Shared publicly  - 
Seven years ago, IBM called for patent reform.
This article is scary in many ways. It has only gotten worse, hasn't it?
IBM has called for tighter regulation of patents and a review of intellectual property ownership issues in collaborative software development.
Mike Irwin's profile photoMatthew Greenbaum's profile photoDonovan Colbert's profile photoAndreas Geisler's profile photo
As much as I dislike Apple, and love Google, I find it ridiculous that Motorola is now trying to get Apple products banned because of patents.
It's only going to get ridiculouser and ridiculouser (!) before it crashes.
Maybe then it gets better. If we make it so.
But we can't make it so.  We don't make laws.  Therein lies the issue.  Those who make the laws don't want change.
That has rarely if ever helped.  Didn't you see 300?
I just say "No" to Frank Miller :D
But we are not an army set against them. We're the army they set against ourselves. We uphold their power for them.
If only there was some process that would allow us to use our numbers to place people who agreed with us in a position to make laws that do what we want. 

Seriously though, I'm very disappointed in Google.
That would be a great process Mike.  Too bad we only have a process that doesn't care about the numbers.
Our legislative branch of government, the one that makes laws, is elected by popular vote not by an electoral college. It's the 17th Amendment. To borrow from He-Man:

By the power of the Constitution, you have the power! 
I was under the impression that the Supreme Court, the head of the legislative branch, was done by appointment not election.
And that's why you'd fail a citizenship test. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. Congress is the head of the legislative branch. The president is the head of the executive branch.
I may get judicial and legislative mixed up at times.  But the Supreme Court is involved in making laws.  So is the president.  Congress can make up whatever laws they want but if the President vetoes them or the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional then it doesn't matter. So our superior numbers, while helpful, are still not enough to get laws changed.  But it will start the process which is good.
Google doesn't want to ban the iPad in the US. They want t check Apple to make them back down with their patent lawsuits. This is a saber rattling exercise. They're signaling that this could get messy if Apple doesn't start acting reasonably.
+Donovan Colbert  I agree. It's an attempt to cope with the craptastic state of law they have to live under. They could be all "Oh Apple is evil and abusing the bad laws... but we're all noble and won't..." and it wouldn't do them any good. No google fanboys would riot. They would earn no Nobel Peace Pies.
It's a litigator litigates litigator world.
+Matthew Greenbaum you're partially correct, the two-party system effectively (and efficiently) robs you of the power to choose, if what you wish to choose is someone who isn't A)Stupid and/or B)Corrupt. The part that is not correct is that the Prez is a cinch if you already have your numbers set up to deal with the House. The Supreme court can only deal with things that are actually against some specific code, so they can't deal with an abolishment of patents or a major overhaul of patents.

So the first item on the agenda is to mess up the two-party mojo, any which way you can.
Trouble is, the Republicans already succeeded in co-opting the tea party movement, which could have otherwise been a driving force for messing up the gopples. Otherwise there would have been a chance of an alliance between Occupy and Tea (Teaccupy) - i bipartisan/impartisan effort to punish the stupid and corrupt with nonelection, and for signaling to the Mammoth Ass PTB that there will be no free pie any more.
Add a comment...