[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> We spend x billion a year on research and development. How can
> you tell us that our application approval pivots on the consesus
> of a newsgroup.
>
>
<stating_the_obvious> the spending of money doesnt validate any
action.</stating_the_obvious>
I see the problem of patent approval as related to the age old issue of
representation and scale e.g. in a representative democracy we hire
politicians (who in turn pick judges), sheriffs, etc to carry out the
wishes of the people as proxy for the actual wishes of the people.
Clearly we have the technological means to create electronic voting
which allows people to securely (more so then the tinker toys they call
voting booths today) vote on a finer grain and range of issues. I for
one would like to see XML as part of *that*; VoteML anyone?
<random_rant>note that all my surviving grandparents can use an ATM, why
voting is not as easy as using an ATM or a phone escapes me.</random_rant>
why a larger group of individuals cannot participate in the approval
process of patents is not a problem; those who benefit with a system
designed in the 18th cen tury will obviously continue its existence
(this is akin to UK banks still making people still wait 3-5 days for a
cheque to clear, whilst they play with their money...whilst in the rest
of europe a bank transfer happens in hours if not minutes).
perhaps a different tack is required.....hmmmm...now I wonder what the
most contentious and illegal piece of software which violates the most
number of software patents I could write.
regards, Jim Fuller
|
