6 ms·

I'd like to see them take that $4bn they would've spent on Nortel patents and use it for a patent reform campaign. I'm sure that kind of money could buy a lot

by tdfx 15y ago

I'd like to see them take that $4bn they would've spent on Nortel patents and use it for a patent reform campaign. I'm sure that kind of money could buy a lot of votes in DC.

andybak 15y ago
The fact that your last sentence is uncontroversial is really depressing. Everyone accepts that 'lobbying' is a polite word for 'bribery' and should be unacceptable in a modern democracy. We should all be on the damn streets about this.
- GrooveStomp 15y ago
  I completely agree with you. My sister in law was talking about working for a high-profile lobbying group because "That's how real political change happens." I pretty much felt sick to my stomach right then and there. Unfortunately, most of us (myself included) realize that's just the way things are now. I'm not defending this position - just commenting on it.
  - nodata 15y ago
    That's just the way things are and nobody cares, or at least: no-one visible cares. The only people who appear to be speaking out on issues like this are Anonymous. What does that say?
- shareme 15y ago
  yes, but lobbists determine which streets get paved..
- rickmode 15y ago
  In the US, limiting lobbying is tough (impossible?) without undermining the First Amendment right to petition. I totally agree lobbying is a problem - perhaps one of the largest (along with our two party political polarization). A solution that doesn't break the US Constitution would be awesome. (Edit: added second paragraph.)
- praptak 15y ago
  This thought, expanded (Lawrence Lessig on the subject:) http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?rel=emailNation http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?...
- r00fus 15y ago
  Though I agree with your stance, the Citizens United supreme court case basically made it law that "money is speech". Some folks knew the Roberts supreme court would essentially sell the US to corporate interests back in 2005 when he was confirmed.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    Yes, I look back fondly on the innocent days of 2009 when corporations couldn't influence politics. Citizens United was a nonprofit organization specifically formed to express the views of its members. You can't stop that without trampling all over the 1st Amendment. And you really wouldn't like the negation of "money is speech". Sure, you can support candidate Smith: just don't spend any money in the process, including but not limited to campaign supplies, web hosting, and the imputed value of your labor.
- yuhong 15y ago
  Well, the biggest problem IMO is not lobbying itself, but the campaign contributions which often really is bribery.
- aphexairlines 15y ago
  How else do you propose anyone can put an end to the software patent system?
gvb 15y ago
While I agree with your sentiment, buying votes in DC is not the best approach IMHO. I would like to see them indemnify their partners and then go berserker on the patent protection racket mafia. [added] Google is in a pretty unique position to do this: 1) They have relatively few patents, so destroying software patents would cause little collateral damage to them. 2) They have financial resources, with $4B set aside for purchasing (or destroying) software patents. 3) They have a lot of smart people resources (in house and hired guns) - the Google v. Oracle lawsuit is showing this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker
dpatru 15y ago
Patents are just one of many ways that government destroys and prevents wealth. Government is increasingly a net loss when it grows beyond providing basic protections from physical violence and a trustworthy, competent judiciary. Long-term, Google might better spend its money working to reduce the overall size of government by funding Austrian educational efforts and libertarian candidates.

by tdfx 15y ago

I'd like to see them take that $4bn they would've spent on Nortel patents and use it for a patent reform campaign. I'm sure that kind of money could buy a lot of votes in DC.

andybak 15y ago

The fact that your last sentence is uncontroversial is really depressing. Everyone accepts that 'lobbying' is a polite word for 'bribery' and should be unacceptable in a modern democracy. We should all be on the damn streets about this.

GrooveStomp 15y ago
I completely agree with you. My sister in law was talking about working for a high-profile lobbying group because "That's how real political change happens." I pretty much felt sick to my stomach right then and there. Unfortunately, most of us (myself included) realize that's just the way things are now. I'm not defending this position - just commenting on it.
- nodata 15y ago
  That's just the way things are and nobody cares, or at least: no-one visible cares. The only people who appear to be speaking out on issues like this are Anonymous. What does that say?
shareme 15y ago
yes, but lobbists determine which streets get paved..
rickmode 15y ago
In the US, limiting lobbying is tough (impossible?) without undermining the First Amendment right to petition. I totally agree lobbying is a problem - perhaps one of the largest (along with our two party political polarization). A solution that doesn't break the US Constitution would be awesome. (Edit: added second paragraph.)
praptak 15y ago
This thought, expanded (Lawrence Lessig on the subject:) http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?rel=emailNation http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?...
r00fus 15y ago
Though I agree with your stance, the Citizens United supreme court case basically made it law that "money is speech". Some folks knew the Roberts supreme court would essentially sell the US to corporate interests back in 2005 when he was confirmed.
- orangecat 15y ago
  Yes, I look back fondly on the innocent days of 2009 when corporations couldn't influence politics. Citizens United was a nonprofit organization specifically formed to express the views of its members. You can't stop that without trampling all over the 1st Amendment. And you really wouldn't like the negation of "money is speech". Sure, you can support candidate Smith: just don't spend any money in the process, including but not limited to campaign supplies, web hosting, and the imputed value of your labor.
yuhong 15y ago
Well, the biggest problem IMO is not lobbying itself, but the campaign contributions which often really is bribery.
aphexairlines 15y ago
How else do you propose anyone can put an end to the software patent system?

gvb 15y ago

While I agree with your sentiment, buying votes in DC is not the best approach IMHO. I would like to see them indemnify their partners and then go berserker on the patent protection racket mafia. [added] Google is in a pretty unique position to do this: 1) They have relatively few patents, so destroying software patents would cause little collateral damage to them. 2) They have financial resources, with $4B set aside for purchasing (or destroying) software patents. 3) They have a lot of smart people resources (in house and hired guns) - the Google v. Oracle lawsuit is showing this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker

dpatru 15y ago

Patents are just one of many ways that government destroys and prevents wealth. Government is increasingly a net loss when it grows beyond providing basic protections from physical violence and a trustworthy, competent judiciary. Long-term, Google might better spend its money working to reduce the overall size of government by funding Austrian educational efforts and libertarian candidates.