|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 08:54 PM EST |
| Actually, I just read an article by Nate Silver
on
who donated to each candidate in the last
election in various Silicon Valley and
other
tech companies. It was overwhelmingly for
Obama, even in Microsoft and
Intel. At NetFlix,
Romney got $250, compared to $27,660 for
Obama, so
maybe one lone person.
This of course has implications for why Obama's
tech
worked in the election and Romney's did
not, if one assumes that willingness to
donate
money indicates willingness to volunteer.
But don't you think that
both candidates would
notice that and decide to try to please that
constituency?
So you don't have to be a
billionaire to contribute to a large pool of
money. A
large group with all giving just a
little also works. I'm not saying do or
don't
do, just pointing out that defeatism probably
isn't appropriate. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 04:15 PM EST |
...y'know...I'm less cynical about government than this.
...admittedly, I don't believe that software patents will be
invalidated en masse ever.*
...most elected officials, if confronted with something that
is obviously a good idea with no drawbacks, will vote for
it.
I believe that easily comprehensible studies showing
problems with software patents and cost-benefit analysis are
likely to sway the legislature. Donations may help too.
Have some faith. Or just common sense. Aside from
narcissists - being an elected official is a lot of work for
not particularly good pay - it is likely to attract a fair
number of well-intentioned people. I suspect the
narcissists tend to get weeded out from the legislature
(don't play well with others...)
--Erwin
*My guess is that lawmakers and judges will prioritize
predictability and consistency over being right. Quick
changes in systems make planning for the future hard. Eg.,
Nokia's value as an investment is based mostly on a patent
portfolio arrived at through quite a bit of research
spending. Now, the argument can be made that - since they
failed to monetize those inventions - they really didn't
create any value and don't deserve to be compensated.
Still, investors would be peevish if the company's stock
suddenly cratered after a change in US law. I do hope that
there will be steady incremental changes that will restrain
the worst problems of software patents - but would be really
startled if anything more drastic comes to pass within the
next decade.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
