Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Supreme Court Invalidates Software Patent...

<< < (4/4)

Renegade:
But if you're not, but just don't have the money for an attorney, then you're screwed.  In some cases, showing up with an attorney can also leave you screwed, because having the money to pay an attorney means that you obviously have the money to pay, even if you actually don't.  And then there's the money that you used on the attorney that could have been used to pay.
-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 02:56 PM)
--- End quote ---

^ This.

There's just something wrong with that, no matter how much we say that "it's complicated."  Our Justice system is in love with the system rather than with justice.  And in many cases, our legal systems are anything but.  It shouldn't have to be this complicated, IMO.
-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 02:56 PM)
--- End quote ---

^ And this.

The system has NOTHING to do with justice or peace or order or anything of the sort. It has only to do with punishment and retribution for imagined offences. It is solely aimed at maximising the amount of revenue for government and the penal system.

But, that's about the system in general. The patent/copyright/IP system is merely a reflection of the deeper decay and immorality of the broader justice system.

While the ruling in the OP may be a chip away at the rot, it is far from enough. The rot is spreading at far too great a rate for tiny chips to make much difference. Tiny chips merely slow the spread of the disease by miniscule amounts. So when the "justice" system hits you head on, it doesn't hit you at 150 mph - it hits you at 149.9 mph. Either way, you're in for a world of hurt.

But the justice system doesn't even need to slam into you to grind you into dust or spray you all over the road. Patent trolls merely need to threaten you. Monsanto Monsatan is a great example of this. They have used idiotic patents on non-infringing farmers to destroy those farmers. Cross contamination is all that they need to ruin people.

40hz:

That's called: capitalism at work.  :-\
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 02:29 PM)
--- End quote ---

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)

-Renegade (June 20, 2014, 08:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

Seems more to me that you keep missing some deliberate sarcasm when you hear it. :)

(@Ren - For the record I have enough formal and informal education in economic theory to know all six of the major accepted definitions/schools of capitalism along with another six or seven neo-capitalist riffs on it. Ditto enough mathematical background to go beyond a purely humanities-level understanding of the topic. Hope that will put your mind at rest going forward. ;) )


The "poverty level" moves as needed for the benefit of those controlling the system.
-Stoic Joker (June 20, 2014, 02:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

+1-Renegade (June 20, 2014, 08:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

Not really.

It is a lousy metric to be sure. It was never intended (by the people who originally came up with it) to be a metric driving 90% of US social programs. One story goes it was put together quickly (during a lunch break - on the back of a piece of paper) in response to the question: "Exactly what is poverty? How are we defining it?" The fact it was a quick & dirty un-vetted calculation didn't stop it from being adopted by the agency that has since become the Office of Management and Budget.

So yes...is it a half-baked standard that needs to be replaced? Probably. But capricious and changeable? Hardly. Because it's methodology and formula for determining the official "federal poverty level" has remained virtually unchanged since it was first introduced in 1963. The last edit to it was made back in 1981 when farm and female-headed households were eliminated as separate categories with their own poverty thresholds. They are now lumped in with everything else.

Corporations lobbying for new regulations isn't "capitalism".
--- End quote ---

Go look up the definition for "Corporate Capitalism."

Creating a law doesn't make anything moral/ethical
--- End quote ---

I doubt anybody over the age of twelve seriously thinks it does. Law is law - it's its own virtual reality - with its own agenda. Ethics and morality may be an influence on the legal system - or serve as an overall justification for one. But they're not the product of that system. They're more what you'd call guidelines. :eusa_boohoo:

It pays to remember Oliver Wendell Holmes famous quote about a 'court of law' vs a 'court of justice.' It's an important distinction. And that distinction is why the third branch of the US government is called The Judicial Branch rather than the Justice Branch. If a court actually succeeds in delivering justice, it's purely a side affect of interpreting and enforcing the law.

Wish it weren't so. But that's the way it rolls in this country.

Renegade:
Seems more to me that you keep missing some deliberate sarcasm when you hear it. :)

(@Ren - For the record I have enough formal and informal education in economic theory to know all six of the major accepted definitions/schools of capitalism along with another six or seven neo-capitalist riffs on it. Ditto enough mathematical background to go beyond a purely humanities-level understanding of the topic. Hope that will put your mind at rest going forward. ;) )
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

I completely missed the sarcasm. My bad. :(

Corporations lobbying for new regulations isn't "capitalism".
--- End quote ---

Go look up the definition for "Corporate Capitalism."
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

I know that quite well, but I'm missing your point.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_capitalism

Corporate capitalism has been criticized for the amount of power and influence corporations and large business interest groups have over government policy, including the policies of regulatory agencies and influencing political campaigns.

--- End quote ---

"Corporate Capitalism" makes as much sense as "unfree free market". It's just silly double-speak. You either have a free market, or you don't. When corporations purchase protection (regulations) from government thugs to exclude competition, you no longer have a free market... and... I'm missing what you're trying to say there. Or was that the point? That it's nonsense double-speak?


Creating a law doesn't make anything moral/ethical
--- End quote ---

I doubt anybody over the age of twelve seriously thinks it does.
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)
--- End quote ---


Um, I think you're giving way too many people way too much credit.


Law is law - it's its own virtual reality - with its own agenda. Ethics and morality may be an influence on the legal system - or serve as an overall justification for one. But they're not the product of that system. They're more what you'd call guidelines. :eusa_boohoo:
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

My bet is that if those involved in the penal/judicial system were all kids having a colouring contest with colouring books, very few would be able to colour withing the "guidelines". ;)

If a court actually succeeds in delivering justice, it's purely a side affect of interpreting and enforcing the law.
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)
--- End quote ---


Yup.


Wish it weren't so. But that's the way it rolls in this country.
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

Not just there... :( The disease is global.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page