3 ms·

So I'm an engineer for a living which means I'm probably about as politically (un)knowledgeable as most people here, but do all of our "calls to action" seem ho

by naner 15y ago

So I'm an engineer for a living which means I'm probably about as politically (un)knowledgeable as most people here, but do all of our "calls to action" seem hopelessly naive to anyone else? I mean take the first example: elimination of software patents. This is great and I would like this to happen, too. A pretty significant problem, however, is that some of the most successful and most powerful American companies are built around these laws and prop up these laws, help write these laws, etc. Does anyone believe our legal system is going to say: "Sorry, Microsoft (Apple, IBM, whoever), all the billions you spent on software patents and legal fees and all the money you earn from them is gone. We've decided software patents are unfair so that massive part of your business is now invalid." We can sit around all day outlining what we think would be the most fair policies. It is all irrelevant if we can't define a path to get there.

keen 15y ago
How about banning new software patents, and letting existing ones run their course? The Apples and Microsofts of the world might be okay with that.
studentrob 15y ago
Raising awareness of the problem is the first step. A lot of people still do not know why software patents are bad. Similar to sopa and pipa, except to a larger degree here, mostly software engineers and very internet savvy users are aware of the problem with software patents. We need more anecdotes and evidence, then a way to deliver the message. Once the problem is defined, the solution will present itself. If it doesn't, we have failed at defining and convincing people of the problem.
chadmalik 15y ago
You have to articulate a goal to get there. I'm not going to make obvious comparisons but clearly there were plenty of legal regimes in the past that people thought could never end that did in fact end.
beatpanda 15y ago
What's fair or even possible isn't the point. "We don't have to get all this stuff. We merely have to tie them up fighting it, and re-center the "compromise" position." See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window, Richard Stallman

by naner 15y ago

keen 15y ago

How about banning new software patents, and letting existing ones run their course? The Apples and Microsofts of the world might be okay with that.

studentrob 15y ago

Raising awareness of the problem is the first step. A lot of people still do not know why software patents are bad. Similar to sopa and pipa, except to a larger degree here, mostly software engineers and very internet savvy users are aware of the problem with software patents. We need more anecdotes and evidence, then a way to deliver the message. Once the problem is defined, the solution will present itself. If it doesn't, we have failed at defining and convincing people of the problem.

chadmalik 15y ago

You have to articulate a goal to get there. I'm not going to make obvious comparisons but clearly there were plenty of legal regimes in the past that people thought could never end that did in fact end.

beatpanda 15y ago

What's fair or even possible isn't the point. "We don't have to get all this stuff. We merely have to tie them up fighting it, and re-center the "compromise" position." See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window, Richard Stallman