21–30 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.
I honestly can't tell if your comment is sarcastic or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"
I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.
Ideally, what we want to create is opportunities for people to create wealth via their own labour. This is the good sort of "job creation".
The bad sort of "job creation" is where you create non-wealth-creating jobs. For instance, if the Government were to declare tomorrow that every truck driver needs a supervisor in the passenger seat to make sure he doesn't fall asleep, that would create a crapload of jobs but no wealth. Or, if you pass any new law you'll probably create a need for a bunch of new lawyers.
According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban has $2.5 billion. If he thinks the patents are bogus (which I totally believe), why not fight a high profile, precedent setting case? If he thinks the law is broken, why not lobby for patent reform? Or a loser-pays system?
Do you know he's not doing those?
All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…
According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban has $2.5 billion. If he thinks the patents are bogus (which I totally believe), why not fight a high profile, precedent setting case? If he thinks the law is broken, why not lobby for patent reform? Or a loser-pays system?
Think of all the jobs required to fight these patents in court.
All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…
A more realistic first step might be "no new software patents". Otherwise it could be a pretty fierce fight with existing stakeholders, who would view abolition similarly to a nullification of a stock portfolio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more realistic first step might be "no new software patents". Otherwise it could be a pretty fierce fight with existing stakeholders, who would view abolition similarly to a nullification of a stock portfolio.
I agree, although I'd make it broader, because SW patents is too tough to define and isn't the only place this problem exists. No one really has a great definition for SW patent, especially since most SW patents are embodied as HW. Is the x86 architecture patentable considering one can implement it all in SW? Is signal multiplexing technology a SW patent? What about robotics in general? I frankly don't think it can b…