A Look at Technology Legislation for 2006 77
segphault writes "Ars Technica provides some insight into technology legislation scheduled for congressional review in 2006. From the article: 'Congress plans to cover some important tech issues in 2006 [...] like digital communication, intellectual property law, and computer security. [...] Patent reform is also on the menu. Industry groups have requested that the government allow them to participate in the patent review process, and some legislators have discussed imposing stricter constraints upon patent related injunctions..'"
It's nice to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's nice to know... [but "bickering" per head] (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:It's nice to know... [but "bickering" per head] (Score:2)
Scary thought for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two ways to go (Score:4, Interesting)
The first would be to disallow any blocking of others. IOW, it is status quo when it comes to packets going over a network. This would allow services to really build, but it could curtail future build-outs.
The second is the libertarian way. That is, we could allow anything, but we could also prohibit exclusive monopolies. Right now, govs. do a give away by allowing exclusive monopolies to various large companies. In my area, comcast has the coax rights. Qwest has the twisted pair rights. Comcast is now trying to stop Qwest from carrying iptv, by getting local legislation to block it, even though comcast has the right to offer phone and internet. By prohibiting any gov. from entering into a exclusive monopolies (or just allow very short-term ones), we would encourage huge build-outs, with the possibility of curtailments of services.
Personally, I prefer the later, but either should work. What I do know will fail, is if we give exclusive monopolies like we do now, AND we allow the companies to control services. That will prevent build-outs (why would the big players peer with you?), and would kill services that were not developed by a company.
Re:Mmm, yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is more likely, members of Congress understanding technological issues well enough to make rational, informed decisions and enact well-written legislation, or those same politicians going with whatever is pitched by the best funded set of lobbyists?
Call me crazy, but I can't picture a whole lot of Congressmen being technically literate enough to fully understand the issues described in the article. That's going to drastically limit their ability to predict the ramifications of the potentia
Re:Mmm, yeah... (Score:2)
The patent reform proposed doesn't sound too good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The patent reform proposed doesn't sound too go (Score:3, Interesting)
Please dare to say it! Say it to everone you meet, shout it from the rooftops!
I keep saying this, and I want to use this chance to shout it louder again.
Patents are unique in being simultaneously anti-capitalist and anti-social. They screw business and they screw society equally. They are a very devious form af anti-progressive thought, skillfully sold as the exact opposite.
"What is to be gaine
Re:The patent reform proposed doesn't sound too go (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not really about politics, just that "intellectual rights" have been twisted into "intellectual property" over the last decades, with the implication being that ideas and inventions are now property. In fact they are not, it's the exclusive right that is property.
Patents and copyrights could work very well (possibly even in software, though only with fundamental reforms) if the concept of "I.P." was replaced, by, e.g. "Intellectual License", and the terms of these licenses made much more clear and transparent.
E.g. "the USPTO grants inventor X the exclusive commercial rights to invention Y for N years under such and such conditions, including a clear description of the invention, and fair use for all non-commercial use."
If the patent system was reformed to clarify the license behind the property, it'd be quite fine to enforce patents rapidly and firmly. At the same time, a large part of the enforcement would be against patent holders that abused their licenses.
Ah, in an ideal world...
Re:The patent reform proposed doesn't sound too go (Score:2)
So, if you invented the next big thing, you'd be perfectly OK with MS taking it and releasing it for free?
Re:The patent reform proposed doesn't sound too go (Score:2)
Let's hope that the consumer comes out on top (Score:1)
With the heavy reliance upon such important technologies these days, many people (business elite, politicians, etc.) will have the opportunity to either help or hinder the consumers. However, the impact doesn't stop at the option of a few products here and there, but it directly hints towards our rights regarding privacy, ownership, and other things.
Technology should be used to better the lives of the many instead of fill the pockets of the few.
Re:Let's hope that the consumer comes out on top (Score:1)
Could be an improvement if done right (Score:3, Interesting)
When applying for a patent the applicant would split it into 2 parts. The first states what he can do, but not how. The second says how he can do it. The first part is made public a year before the second. If during that year, someone else can show how it is done, than the patent is denied on the basis of failing the nonobvious test. ( It need not be a year, maybe a month or two would work better ) If nobody can come up with something in that year, then the patent review process begins.
Re:Could be an improvement if done right (Score:5, Interesting)
I think your idea fails the non-obvious test.
If it is truly an important patent, I don't see why another company wouldn't try any and every underhanded technique they have at their disposal to try and discover the method & invalidate the patent.
Before I get accused of being a tinfoil hat paranoid, don't forget that the U.S. has been accused by a variety of countries that they've passed along NSA intercepts containing sensitive business information to help U.S. companies win international contracts. I wouldn't put much of anything past the largest companies.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why lobbyists get paid so much money.
Your avg Congress Critter gets a lot of their information from lobbyists, industry groups and various other organizations with an agenda.
Worse, sometimes the legislation put forward by Congress people is essentially a cut-n-paste job from 'model legislation' that the lobbyists like to give out.
Occassionaly, your representatives get called on their blatant plagarizing, but more often than not, it goes unnoticed because the 'model' legislation was never made public in the first place.
Nowadays, with MS Word documents and PDF being posted to your Congress person's website, we get the occassional meta-bomb revealing that the document was written up by some lobbyist.
/not anti-congress, just pointing out the negatives that come with lobbying
Patents not the problem? (Score:1, Interesting)
--
Thats Logic.
Re:Patents not the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly it's that the original idea of patents has been corrupted.
I don't imagine that the original patent clerks envisioned companies whose sole business was patent litigation.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Interesting)
If it was well written and important legislation, I'd pledge $50. Who's with me?
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:1)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:1)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
Tech legislation (Score:5, Interesting)
What's frightening is that the majority of congressmonkeys in office are either completely oblivious, or they consider orwellian DRM to be a "solution". I mean, honestly, can you expect a solid understanding of technology issues from a generation that doesn't even use direct deposit? [fark.com]
Re:Tech legislation (Score:2)
Um, that doesn't make any sense. I use direct deposit for my income. None of my bills are paid that way. If it was j
Re:Tech legislation (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry to go even further off topic, but this is one of those 'difference between the US and Europe' moments again.
People seriously get wages paid in checks? I had no idea the word "paycheck" was literal.
In Europe, there used to be "Eurocheques" for use in foreign countries, but they ceased to exist in 2002 (after all, ATMs work everywhere, can just pay cash in other countries). Bills are paid electronically, or, I guess, by sending a paper transfer order to your bank. Every two months I get a paper record
Re:Tech legislation (Score:3, Funny)
or, I guess, by sending a paper transfer order to your bank.
}
Right. A check.
Interested in ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that many "youngsters" aren't interested in education in general.
I do not see, however, what this has to do with technology related legislation...
uW
Re:Interested in ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interested in ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interested in ? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you actually like school, then you get branded a nerd and you then become somewhat of an outcast. Perhaps so many kids just want to be liked that they adopt the attitude that school and education isn't for them.
It seems that schools encourage sports activities more than they do educational ones. My school had pep rallies, dances, and all sorts of other acti
Re:Interested in ? (Score:1)
Re:Interested in ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Technology = application of science. Lose interest in science, and technology could suffer as a result.
It's not all bad (Score:3, Informative)
After all the operators are the bridges which connect customers to other bridges that form the internet.
Do we want to allow some troll to block our way and tell how and which way we can walk in the bridge?
I don't, but if nothing is done, that's where it will end. Because even operators have to make a buck, and that's the easiest way. And they have a point that when they say they've put money to infastructure that others use, unfortunately.
Lets hope (Score:3)
Its good to be informed about the going's on in technology, but the more I read slashdot, the more cynical I become.
I'm hoping the trend will change shortly.
Re:Lets hope (Score:1)
Yeah, I agree, and... wait a minute, whose side are you on?
Re:Lets hope (Score:2)
should be start caring less about greedy companies.
Good pick-up
Re:Lets hope (Score:2, Funny)
Becoming more cynical is in a direct relation to snabby, wise-ass replies you read that cynical Slashdot readers give to prove how seasoned and intelligent they are.
Like this one.
No way (Score:2)
I suppose that companies are concerned with P2P file sharing [wikipedia.org] and (maybe) governs are concerned with pedophilia [wikipedia.org] and terrorism [wikipedia.org].
On the first field there is little they can really do but limiting the usage of Internet itself as a bidirectional medium. If everyone used a strong encription P2P protocol mapped over, say, TCP port 80 or 25 to do my P2P, then I'd like to see how could they stop me. Only by avoiding incoming traffic to my sys
Re:No way (Score:2, Interesting)
The NSA does, after having (without a warrant) examined your call-placing patterns for the last two years and recognizing that you don't go to the pub with this person regularly at all, or even talk to them. Of course, they al
Re:No way (Score:2)
And with some hundreds thousands of targets, if not tens of millions, using wired and wireless phones, internet email and messages and even magazines ads all over the world, it cannot be done in a snap.
IMHO, without some good hint and leak in they would have a very hard time to "recognize" anything!
Nice if programs could work well together. (Score:1)
Sometimes even mr. Bush is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Although not a regular supporter of mr. Bush, I am supportive of his "no child left behind" act. If implemented correctly it raises school standards to a higher level, creating an overall more educated workforce, and thus a more educated, flexible, and innovative society in which innovation thrives, and where racial injustice, crime and other human misdeeds are at a minumum. Coming from Denmark, a country that has carried this policy for many years, I think that I am justified in saying that I know what the implications of this policy are. The current good example, of course, being Skype - Started by a Dane and a Swede. Furthermore, there is the upside of not having outrageous public discussions about whether ID should be accepted into classrooms as science, a subject Danes spend many a cold winternight joking about, and of course being scared shitless that the worlds only superpower is at an educational level where the public can be made to believe this nonsense...
Re:Sometimes even mr. Bush is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes even mr. Bush is right (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sometimes even mr. Bush is right (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes even mr. Bush is right (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Sometimes even mr. Bush is right (Score:3, Interesting)
The key words are "if implemented correctly". What NCLB does, in practice, is that it holds everyone to certain national standards, and
Hehe. (Score:1)
I think the US is reaching the breaking point where the government is no longer transparent.
As soon as it reads : "FCC censorship" on your monitor when you visit Rotten.com, that's when you know the communists really have won. Plus, "FCC" kinda sounds like "KGB"... amirite, or what?
Re:Hehe. (Score:2)
One law they forgot (Score:3, Insightful)
Not one of these laws falls under any Congressional power as given to them by the Constitution. The Commerce Clause has been distorted and stretched as far as imaginable, considering the intent of the clause was to give the Feds the power to keep the states from restricting trade between each other. Instead, we're seeing it used to help the Feds restrict trade completely, or to enhance trade of their friends/cronies with subsidies or monopoly power.
Congress has done so much damage, and it will only continue. Don't think a major change in party numbers or voting for a third party will help it -- we've lost the war again tyranny, and we have only one thing to look forward to: the continued rape we call democracy.
Bring back, at the least, a federalist representative republic where states compete with one another for the best talent, and the feds can do nothing but look on with empty pockets.
Just a suggestion (Score:1)
Congress may make a mess of things, but they have always had the defined power to pass laws dealing with patents, tradmarks, and copyrights.
Re:Just a suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)
by securing for limited times
and
to authors and inventors
Patents are for authors and inventors. The fact that are sold away to lawyers and patent holding groups is outrageous. Limited times doesn't mean decades or lifetimes.
Re:Just a suggestion (Score:2)
Re:Just a suggestion (Score:2)
Current patent law has a patent lasting for 20 years, this is fine, it's Copyright lifetimes that are the problem, with a "life of the author plus 50 years".
Hm... life of the author is not a limited time. I don't know about you, but I plan to live forever.
Plus 50 years is arguably not a limited time, because it's absurdly long. The U.S. has been around for what, 250 - 260 years?
This policy will have copyright lasting for almost half the time this country has been existence, and with it likely
Re:Just a suggestion (Score:1)
Limited time means limited time, and there must be a concrete, non-expandable, maximum limit for any one piece of work, decided at the time the right is first granted
Most Supreme Court justices would disagree with you, telling you to go ask Congress.
Re:Just a suggestion (Score:2)
Analog Hole (Score:3, Insightful)
EFF (Score:2)