The Eighth Amendment protects against "cruel and unusual punishments." The amendment is open to high controversy due to the ambiguity of the term. What can, lawfully, be considered cruel and unusual?
It's often agreeable that things such as executions should be as painless as possible to avoid infringing on the Eighth Amendment. The electric chair, previously popular as an execution device, has been in decline in the past few decades. The electric shocks occasionally didn't kill the subject outright, leaving them in an incredibly pained condition before dying (this is akin to the medieval practice of bribing an executioner to sharpen his axe, so that the execution doesn't take more than one stroke). A very unique case over the electric chair was Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber,
in which a man who was subject to execution but did not die due to equipment failure sued that a second attempt would go against the double jeopardy clause. His case constituted that since he was "executed," a second execution would be as if he was tried twice for the same crime. It was noted at the trial that given an infinite number of failed executions, one would eventually cross a threshold where it becomes cruel and unusual punishment; if, theoretically, someone were electrocuted fifteen failed times, then that is fifteen times as cruel as a single execution. Eventually, it would violate the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment.
The electric chair has slowly been replaced by lethal injection, which is generally considered more humane, however it has flaws of its own. It's very difficult to judge how cruel the execution is, considering the muscles are first paralyzed and anesthetized before introducing a chemical that stops the heart. Hence, if the execution is in fact extremely painful, the subject has no way of conveying this information given his paralyzed state.
Also interesting to note is the application of the clause with respects to torture. The practices of Guantanamo Bay are often under attack for being inhumane, and therefore violating the clause. However, given that torture is, by nature, cruel, the line is much more difficult to formulate.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Free Speech Restricted in the UK
Matthew Woods, 20, was convicted recently in the UK for derogatory comments on Facebook. He was, according to sources, arrested "for his own safety" given the controversy his post had caused.
Clearly, one shouldn't be arrested for "their own safety.". That implies its within their will. The report goes on to explain that it was also deemed "grossly offensive" and "of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character."
Speech laws in the United Kingdom are certainly different from those of the United States of America, but the case has currently come under fire from detractors complaining that the UK law is "archaic" and not modernized, but the issue goes far past the fact that it was an online comment.
If this were to happen in the US, for example, the situation would be vastly different. Remember Senator Akin? A few months ago, he claimed that women were able to "shut down pregnancies" in cases of "legitimate rape," which spread throughout the liberal media and attracted raves and threats towards him. This is, arguably, a comment "grossly offensive," and "of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character," and certainly given the magnitude of angry responses, his safety was most probably at risk. Yet, he wasn't arrested. He wasn't even remotely convicted.
This shows a pliable difference between the US and the UK in this regard.
OH NO SCALE: At least it's not us this time.
Clearly, one shouldn't be arrested for "their own safety.". That implies its within their will. The report goes on to explain that it was also deemed "grossly offensive" and "of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character."
Speech laws in the United Kingdom are certainly different from those of the United States of America, but the case has currently come under fire from detractors complaining that the UK law is "archaic" and not modernized, but the issue goes far past the fact that it was an online comment.
If this were to happen in the US, for example, the situation would be vastly different. Remember Senator Akin? A few months ago, he claimed that women were able to "shut down pregnancies" in cases of "legitimate rape," which spread throughout the liberal media and attracted raves and threats towards him. This is, arguably, a comment "grossly offensive," and "of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character," and certainly given the magnitude of angry responses, his safety was most probably at risk. Yet, he wasn't arrested. He wasn't even remotely convicted.
This shows a pliable difference between the US and the UK in this regard.
OH NO SCALE: At least it's not us this time.
Limits of Symbolic Speech
Symbolic speech is a form of free speech, where the speech in question is not written out directly but in a different form. In Stromberg v. California (1931), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of symbolic speech, believing that a red flag (a symbol of revolution) was protected under the First Amendment.
The same occurred during the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) case, where students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War were pardoned in the same vein.
The situation suddenly turns on its head, however, in the Morse v. Frederick case, commonly known as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." A student displayed a banner at a school event with the aformentioned phrase emblazoned across it.
So, firstly, isn't this symbolic speech? What's the difference? The Court ruled it as "sophomoric" but surely that's not a good enough position to outlaw it. Here's three reasons why:
1. Schools have jurisdiction over constitutional rights of enrolled students.
The reason for this is because of In loco parentis, which is silly political jargon for "in place of parents." Therefore, a teacher or administrator can intrude on constitutional rights if it needs to.
2. The symbolic speech promoted illegal drug use.
This is a violation of the direct incitement clause of Brandenburg v. Ohio, since the message encourages illegal drug use. The clause states that speech (even symbolic speech) used to incite illegal activities are not protected under the First Amendment.
3. Schools have a compelling reason to discourage drug use.
This is honestly just a blend of the previous two statements. Since the banner was displayed on school grounds, it was righteously removed as an extension of the responsibilities of the school administration. Not to mention illegal drug use being, well, illegal.
And that's all.
OH NO SCALE: No oh no.
The same occurred during the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) case, where students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War were pardoned in the same vein.
The situation suddenly turns on its head, however, in the Morse v. Frederick case, commonly known as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." A student displayed a banner at a school event with the aformentioned phrase emblazoned across it.
So, firstly, isn't this symbolic speech? What's the difference? The Court ruled it as "sophomoric" but surely that's not a good enough position to outlaw it. Here's three reasons why:
1. Schools have jurisdiction over constitutional rights of enrolled students.
The reason for this is because of In loco parentis, which is silly political jargon for "in place of parents." Therefore, a teacher or administrator can intrude on constitutional rights if it needs to.
2. The symbolic speech promoted illegal drug use.
This is a violation of the direct incitement clause of Brandenburg v. Ohio, since the message encourages illegal drug use. The clause states that speech (even symbolic speech) used to incite illegal activities are not protected under the First Amendment.
3. Schools have a compelling reason to discourage drug use.
This is honestly just a blend of the previous two statements. Since the banner was displayed on school grounds, it was righteously removed as an extension of the responsibilities of the school administration. Not to mention illegal drug use being, well, illegal.
And that's all.
OH NO SCALE: No oh no.
Modern Freedom of Assembly
The DeJonge v. Oregon Supreme Court case ruled that freedom of Assembly, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, argues that as long as assembly is peaceful, it is protected by the Constitution. But what if it causes a public disturbance?
Events such as parades and protests are not necessarily as protected as they may seem, given that people are regularly arrested for entirely peaceful protests. One such set of protests, from the Occupy Wall Street movement, shows this. One hundred and eighty-five people were arrested for peacefully speaking out against economic inequalities and lobbying in government. Under DeJonge, this is entirely legal given the following:
1. No threats are made.
Brandenburg v. Ohio illustrates that free speech dedicated to incitement, or encouraging illegal action to occur, is not protected under the Constitution. That is, if the protestors began shouting "Death to Wall Street!", they are absolutely legal to arrest.
The report doesn't show that this occurred, and in fact depicts the crowd as overwhelmingly passive-aggressive in their stance.
2. No libel of specific persons occurred.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan shows that libel is illegal, given that the statements put forth are untrue and given that there was malicious intent involved. "Malicious" is particularly hard-pressed under New York Times Co.; emotional insults are not enough to deem it illegal.
Again, the report doesn't seem to show reports of libel from the crowd, and even if specific insults were lobbed, it's unlikely that they would have caused much damage.
Hence, it's possible that this was an unconstitutional arrest that was simply never brought to court.
OH NO SCALE: Somewhat
Events such as parades and protests are not necessarily as protected as they may seem, given that people are regularly arrested for entirely peaceful protests. One such set of protests, from the Occupy Wall Street movement, shows this. One hundred and eighty-five people were arrested for peacefully speaking out against economic inequalities and lobbying in government. Under DeJonge, this is entirely legal given the following:
1. No threats are made.
Brandenburg v. Ohio illustrates that free speech dedicated to incitement, or encouraging illegal action to occur, is not protected under the Constitution. That is, if the protestors began shouting "Death to Wall Street!", they are absolutely legal to arrest.
The report doesn't show that this occurred, and in fact depicts the crowd as overwhelmingly passive-aggressive in their stance.
2. No libel of specific persons occurred.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan shows that libel is illegal, given that the statements put forth are untrue and given that there was malicious intent involved. "Malicious" is particularly hard-pressed under New York Times Co.; emotional insults are not enough to deem it illegal.
Again, the report doesn't seem to show reports of libel from the crowd, and even if specific insults were lobbed, it's unlikely that they would have caused much damage.
Hence, it's possible that this was an unconstitutional arrest that was simply never brought to court.
OH NO SCALE: Somewhat
Election Day is Soon! And so are the robots!
Yes, you heard me right. Robots.
What I really mean are robot calls: automated messages used as a form of telemarketing. Paid for by the DNC/RNC or not, you've inevitably gotten a bunch advocating one candidate or the other, and chances are you're pretty miffed.
It turns out, mass spam telemarketing with robocalls is completely illegal for commercial interests, but suddenly legal when it comes to political campaigns. Yes, even by super PAC's. You'd imagine there'd be some overlap between this scenario and the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission court case some time back, and maybe there is. After all, what if the corporation in question was commercial in nature and wanted to get out political robocalls? Since corporations are allowed to contribute as much money as they want to campaigns, wouldn't this just be another form of that stride? Also, what's stopping them from putting out a political call and attaching their own advertising into it? Something in the vein of "Vote for Romney! Also the new iPod rocks!" Or what if it was more subtle?
Where is the line drawn?
The other side of the question: non-robot calls are legal. That is, if the person on the other line is alive and made of human tissue, it's suddenly legal (if it's solicited, of course). This makes some degree of sense, considering robocalls can be mass-distributed very quickly while human beings have limits, but with the availability of cheap labor, even human calls are becoming irritable, as shown by the "Do Not Call" FTC list hitting 217 million last Tuesday.
So, the Federal Trade Commission is now offering a contest to gather ideas on how to combat illegal telemarketing. This, honestly, boggles me.
The reason this problem exists at all is because of the strange provisions offered under the Bureau of Consumer Protection, a sub-department of the Federal Trade Commission.
If consumers are given the opportunity to enter a "Do Not Call" list anyways, why don't they simply change their telemarketing guidelines.
One simple, overarching way would be to just ban robot telemarketing altogether, although that's definitely an extreme. Another, more reasonable one would be to add "Do Not Call" as the default option, and let consumers "opt-in" if they want to hear the calls. This, of course, is economic suicide because a vastly smaller portion of the population would opt-in. After all, who wants to talk to telemarketers? But, logically, it would make the most sense in terms of satisfying the nation.
OH NO SCALE: Please hold.
What I really mean are robot calls: automated messages used as a form of telemarketing. Paid for by the DNC/RNC or not, you've inevitably gotten a bunch advocating one candidate or the other, and chances are you're pretty miffed.
It turns out, mass spam telemarketing with robocalls is completely illegal for commercial interests, but suddenly legal when it comes to political campaigns. Yes, even by super PAC's. You'd imagine there'd be some overlap between this scenario and the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission court case some time back, and maybe there is. After all, what if the corporation in question was commercial in nature and wanted to get out political robocalls? Since corporations are allowed to contribute as much money as they want to campaigns, wouldn't this just be another form of that stride? Also, what's stopping them from putting out a political call and attaching their own advertising into it? Something in the vein of "Vote for Romney! Also the new iPod rocks!" Or what if it was more subtle?
Where is the line drawn?
The other side of the question: non-robot calls are legal. That is, if the person on the other line is alive and made of human tissue, it's suddenly legal (if it's solicited, of course). This makes some degree of sense, considering robocalls can be mass-distributed very quickly while human beings have limits, but with the availability of cheap labor, even human calls are becoming irritable, as shown by the "Do Not Call" FTC list hitting 217 million last Tuesday.
So, the Federal Trade Commission is now offering a contest to gather ideas on how to combat illegal telemarketing. This, honestly, boggles me.
The reason this problem exists at all is because of the strange provisions offered under the Bureau of Consumer Protection, a sub-department of the Federal Trade Commission.
If consumers are given the opportunity to enter a "Do Not Call" list anyways, why don't they simply change their telemarketing guidelines.
One simple, overarching way would be to just ban robot telemarketing altogether, although that's definitely an extreme. Another, more reasonable one would be to add "Do Not Call" as the default option, and let consumers "opt-in" if they want to hear the calls. This, of course, is economic suicide because a vastly smaller portion of the population would opt-in. After all, who wants to talk to telemarketers? But, logically, it would make the most sense in terms of satisfying the nation.
OH NO SCALE: Please hold.
French commissioning news reports
Recent reports show that the country of France has decided that its news is valuable -- valuable enough to demand commission for each time their news sources are linked by search engines. The idea stems from the fact that with online news, people are no longer inclined to buy subscriptions from the printed press since it is available for free online. Hence, in a way, search engines like Google are infringing on their market, and a commission would help the French press stay competitive.
Google, however, attacked the issue, threatening to "boycott" the French press by refusing to link to their content. This would, inevitably, be a huge blow to the prevalence of their news outlets, belittling them in the minds of the public and discouraging readers. Google is by far the largest search engine in existence and their shunning of the French press would most certainly lead to a rapid decline in the French market.
The search engine posted a formal letter of complaint online (in French) specifying their position.
The problem with this issue is that neither side is immediately in the wrong. Google claims to be defending the mindset of a free Internet, while the French press claims that Google is infringing on their market and that they have the right as a corporation maintain competitive. Talks are being made between the two companies on the matter at hand.
Meanwhile, it's frightening how much power Google has; the fact that they're able to essentially shut down any website or corporation by removing them from its engine demonstrates that they aren't limited to the domain of information tech. If they wanted to, they could essentially threaten companies to do their bidding, under threat of removal. And while there haven't been any signs of that so far, it may become a problem requiring federal intervention.
The government has an obligation to protect capitalism and fair competition, as it did during the trust-busting protocols of the Reconstruction Era. Hence, if Google were to extend itself too far, monopolizing not only its own field but every domain, then the government is obligated to protect threatened companies.
This case is, however, especially unique, as the issue of French publishing is no longer domestic but rather part of foreign policy. Hence, regulated competition need not apply. Overall it's an interesting case of the power of monopolies and worth looking in to.
Google, however, attacked the issue, threatening to "boycott" the French press by refusing to link to their content. This would, inevitably, be a huge blow to the prevalence of their news outlets, belittling them in the minds of the public and discouraging readers. Google is by far the largest search engine in existence and their shunning of the French press would most certainly lead to a rapid decline in the French market.
The search engine posted a formal letter of complaint online (in French) specifying their position.
The problem with this issue is that neither side is immediately in the wrong. Google claims to be defending the mindset of a free Internet, while the French press claims that Google is infringing on their market and that they have the right as a corporation maintain competitive. Talks are being made between the two companies on the matter at hand.
Meanwhile, it's frightening how much power Google has; the fact that they're able to essentially shut down any website or corporation by removing them from its engine demonstrates that they aren't limited to the domain of information tech. If they wanted to, they could essentially threaten companies to do their bidding, under threat of removal. And while there haven't been any signs of that so far, it may become a problem requiring federal intervention.
The government has an obligation to protect capitalism and fair competition, as it did during the trust-busting protocols of the Reconstruction Era. Hence, if Google were to extend itself too far, monopolizing not only its own field but every domain, then the government is obligated to protect threatened companies.
This case is, however, especially unique, as the issue of French publishing is no longer domestic but rather part of foreign policy. Hence, regulated competition need not apply. Overall it's an interesting case of the power of monopolies and worth looking in to.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Foxconn Riot
I'm typing this post from a laptop that was made with the blood and sweat of underpaid workers on the other side of the globe. And as twisted as that is, I am okay with that.
Foxconn, a big supplier of labor and parts for Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco products, suffered a setback this month when a labor riot began including thousands of workers.
The sheer fact that thousands of workers can instantly be caught up in a riot tells you one side of the story already: how in the world is that possible? It's the easy and most horrific answer: they're crammed into every square foot of space that exists in the room. The other is, how is this not a human rights violation?
First off, by American standards it definitely is. Foxconn is an outsourced company in China, however, so that's irrelevant. It's irrelevant that many of the people that work there get far less than our minimum wage. It's irrelevant that many of them are consistently forced to work overtime. It's irrelevant that a great portion of them end up taking their own lives as long as we can get our iPods in part-aluminum cases.
So tell me again how this is legal?
In 2010, Foxconn employees threatened mass suicide off the roof of the factory if wages were not raised and their demands were not met. And after 17 suicides, Foxconn decided to raise their wages. Just kidding; they put nets around their factory to prevent it from happening again.
I present to you the biggest outsourced tech supplier for American consumerism.
By now, you're probably asking me why I'm blaming America for this. It's a Chinese company, after all. American laws don't apply internationally (unless we want them to, of course. Re: the Middle East). However, it's absolutely the fault of corporate America here, albeit indirectly. A quote from a manager at Foxconn:
OH NO SCALE: How do I always end up bashing Apple?
Foxconn, a big supplier of labor and parts for Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco products, suffered a setback this month when a labor riot began including thousands of workers.
The sheer fact that thousands of workers can instantly be caught up in a riot tells you one side of the story already: how in the world is that possible? It's the easy and most horrific answer: they're crammed into every square foot of space that exists in the room. The other is, how is this not a human rights violation?
First off, by American standards it definitely is. Foxconn is an outsourced company in China, however, so that's irrelevant. It's irrelevant that many of the people that work there get far less than our minimum wage. It's irrelevant that many of them are consistently forced to work overtime. It's irrelevant that a great portion of them end up taking their own lives as long as we can get our iPods in part-aluminum cases.
So tell me again how this is legal?
In 2010, Foxconn employees threatened mass suicide off the roof of the factory if wages were not raised and their demands were not met. And after 17 suicides, Foxconn decided to raise their wages. Just kidding; they put nets around their factory to prevent it from happening again.
I present to you the biggest outsourced tech supplier for American consumerism.
By now, you're probably asking me why I'm blaming America for this. It's a Chinese company, after all. American laws don't apply internationally (unless we want them to, of course. Re: the Middle East). However, it's absolutely the fault of corporate America here, albeit indirectly. A quote from a manager at Foxconn:
“Apple never cared about anything other than increasing product quality and decreasing production cost... Workers’ welfare has nothing to do with their interests."Now, it's true that our hand of righteousness doesn't extend halfway across the globe. But it turns out the problem is right here on our soil. Regulations for outsourcing are entirely possible, and it's strange that as morally upright as we think we are, it hasn't been done yet. Shame, really.
OH NO SCALE: How do I always end up bashing Apple?
Lemon Test
It's a well-known gentleman's agreement in American government to keep religion out of politics. "Secularism," it's called. It's not so much that religion prohibits proper government (which it may or may not) but it's sort of like putting hammers in your cupboard. Sure, you can do that, and it likely won't cause any problems. But why?
We've been doing well heeding to secularism for some time. Almost all the time, really. As long as you don't count the Tea Party / social conservatives / Michelle Bachmann, the issue hardly ever arises because people tend to be sensible enough to keep government rational.
There is, however, one interesting set of cases regarding religion in education. Advocates believe that creationism should be taught in schools, either as a parallel to evolution or replacing it entirely. Dissidents are just the opposite (and who am I to call them dissidents for that? They're both dissidents, honestly). The reasoning is the same for both sides; evolution undermines faith while creationism undermines science. And hence, a stalemate is formed, and both armies abandon the front in an informal ceasefire.
But occasionally, a rogue battalion decides to take action, like in the Edwards vs. Aguillard case when the state of Louisiana authorized the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. The case reached the state courts where it was evaluated for whether or not it violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, and was ruled against creationism.
Of course, that wasn't enough. The losing side began to embarrass themselves further by repeating their violation with a beaglepuss on. They re-published their textbook "Creation Biology" under a different name, "Of Pandas And People," in which the text was almost exactly identical. Even more comical is that they literally went and replaced every instance of the word "creationism" with "intelligent design" to make it seem different from the former. This is clear in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, where it was brought up as evidence. And to make things even more comical than it already was, this quote was found in the text:
"The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view. Design proponents..."
- "Of Pandas and People," 1987
Cdesign proponentsists? Well done.
However, most cases involving religion don't end so clear-cut. Therefore, the government uses something called a Lemon test, where religious cases are tested for three conditions: whether the case is provided with a secular motive in mind, whether the case doesn't harm nor advance religion, and whether the case keeps its distance from the workings of politics. Any failure of these issues is enough to warrant the death of the issue.
In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, for example, the court ruled Louisiana in violation of all three parts of the Lemon test. The teaching of creationism was clearly stressed with a religious motive (which violates part two as well). Also, it was a clear attempt to rally government support behind the teaching of faith.
The Lemon test has become the standard for evaluating religious cases and remains an important ideal for secularism.
We've been doing well heeding to secularism for some time. Almost all the time, really. As long as you don't count the Tea Party / social conservatives / Michelle Bachmann, the issue hardly ever arises because people tend to be sensible enough to keep government rational.
There is, however, one interesting set of cases regarding religion in education. Advocates believe that creationism should be taught in schools, either as a parallel to evolution or replacing it entirely. Dissidents are just the opposite (and who am I to call them dissidents for that? They're both dissidents, honestly). The reasoning is the same for both sides; evolution undermines faith while creationism undermines science. And hence, a stalemate is formed, and both armies abandon the front in an informal ceasefire.
But occasionally, a rogue battalion decides to take action, like in the Edwards vs. Aguillard case when the state of Louisiana authorized the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. The case reached the state courts where it was evaluated for whether or not it violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, and was ruled against creationism.
Of course, that wasn't enough. The losing side began to embarrass themselves further by repeating their violation with a beaglepuss on. They re-published their textbook "Creation Biology" under a different name, "Of Pandas And People," in which the text was almost exactly identical. Even more comical is that they literally went and replaced every instance of the word "creationism" with "intelligent design" to make it seem different from the former. This is clear in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, where it was brought up as evidence. And to make things even more comical than it already was, this quote was found in the text:
"The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view. Design proponents..."
- "Of Pandas and People," 1987
Cdesign proponentsists? Well done.
However, most cases involving religion don't end so clear-cut. Therefore, the government uses something called a Lemon test, where religious cases are tested for three conditions: whether the case is provided with a secular motive in mind, whether the case doesn't harm nor advance religion, and whether the case keeps its distance from the workings of politics. Any failure of these issues is enough to warrant the death of the issue.
In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, for example, the court ruled Louisiana in violation of all three parts of the Lemon test. The teaching of creationism was clearly stressed with a religious motive (which violates part two as well). Also, it was a clear attempt to rally government support behind the teaching of faith.
The Lemon test has become the standard for evaluating religious cases and remains an important ideal for secularism.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
A Daily Dose of Paranoia (ft. Malte Spitz)
I watched this TED talk the other day. Brilliant talk (aren't they all? If I had my way I'd quit school and live off of these), and it brought up a very interesting point. The video showcases how one man politely asks his cell phone company for the information they had on file for him. By politely, I mean call them incessantly, and then file a lawsuit against them. Whatever you need to do, I suppose.
They eventually released a huge, truly gargantuan file with everyone he's called for the last few months -- where and when.
There's definitely a gray area here.
When you register for a service, you typically give them certain rights as outlined in their EULA. One, very often, they store a file on you. This is fairly common practice. Do you have a Facebook account? An eBay account? Amazon? It's all the same. And it makes perfect sense to; it's basic system infrastructure. Two, they use that information to synthesize other, related concepts. Netflix uses an algorithm that recommends movies to you based on those you rated highly.
That's honestly all Mr. Spitz's cell phone company did. Heck, it didn't even do the second part. But after graphing the data himself, he found out that there was enough information to completely track every aspect of his daily routine.
They aren't breaking laws. There aren't any protections against this sort of thing (are there? Feel free to correct me). It's just that cell phones have become ubiquitous enough that they're now part of everyday life, and therefore information that's required for just managing your cell phone can now be used to piece together your life.
But how long can this policy last? When Google Fiber was released, a pallid fear appeared over the faces of all the techies of the nation. They're serving Internet now? My god, they're taking over the world!
Thirty years ago, that idea would've been ludicrous. The idea that an entity (a private enterprise, no less!) would become so incredibly ubiquitous that the mere task of managing themselves as a company would double as an intrusion of privacy over all of its users. The idea that we'd become so unbearably reliant on communication systems that they bleed over into personal circles of thought.
Times have changed exponentially. And, if the trend holds steady, then somewhere along the lines we'll need laws for this. Personal information stored en masse is not only creepy but downright dangerous; a cybercriminal that compromises the security of a single phone model could gain some incredibly potent data. But not now, not yet. When the time comes.
The real question here is, where do you draw the line?
The Two Essential Evils
Oh, how the waves of politics twist and turn.
How the wrinkles of public opinion thrive and manifest themselves in shouting crowds and obnoxious talk show hosts; how the simple, humble roots of America have stretched their squabbly arms to form the puffy willow trees of today's society. Of how it waxes -- it wanes -- and yet it waxes again, strewing ever more complex, as it expands to a glorious fractal that skids the definition of a ball of steel wool, so very clumped and unorganized; and yet, in fact, surpasses the likes of the wool itself.
What I'm talking about is the namesake of this blog, of course. And despite how truly poetic and complicated politics has become, look closer and all you really see are two factions sissy-fighting each other.
The two essential evils of modern politics are government and private enterprise. Both claim to act for the common interest. Interview Apple, and they'll say their products better the life of the consumer. Interview Obama, and he'll say his policies run for the welfare of the people. But both government and private enterprise have had their run, and in many cases what they have done were not so. Think 1870's robber barons, wild fraud and overspeculation in the 1920's, failure of supply-side economics in the 1980's. Government, you're not off the hook either; President Grant's term accepted bribes all over.
Yet, at the same time, they are essential. How would we do without private enterprise? They're the minority, sure. They serve themselves first and the people second, sure (that's simply Business 101). But they're incredibly efficient. Vanderbilt extended railroads all throughout the United States. Carnegie created some of the nation's cheapest and highest-quality steel through his integrated production process. NASA partitioned itself largely to private enterprise for low cost space drudgery, like refuelings and ISS repairs. And heck, I hate Apple with a passion, but even I have to admit that they transformed modern entertainment and communications for the better.
And I don't think I have to go over why we need government. Anarchy is no good medicine.
So I guess our two greatest flaws are here to stay.
How the wrinkles of public opinion thrive and manifest themselves in shouting crowds and obnoxious talk show hosts; how the simple, humble roots of America have stretched their squabbly arms to form the puffy willow trees of today's society. Of how it waxes -- it wanes -- and yet it waxes again, strewing ever more complex, as it expands to a glorious fractal that skids the definition of a ball of steel wool, so very clumped and unorganized; and yet, in fact, surpasses the likes of the wool itself.
What I'm talking about is the namesake of this blog, of course. And despite how truly poetic and complicated politics has become, look closer and all you really see are two factions sissy-fighting each other.
The two essential evils of modern politics are government and private enterprise. Both claim to act for the common interest. Interview Apple, and they'll say their products better the life of the consumer. Interview Obama, and he'll say his policies run for the welfare of the people. But both government and private enterprise have had their run, and in many cases what they have done were not so. Think 1870's robber barons, wild fraud and overspeculation in the 1920's, failure of supply-side economics in the 1980's. Government, you're not off the hook either; President Grant's term accepted bribes all over.
Yet, at the same time, they are essential. How would we do without private enterprise? They're the minority, sure. They serve themselves first and the people second, sure (that's simply Business 101). But they're incredibly efficient. Vanderbilt extended railroads all throughout the United States. Carnegie created some of the nation's cheapest and highest-quality steel through his integrated production process. NASA partitioned itself largely to private enterprise for low cost space drudgery, like refuelings and ISS repairs. And heck, I hate Apple with a passion, but even I have to admit that they transformed modern entertainment and communications for the better.
And I don't think I have to go over why we need government. Anarchy is no good medicine.
So I guess our two greatest flaws are here to stay.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Open Politics: Democratic or International Suicide?
I know what you're thinking: is WikiLeaks a thing anymore? But really I feel like this blog wouldn't be complete without a post about good ole' Julian Assange, wherever he is.
Quick overview: WikiLeaks is a site dedicated to publishing incriminating news of government works. It received big press last year due to it being what would technically be called a massive gaping hole in U.S. informational security. Admist controversy of people shouting to close it down (threat to domestic security!), keep it up (transparency in government!), rebel against the status quo (I'm f'king V for Vendetta!), it's somehow magically still up and still publishing its anger-fuel.
If you want a quick example, they recently published a bunch of emails regarding Syrian involvement and how the Western world is responding (or rather, not).
The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, was granted asylum by Ecuador's embassy in London. Great Britain is determined to reverse that decision, putting pressure on Ecuador to release him and send him off to Sweden for trial (or worse, the United States). He'd likely be charged for treason, with the penalty of jail time (at best) or death (at worst).
Thing is, some people think his actions are morally just. Why would a government have to hide information from its people? If it's acting legitimate then there's no fear of having its documents leaked, right?
That stance is, it turns out, extremely hard to support. Not to mention that most of the major publications don't even classify as human rights violations, but international affairs.
Some leaked documents two years back revealed China's disclosures to the U.S. about possibly turning on North Korea, letting South Korea overtake its totalitarian rival. Needless to say, Kim Jong Il wasn't fantastically happy about that. Another set reveals how Iran's neighbors tolerate Iran's nuclear program but secretly urge the U.S. to aggressively stop the program.
The site had well over 1 million articles within a year, and who-knows-how-many now. There's no debate: it's a massive hole in national security. But is it worth it?
After all, documents were also released revealing accounts of civilian casualties in Iraq. They also revealed how many detainees at Guantanamo Bay were being taken into custody and treated inhumanely for little-to-no reason. Surely these are human rights violations that deserve some form of recognition?
It's a pragmatism vs. morals problem and something that will be interesting to keep in mind as Assange's potential trial unfolds in the near future.
OH NO SCALE: Yes? No? Maybe?
Quick overview: WikiLeaks is a site dedicated to publishing incriminating news of government works. It received big press last year due to it being what would technically be called a massive gaping hole in U.S. informational security. Admist controversy of people shouting to close it down (threat to domestic security!), keep it up (transparency in government!), rebel against the status quo (I'm f'king V for Vendetta!), it's somehow magically still up and still publishing its anger-fuel.
If you want a quick example, they recently published a bunch of emails regarding Syrian involvement and how the Western world is responding (or rather, not).
The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, was granted asylum by Ecuador's embassy in London. Great Britain is determined to reverse that decision, putting pressure on Ecuador to release him and send him off to Sweden for trial (or worse, the United States). He'd likely be charged for treason, with the penalty of jail time (at best) or death (at worst).
Thing is, some people think his actions are morally just. Why would a government have to hide information from its people? If it's acting legitimate then there's no fear of having its documents leaked, right?
That stance is, it turns out, extremely hard to support. Not to mention that most of the major publications don't even classify as human rights violations, but international affairs.
Some leaked documents two years back revealed China's disclosures to the U.S. about possibly turning on North Korea, letting South Korea overtake its totalitarian rival. Needless to say, Kim Jong Il wasn't fantastically happy about that. Another set reveals how Iran's neighbors tolerate Iran's nuclear program but secretly urge the U.S. to aggressively stop the program.
The site had well over 1 million articles within a year, and who-knows-how-many now. There's no debate: it's a massive hole in national security. But is it worth it?
After all, documents were also released revealing accounts of civilian casualties in Iraq. They also revealed how many detainees at Guantanamo Bay were being taken into custody and treated inhumanely for little-to-no reason. Surely these are human rights violations that deserve some form of recognition?
It's a pragmatism vs. morals problem and something that will be interesting to keep in mind as Assange's potential trial unfolds in the near future.
OH NO SCALE: Yes? No? Maybe?
What happened to compromise?
It's hard to look at the United States of America in modern times and say it's a land of compromise. Politics are more partisan than ever, and the advertising market shows. Attacking the opposing party is now nearly as influential, if not more, than actually praising your own. The media is dominated by far-leftists, far-rightists, and nay in between.
When you look at our roots, the exact opposite shows. The Constitution itself already bounces the concept of compromise with its federalist message: powers are shared between the states and the national government. Bicameral Congress. Virtually everything written in it is focused on the idea of unity between conflicting ideals.
The Great Compromise (or, what-say-you, the Connecticut Compromise) was a division of power between the small states and large states. Small states had the New Jersey Plan, in which all states would have a fixed number of representatives. Large states had the Virginia Plan, in which all states would have a number of representatives proportional to the population. 'Lo and behold, out came The Great Compromise, splitting Congress into the House of Representatives (large-state plan) and the Senate (small-state plan), with division of powers amongst all involved.
Washington, in his Farewell Address, designated the United States to avoid two things. One, crazy foreign entanglement (so much for that). Two, partisan political parties. There's not much more contrast you can get with that. James Madison, in his Federalist #10 paper, suggested the same: avoid factions with conflicting interests.
Run forward a little. During the Civil War, when the nation tore itself apart over what really boiled down to the economic divisions of slavery. During the Reconstruction period, the nation managed to dish out the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which were forced upon the South but nevertheless brought them into the manufacturing age. FDR brought the nation through a crippling Depression and a World War without much political opposition at all. And really, it was rare for any U.S. President to be seriously blocked by the opposite party once in office.
Not anymore.
The Obama Administration suffered extreme roadblocks with Republican refusal to compromise. Every issue, running from health care to tax rates, was met with serious opposition.
So, what happened to compromise?
OH NO SCALE: Oh no!
When you look at our roots, the exact opposite shows. The Constitution itself already bounces the concept of compromise with its federalist message: powers are shared between the states and the national government. Bicameral Congress. Virtually everything written in it is focused on the idea of unity between conflicting ideals.
The Great Compromise (or, what-say-you, the Connecticut Compromise) was a division of power between the small states and large states. Small states had the New Jersey Plan, in which all states would have a fixed number of representatives. Large states had the Virginia Plan, in which all states would have a number of representatives proportional to the population. 'Lo and behold, out came The Great Compromise, splitting Congress into the House of Representatives (large-state plan) and the Senate (small-state plan), with division of powers amongst all involved.
Washington, in his Farewell Address, designated the United States to avoid two things. One, crazy foreign entanglement (so much for that). Two, partisan political parties. There's not much more contrast you can get with that. James Madison, in his Federalist #10 paper, suggested the same: avoid factions with conflicting interests.
Run forward a little. During the Civil War, when the nation tore itself apart over what really boiled down to the economic divisions of slavery. During the Reconstruction period, the nation managed to dish out the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which were forced upon the South but nevertheless brought them into the manufacturing age. FDR brought the nation through a crippling Depression and a World War without much political opposition at all. And really, it was rare for any U.S. President to be seriously blocked by the opposite party once in office.
Not anymore.
The Obama Administration suffered extreme roadblocks with Republican refusal to compromise. Every issue, running from health care to tax rates, was met with serious opposition.
So, what happened to compromise?
OH NO SCALE: Oh no!
Sunday, September 9, 2012
The Trust on E-Books
The term "trust" [1] started to appear around the late 1800's in U.S. history, when post-Civil War industrialists [2] took advantage of the troubled South to prop up their businesses. Efforts to rebuild the South allowed industries such as railroads, steel, and oil to thrive. The Carnegie Steel Company, for example, managed to take over the entire production process for its steel, allowing it to cut out middlemen and offer high-quality steel at lower prices than its competitors. However, these "big businesses" were typically not very beneficial. John D. Rockefeller, for example, established a trust, in which he'd merge with other businesses to slowly force competitors into bankruptcy, and then charged excessive rates once he owned a monopoly over the oil industry.
Or, as William Henry Vanderbilt colorfully put it: "The public be damned!" [3]
With the emerging market on E-books, it's easy to see the same patterns. A trio of publishers (Hachette's Book Group, Simon & Schuster, and HarperCollins) were charged with forming a trust on the market -- collaborating with Apple and it's marketing system through the iPad to raise prices.
The market started with the development of Amazon's Kindle. New E-Ink technology allowed users to read books without the use of a backlight, preventing retinal deterioration. The innovation spawned an industry of digital books, which previously was not practical or intuitive.
Amazon set a maximum price for its books at $9.99.
Then came Apple, jumping on the bandwagon with iBooks, in which users could purchace E-Books through the iPad. They allowed publishers to price their books higher than they could through Amazon. Many publishers quickly began to collaborate with Apple instead, draining Amazon's profits. They were eventually forced to follow suit, allowing publishers to set their price, and such began the trust on E-Books.
Just as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act began breaking up "bad" trusts, a settlement was recently achieved in which pricing agreements between publishers and Apple were rendered void. [4] To restore competition, publishers were forced to allow retailers to adjust prices as they saw fit.
Judge Denise Cote, when deciding the case, placed emphasis merely on the destruction of monopoly-building between retailers and publishers.
It's very likely that this settlement will allow cleaner competition throughout the E-Books market.
OH NO SCALE: Not so bad
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%28monopoly%29
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Vanderbilt
[4] http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/technology/ebook-settlement/index.html
Or, as William Henry Vanderbilt colorfully put it: "The public be damned!" [3]
With the emerging market on E-books, it's easy to see the same patterns. A trio of publishers (Hachette's Book Group, Simon & Schuster, and HarperCollins) were charged with forming a trust on the market -- collaborating with Apple and it's marketing system through the iPad to raise prices.
The market started with the development of Amazon's Kindle. New E-Ink technology allowed users to read books without the use of a backlight, preventing retinal deterioration. The innovation spawned an industry of digital books, which previously was not practical or intuitive.
Amazon set a maximum price for its books at $9.99.
Then came Apple, jumping on the bandwagon with iBooks, in which users could purchace E-Books through the iPad. They allowed publishers to price their books higher than they could through Amazon. Many publishers quickly began to collaborate with Apple instead, draining Amazon's profits. They were eventually forced to follow suit, allowing publishers to set their price, and such began the trust on E-Books.
Just as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act began breaking up "bad" trusts, a settlement was recently achieved in which pricing agreements between publishers and Apple were rendered void. [4] To restore competition, publishers were forced to allow retailers to adjust prices as they saw fit.
Judge Denise Cote, when deciding the case, placed emphasis merely on the destruction of monopoly-building between retailers and publishers.
It's very likely that this settlement will allow cleaner competition throughout the E-Books market.
OH NO SCALE: Not so bad
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%28monopoly%29
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Vanderbilt
[4] http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/technology/ebook-settlement/index.html
Constitutional Republics... Unfallible?
You're all familiar with the U.S. Constitution, but for the sake of clarity, here's a super-fast run-down.
The United States Constitution went into effect in the year 1789, defining the nation as a federal constitutional republic, in which its representatives are elected by the people and have limited powers as defined by the Constitution. The document is a melting pot of ideas, namely those of John Locke and Montesquieu (a man we'll refer to by his last name merely because his full name is a frightening eleven words long). John Locke offered his philosophy of "consent of the governed," in which the government existed to serve the people [1], while Montesquieu offered the idea of a separated government of three branches -- legislative, executive, and judicial. [2] Thus is the nature of how our government stands.
Let's compare our constitution to those of other governments:
Around the time the U.S. Constitution was being written, the French Revolution was happening across the ocean. [3] After the fall of King Louis XVI and his centuries-old regime, the newly-born French government drafted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which associated citizens with the rights of "life, liberty, and property." [4] Sound familiar? We stole it, changing "property" to "the Pursuit of Happiness." Modern France is now a Unitary Semi-Presidential Constitutional Republic, led by a two-house Parliament not too different from our own Congress.
Great Britain, of which we owe our roots, lands a similar system with its Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. [5]
The UK is ruled by a prime minister, who selects all of the lower ministers to serve in Parliament. As such, a balance of power is achieved between Parliament (similar to Congress) and Prime Minister (similar to President).
How successful are constitutional governments?
Looking at just the three major powers of the Colonial Era, it's easy to tell.
The French Revolution encouraged a large chunk of Europe and other areas to declare war against France (aggressors including Great Britain and the Holy Roman Empire), firing off the French Revolutionary Wars. [6] Despite the recent chaos in the nation, the French won handily, taking territory in Italy and elsewhere. Then began the Napoleonic Wars, which, while ending France's reign as the most powerful European nation, expanded its territory yet further. [7]
Great Britain, despite having lost the Americas as a colony, enjoyed structure and order within itself during the Pax Britannica, roughly a century of dominance in the European world. [8]
But it'd be narrow-minded to proclaim that a constitutional republic/monarchy is "the best form of government," or even near the top of the list. A case study exists in the early government of Venezuela. After two failed attempts at independence, Venezuela finally reached its goal with the help of Simón Bolívar. A constitutional convention was created to draft a new system of government for the nation, but was torn apart by opposing groups, before Simón Bolívar proclaimed himself as dictator anyways. Fast forward 200 years and we see that the nation remains under the rule of Hugo Chavez, frequently governing by decree and with only a weak Parliament to balance his rule.
It's impossible to say that any government is unfallible. Constitutional governments, while successful in the larger European superpowers and the U.S., aren't a one-size-fits-all solution.
Here's a nice quote by Winston Churchill to end.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars#Political_effects
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica
The United States Constitution went into effect in the year 1789, defining the nation as a federal constitutional republic, in which its representatives are elected by the people and have limited powers as defined by the Constitution. The document is a melting pot of ideas, namely those of John Locke and Montesquieu (a man we'll refer to by his last name merely because his full name is a frightening eleven words long). John Locke offered his philosophy of "consent of the governed," in which the government existed to serve the people [1], while Montesquieu offered the idea of a separated government of three branches -- legislative, executive, and judicial. [2] Thus is the nature of how our government stands.
Let's compare our constitution to those of other governments:
Around the time the U.S. Constitution was being written, the French Revolution was happening across the ocean. [3] After the fall of King Louis XVI and his centuries-old regime, the newly-born French government drafted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which associated citizens with the rights of "life, liberty, and property." [4] Sound familiar? We stole it, changing "property" to "the Pursuit of Happiness." Modern France is now a Unitary Semi-Presidential Constitutional Republic, led by a two-house Parliament not too different from our own Congress.
Great Britain, of which we owe our roots, lands a similar system with its Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. [5]
The UK is ruled by a prime minister, who selects all of the lower ministers to serve in Parliament. As such, a balance of power is achieved between Parliament (similar to Congress) and Prime Minister (similar to President).
How successful are constitutional governments?
Looking at just the three major powers of the Colonial Era, it's easy to tell.
The French Revolution encouraged a large chunk of Europe and other areas to declare war against France (aggressors including Great Britain and the Holy Roman Empire), firing off the French Revolutionary Wars. [6] Despite the recent chaos in the nation, the French won handily, taking territory in Italy and elsewhere. Then began the Napoleonic Wars, which, while ending France's reign as the most powerful European nation, expanded its territory yet further. [7]
Great Britain, despite having lost the Americas as a colony, enjoyed structure and order within itself during the Pax Britannica, roughly a century of dominance in the European world. [8]
But it'd be narrow-minded to proclaim that a constitutional republic/monarchy is "the best form of government," or even near the top of the list. A case study exists in the early government of Venezuela. After two failed attempts at independence, Venezuela finally reached its goal with the help of Simón Bolívar. A constitutional convention was created to draft a new system of government for the nation, but was torn apart by opposing groups, before Simón Bolívar proclaimed himself as dictator anyways. Fast forward 200 years and we see that the nation remains under the rule of Hugo Chavez, frequently governing by decree and with only a weak Parliament to balance his rule.
It's impossible to say that any government is unfallible. Constitutional governments, while successful in the larger European superpowers and the U.S., aren't a one-size-fits-all solution.
Here's a nice quote by Winston Churchill to end.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.OH NO SCALE: Poor Venezuela :'(
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars#Political_effects
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Apple sues Samsung on stupid things and wins
If you've been following the tech industry at all lately, you'll probably have heard of the (big font)
Apple's patents are roughly a year old. They're perfectly valid. What's questionably valid is whether or not the patents in question are specific enough that they're actually patent-able.
The patent process has requirements for novelty under which a patent may be submitted. [3] If the patent has been used or known previously within the U.S., or if it has been described or patented internationally, it is invalid. If the patent is based on something that was not invented by the patentee, it is invalid. [4]
The list is long and wordy, but essentially the patent has to be not-completely-trivial (you can't patent the use of wires, for example) and also has to be completely and undoubtedly your intellectual property.
The court presided over features that were honestly trivial in nature. You wouldn't consider a "double tap to zoom" feature to be grand thievery, would you? You wouldn't consider a little "bounce back" animation to be the greatest piece of intellectual property?
Thing is, this sort of thing happens all the time between major industrial giants. Colloquially, they're known as patent wars, in which a company will dedicate a part of their legal team exclusively for combing through rival products and picking out minor details to attack in court. U.S. patent law is weak enough in that the opposing legal team will have to respond by throwing massive amounts of money into their own lawyers, to counter the lawsuit and engage in their own.
It's a matter of exclusivity. Tech giants use it as a way to push down the quality of the products of their competitors. Only Apple can use the "bounce back" effect in their phones now.
So why should you care?
As a fellow lover of all things tech (right? Of course!), patents like these will become seriously detrimental to the innovation that the patent system was built to protect. In the court ruling, the jury ruled every single Apple patent in question to be valid. In short: not a single opposing smartphone company can use those patents. The thing is, most of the patents licensed under Apple simply make sense. Pinch to zoom? That's something people have always dreamed of in old sci-fi movies. It's simply intuitive.
The actual implications of the court case are minimal at best; Samsung was charged a measly $1,051,855,000, which is insignificant when you consider that Samsung makes a hundred times that yearly. But this decision pushes tech into the wrong direction.
If there's an answer to a design problem that "simply works," you probably won't be able to incorporate it into your product without having to battle a lawsuit over it.
That, simply put, could become a very big problem for the innovative future.
OH NO SCALE: Very :(
1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law
2 http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29#United_States
4 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm
APPLE VERSUS SAMSUNG COURT ISSUE,
but if you haven't then here's a run-down.
Apple sued Samsung for violating a few user-interface patents held by Apple, namely U.S. Patent '915, U.S. Patent '163, U.S. Patent '381, and multiple others. The patents range from trivial features like "double-tap to zoom" to the "bounce-back effect" (moving past the screen on webpages will cause the view to snap back) to the design of the backing of smartphones.
The purpose of the U.S. patenting system was simple and straightforward -- encourage innovation by protecting ideas. People who knew they would be free to sell their product without competition from rivals selling the same product would be more likely to create that product in the first place. Or, in Constitution-speak:
Patents last, in general, for 20 years before they become public domain (unless they are renewed under Patent Term Adjustment).The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
~ U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section 8(8) [1]
Apple's patents are roughly a year old. They're perfectly valid. What's questionably valid is whether or not the patents in question are specific enough that they're actually patent-able.
The patent process has requirements for novelty under which a patent may be submitted. [3] If the patent has been used or known previously within the U.S., or if it has been described or patented internationally, it is invalid. If the patent is based on something that was not invented by the patentee, it is invalid. [4]
The list is long and wordy, but essentially the patent has to be not-completely-trivial (you can't patent the use of wires, for example) and also has to be completely and undoubtedly your intellectual property.
The court presided over features that were honestly trivial in nature. You wouldn't consider a "double tap to zoom" feature to be grand thievery, would you? You wouldn't consider a little "bounce back" animation to be the greatest piece of intellectual property?
Thing is, this sort of thing happens all the time between major industrial giants. Colloquially, they're known as patent wars, in which a company will dedicate a part of their legal team exclusively for combing through rival products and picking out minor details to attack in court. U.S. patent law is weak enough in that the opposing legal team will have to respond by throwing massive amounts of money into their own lawyers, to counter the lawsuit and engage in their own.
It's a matter of exclusivity. Tech giants use it as a way to push down the quality of the products of their competitors. Only Apple can use the "bounce back" effect in their phones now.
So why should you care?
As a fellow lover of all things tech (right? Of course!), patents like these will become seriously detrimental to the innovation that the patent system was built to protect. In the court ruling, the jury ruled every single Apple patent in question to be valid. In short: not a single opposing smartphone company can use those patents. The thing is, most of the patents licensed under Apple simply make sense. Pinch to zoom? That's something people have always dreamed of in old sci-fi movies. It's simply intuitive.
The actual implications of the court case are minimal at best; Samsung was charged a measly $1,051,855,000, which is insignificant when you consider that Samsung makes a hundred times that yearly. But this decision pushes tech into the wrong direction.
If there's an answer to a design problem that "simply works," you probably won't be able to incorporate it into your product without having to battle a lawsuit over it.
That, simply put, could become a very big problem for the innovative future.
OH NO SCALE: Very :(
1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law
2 http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29#United_States
4 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Is 'Merica a land of free worship?
The super-optimistic side of the American Way goes something along these lines: ‘Merica is free and open and everyone can do whatever they want ever. They can walk across the street and back without being bricked, or having their car stolen. They can order a Big Mac at any McDonald’s in the country despite the fact that their parents were former Soviets during the Cold War.
And, most trademark of all, free speech. Citizens of ‘Mericaland can say just about whatever they want, whenever they want. If they insulted the President’s mother, he wouldn’t get his head chopped off.
It didn’t used to be this way. In fact, religious intolerance started in America right in the beginning.
The Puritans came to the United States after a split from the Church of England; they disagreed with the church’s relations with Roman Catholicism and sought new lands in which to practice their own denomination of the faith [1]. Then, they met the aboriginal, native Americans on the coast, whom they instantly labeled "heathen." [2] Strike one. They also banished Roger Williams [3] and Anne Hutchinson [4], for speaking out against the Puritan community. Strikes two and three. Then, Quakers, who came from a similar faction of the Puritans but cut out the church as a religious middleman to god, were labeled "religious heretics" and banned from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. [5] Strike four. Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials? [6]
Only Christians and Catholics were allowed to serve on the government in Massachusetts. In fact, Catholics were regularly persecuted in the colonies by their Protestant counterparts. That is, until the Maryland Toleration Act cut them some slack and made it illegal to discriminate against Catholics, among other Christian denominations. [7]
It also made it legal to execute anyone who denied Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
Well done, 'Merica.
But I digress. Religious toleration amongst the colonies increased greatly after the first initial turmoil. Rhode Island became known particularly for its complete freedom for all religions. Pennsylvania became Quakerland. And eventually, secularism was encoded directly into our code of laws. John Locke, an influential philosopher, created the social contract, in which the government derived its power from its subjects. More importantly (and more relevantly (sic?)), he created the idea of natural rights, including the natural right of consciousness and thought that could not be controlled by the government. [8] His theories were further engrained into our Constitution through the Founding Fathers (particularly of dominance, Jefferson).
So really, can we consider America a land of free worship?
Nowadays, definitely. It's a constitutional right, and there's a great amount of emphasis in our government to keep church and state separated. But at its incarnation, the early colonists generally carried English resentments of religious differences with them, Protestants clashing with Catholics and Jews, and Quakers being continuously expelled, and atheists beheaded.
OH NO SCALE: Not Very
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan
2 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html?c=y&page=2
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson
5 http://massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=347
6 http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/life/religion.html
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Toleration_Act
8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Only Christians and Catholics were allowed to serve on the government in Massachusetts. In fact, Catholics were regularly persecuted in the colonies by their Protestant counterparts. That is, until the Maryland Toleration Act cut them some slack and made it illegal to discriminate against Catholics, among other Christian denominations. [7]
It also made it legal to execute anyone who denied Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
Well done, 'Merica.
But I digress. Religious toleration amongst the colonies increased greatly after the first initial turmoil. Rhode Island became known particularly for its complete freedom for all religions. Pennsylvania became Quakerland. And eventually, secularism was encoded directly into our code of laws. John Locke, an influential philosopher, created the social contract, in which the government derived its power from its subjects. More importantly (and more relevantly (sic?)), he created the idea of natural rights, including the natural right of consciousness and thought that could not be controlled by the government. [8] His theories were further engrained into our Constitution through the Founding Fathers (particularly of dominance, Jefferson).
So really, can we consider America a land of free worship?
Nowadays, definitely. It's a constitutional right, and there's a great amount of emphasis in our government to keep church and state separated. But at its incarnation, the early colonists generally carried English resentments of religious differences with them, Protestants clashing with Catholics and Jews, and Quakers being continuously expelled, and atheists beheaded.
OH NO SCALE: Not Very
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan
2 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html?c=y&page=2
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson
5 http://massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=347
6 http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/life/religion.html
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Toleration_Act
8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)