Those angry worshipers
- Thread starter hishadow
- Start date
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
To be honest, I don't see a reason to stop them from speaking. Freedom of Speech applies to douchebags.
Heronblade
Watcher
- Joined
- March 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
Technically it does apply, and they are protected by it. But there are some ideas I would absolutely love to see die out, fast, to be remembered only by history. Germany had the right idea when they banned the Nazi party and the associated concepts.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
I disagree, actually. I think by banning those concepts you drive them further underground and allow them to play the martyr. I think sunshine is the best disinfectant.
P
pibbur
Guest
I think Germany is a special case, and I can fully understand their need to prohibit nazis.
Otherwise, I agree mostly with Rithrandil, here. I assume general rules against trespassing and such should suffice to handle the most extreme methods of expressing opinions.
Says pibbur who actually is a bit amazed that he has posted in the P&R forum.
Otherwise, I agree mostly with Rithrandil, here. I assume general rules against trespassing and such should suffice to handle the most extreme methods of expressing opinions.
Says pibbur who actually is a bit amazed that he has posted in the P&R forum.
BillSeurer
Eternal Supreme Dictator
Yeah, the Westboro Baptist "Church" is just a family law practice that tries to get sued then wins lots of money in countersuits or tries to get banned then wins lots of money in damages. They choose their words and signs extremely carefully so as to maximize the anger they generate because when people are angry they do stupid things.
Read this web site: http://kanewj.com/wbc/
Read this web site: http://kanewj.com/wbc/
Heronblade
Watcher
- Joined
- March 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
That unfortunately sounds all too familiar. There are companies these days that make their money off of patents. Not making new tech, not producing anything, just taking out patents for anything they can get, then waiting for someone to want to actually use the tech. Then they get to get paid royalties and/or sue the company for a product they would have sat on forever. Incidentally, approximately 30% of your DNA is owned via patent. Mostly by companies waiting for genetic research to use those sections.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
To me, that sort of thing should be illegal. Are those world wide patents? How is such possible. I'm sure some countries would totally ignore such things anyway.
Heronblade
Watcher
- Joined
- March 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
Under current international law, pretty much any unique knowledge that can in theory be used for the sake of a marketable product can be patented. Unfortunately, that includes gene sequences that may be used/altered for future medicinal purposes. Some countries certainly could ignore it yes, but they would be unable to sell the products/services in question to any of the countries that don't, and would likely face trade penalties elsewhere.
I don't like it either. What I would like to see is for laws to come into place making it impossible to hold onto a patent while doing nothing with it. In example, the holder has two years to either use the tech, make a deal with someone else to use it, or prove they are actively working/researching on ways to bring it to producable status. Otherwise the patent goes to the government, who in turn is required to give it to someone who will actually use it.
I don't like it either. What I would like to see is for laws to come into place making it impossible to hold onto a patent while doing nothing with it. In example, the holder has two years to either use the tech, make a deal with someone else to use it, or prove they are actively working/researching on ways to bring it to producable status. Otherwise the patent goes to the government, who in turn is required to give it to someone who will actually use it.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
While yours is a good compromise, I'd prefer to see a situation where an actual product has to be produced first before a patent is granted!!
Heronblade
Watcher
- Joined
- March 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
A lot of patents come from people who do not have the ability to produce the product. A large portion of them for instance come from students in universities.
If you require the product to come first, companies would be able to steal ideas from such people without giving them credit or compensation. Edgar Allen Poe was a good example, most of his writings were sold for a profit by the papers he submitted them to, without him getting credit or commission. It was only after his death he got the full recognition he deserved.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
Thrasher
Wheeee!
What would the recerse situation be like? Imagine havinfg a great idea, and being afraid to tell anyone becuse you couldn;t leverage it. The diea may never see the day of light.
What's worse: a great idea being lost or being paid for?
Given that, I think there should be time limits on patents around the 7 year mark.
What's worse: a great idea being lost or being paid for?
Given that, I think there should be time limits on patents around the 7 year mark.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
They get their money by suing the shit out of anyone that tries to stop them from protesting.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
I'd put it that you had a certain time from the application for the patent to produce a product. IIRC patent protection lasts 17 years in the US, which is an eternity in anything technology related. I would put a system in place where you had 3 years from the patent application to produce a product. At the end of that three years, if you have not produced a product, the patent is automatically denied (if not approved yet) or rescinded.
The worst thing is Biopiracy. Usually done by big, huge companies …
And, by the way, I'm surprised no-one has ever tried to patent a music melody so far ?
Because every music pice - written down - is imho in its essence nothing else than an algorithm …
Heronblade
Watcher
- Joined
- March 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43
Copryright laws cover music containing pretty much every possible melody. Can't patent one without overturning the other, and there is far too much money in the business for companies to allow that.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 43