begin oe_protect.scr
Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
> [H]omer wrote:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>> > begin oe_protect.scr
>> > Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>
>> >> Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Software Patents And Open Source
>> >>
>> >> ,----[ Quote ]
>> >> | The opponents of proliferating software patents who see them as a
>> >> | threat to open source software may finally get their day in
>> >> | court--the U.S. Supreme Court.
>> >> `----
>> >>
>> >>http://www.governmententerprise.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=192501175
>>
>> > What's going on here is so blindingly obvious that everyone can see
>> > it. Even this article is reasonably clear about it. What nobody
>> > seems to consider taking to task is the idiocy of making a patent
>> > office a profit-centre; where are the politicians in the US
>> > questioning such a clearly foolish move? Why is there /no/
>> > opposition in the US?
>> >
>> > Looking to our side of the Atlantic, I sincerely hope that the EU
>> > never falls into this childish trap.
>>
>> What I can't understand, is why commercial entities (like Microsoft)
>> are even *allowed* to take part in a political decision making
>> process, the whole purpose of which is (essentially) an investigation
>> into the fairness of currently implemented business practise
>> (i.e. patents).
>
> That's just the nature of the united states. Instead of having an
> elite group, like the House of Lords, which was designed to represent
> the "rich and powerful",
Sort of, it also has law Lords, and senior church folk, and so on.
These days, it also has senior union leaders and elder statesmen
politicians and so on. There's also been much reform to remove the
heriditary peer types which were a feature of it once. One has to
consider that it was these Lords who (or the antecedents of) forced
Magna Carta, and in doing so, introduced the fundamentals of much of
modern democracy around the world, so although it might seem
anachronistic, it's really a vestige of an earlier age. The marriage of
Norman and Anglo-Saxon cultures was not all positive. Still, the
previous marriage of Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon cultures a few
hundred years before wasn't, either... But Magna Carta came out of the
mix, so we got trials by jury, inalienble right to citizenship, and
limits to executive powers, and a few other things too.
> and the house of Commons, to represent the
> average person, we have a Senate, where each senator is elected by the
> entire state, and a house, where only the people in each district can
> vote for that representative.
As a start-point, it's fair enough. The major weakness to me is having
a president, more on that later...
>
> Only people can vote, but corporations can provide direct funding, in
> the form of campaign contributions from members of the company (some
> companies will buy whole tables and invite managers and officers to sit
> at the table as "donors"). The companies can also make contributions
> to "free speech" organizations who make "public service announcements",
> all designed to let the people know which candidates are supported by
> what economic interests.
As a progaganda system, it is amazing. I'm quite sure this is why the
US is so good at marketing in general, much better than anyone else.
The whole culture of telling people what to think runs so deep, that not
only do people accept it happening, but also, they're quite happy to be
told!
>
> By the time the primaries are over, it's pretty much just a screaming
> match between liberal democrats and conservative republicans, trying to
> pick up votes from moderates on one hand, and trying to make sure their
> 'base' turns out on the other hand. Democrats pray for a sunny day,
> and Republicans pray for a cross-country blizzard.
Hehe; I think this is much the same in most bi-partite systems, though,
it's the centre ground where elections are won and lost, as those at the
extremes can be more or less counted on.
>
> The real decisions are made early in the primary process. George W
> Bush had huge financial backing, over $30 million, before the primaries
> even started, and he was able to win so many primaries so early on,
> that the opposition simply withdrew before half the races were decided.
> Bush made it clear, even before he was nominated, that he thought
> "companies should have a right to innovate, and profit from their
> innovations". This made it very clear that Microsoft was backing him,
> and if he was elected, he would be backing Microsoft in the DOJ
> settlement.
This is the point at which your government looks 100% corrupt from here.
Even third-world countries would struggle to do this and be so open
about it. Of course, if you didn't have a president, then there
wouldn't by any such figure so powerful as an individual (this is bound
to lead to corruption, and thus does). I think it a major flaw, seeming
to draw inspiration from the Roman Caesars in having an absolute ruler.
Unfortunately, I can't see the situation changing, at least, not until
the US invades one country too many.
Limits to election funding are looked at all the time here, of course,
the parties try to get around them, but in the end, they get stopped.
>
> Sure nuf, as soon as he was elected, he took divestature off the table,
> taking away all of the negotiating leverage, then pretty much
> rubber-stamped a proposal so full of obvious weasel clauses that even
> the Judge was having a hard time accepting it.
This is another issue I have with the US - the political appointment of
so many people in powerful positions who should, as a matter of course,
be apolitical in their roles. These include scientists, judges, medical
officers, administrators of most kinds. Were it not for this, we'd
likely have made much more progress on global warming than we've been
able to so far.
>
> At this point, the DOJ is extending only PARTS of the settlement,
> giving Microsoft free rein to go back to "business as usual" with the
> release of Vista.
>
Of course; but then, I never really expected the same thing.
>
> Patents are the same gig. Bush wants to back the companies who backed
> him. If that means rewriting patent law so that Microsoft can patent
> emoticons and drop-down menues, so be it.
>
I return to my start point - why is there /no opposition/ in the US?
Of course, our "left-wing" party now looks more right-wing than the
Conservatives in the Thatcher era were, so perhaps we'll be going the
same way soon...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Law of the Jungle:
He who hesitates is lunch.
|
|
