. Busting one patent at a time is currently the most effective way of exposing the broken system and achieving something useful at the same time.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:26 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] However, the "idealistic" approach actually worked in Europe. Where's the American Florian Müller?
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 4:22 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Unfortunately it does not have anything to do with idealism*.
The USA legal system was the first one to really deal with the issues of business and software law in a big way. Obvious mistakes were made. A big one was the old cold-war-style crypto export restrictions... which still plague many businesses to this day (and fortunately has been somewhat lifted for open source software).
The thing is that once you make a law (or in the case of software patents use court systems to allow it to exist) it's extraordinarily difficult to get it repealed. It's much easier and much more effective to go after a bad law or bad system before it gets established.
It's like if you have somebody bringing in a box of cockroaches into your house. If you see him coming then it's easy to stop it, once they are established then your screwed.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:06 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I recommend that people, if they want to see software patents abolished, do not pander to the "better quality patents" crowd. One often sees people and certain companies claiming to be "pro-open source" and being all very skeptical about patents, but if you read what they have to say on the matter, what bothers them is the existence of "trivial" patents, as they cling onto the myth of the "difficult" patent that only one person could ever have produced in all of human history, of which their corporate sponsor just happens to have many, in contrast to their competitors whose patents are naturally completely worthless. (Such companies also lobby for software patents, but you won't read anything about that in the enthusiastic blogs and articles from the aforementioned crowd.)
Patent-busting is a worthy exercise, certainly, but eradicating the problem at its root is the better choice. People shouldn't believe that making friends with big companies doing the former will get you the rewards that only the latter can bring.
|
|||||||||||||