I wrote code for a little over 20 years, starting when I was 30-something. Then I got caught in a layoff in the double-whammie of the dotcom bubble bursting and 9/11; by the time people were hiring again, my resume had gone completely stale and I was in my mid-50s. Even taking some retooling classes, i couldn't find anyone who would hire me. I ended up retiring out of a retail job that barely paid the bills. Now I'm living on savings and Social Security; fortunately, the savings survived all of the turmoil, so it's enough.

I know I did some things wrong (didn't take XXX classes, spent too much time on YYY job boards, didn't get to the ZZZ networking sessions, ...) while looking for another job; that's not the point. If someone offered me a job coding, I'd probably take it, enjoy it, and do it well, but I've given up hope finding it for myself; the repeated "Sorry, we're not interested -- Next!" just got too painful to endure, so I quit trying.

So, why am I grumping about and not adding anything to the conversation? Partly to get it off my chest, and partly to make this one point: The older you get, the harder it is to find someone who will hire you. I don't know why that is, or even if it's true for everyone, but it certainly was for me. If you're over 30, keep an eye on what's happening around you. If it looks like things are going south, jump ship while you still can. It's a lot easier to get a new job if you look while you're still in the old one.

A completely free market doesn't really benefit society as a whole nearly as much as it does the strongest competitors -- who are not necessarily the best citizens. It's a special case of "might makes right" -- not, IMHO, the best basis for an economic or social system. But then, no one worries about walking through the valley of the shadow of death if they think they're the biggest, baddest motherf*cker in the valley.

Apparently the real purpose of class action suits is not compensation for the victims, but rather punishment of the guilty; if that is really the case, it makes sense that the lawyers who did the work should be the big winners. But, in my mind, that a very big "if."

No. If you can't retrain (and you don't know that), it because you've forgotten how to learn, not because of your age. The only way to find out is to try.

But be aware that, at 40, you've crossed over into what passes for middle age in the development world. This isn't necessarily fatal, but it does mean that you can't afford to leave a current job before having the next one secured. Being over 40, having an out-of-date skill set, and not having a current job (in no particular order) are all strikes against you if they apply. You can overcome one; you might overcome two; all three is more than you want to face.

Believe me, I know. I was laid off just before 9/11, with no web or database experience, and that's all anyone wanted then. I never did get back into IT, i spite of taking several classes, and ended up retiring out of retail sales. Even the hiring mangers near my age wouldn't take a chance on an over-40 with no working background in what they were doing.

And, yes, I KNOW that age discrimination is illegal. That doesn't keep it from happening.

Tell him that too much overtime is counter-productive, because the error count goes up faster than the extra work does. Anyone who can work much over 45 hours a week without suffering a drop in effectiveness isn't putting out full effort while working less than that. If he doesn't agree, find another job fast -- he doesn't know what he's doing.

I have to agree; setting a value to be taxed is the key. But, as several have pointed out, allowing anyone who wishes to force a sale at the value declared for tax purposes would allow the deep pockets to simply steamroller the little guys and also, essentially, destroy the open source movement. As much of a Heinlein fans as I am, I can't see this working for IP.

On the other hand, setting the value based on yearly sales is even less workable, at least for the open source community. The people making most of the money from Linux are the release publishers, not the copyright holder (Linus). Do we really want the paperwork nightmare that would result from trying to manage this?

My own feeling is that the best answer is also the simplest: Cut back the duration of copyright to a more reasonable time -- say, somewhere around 5 to 20 years. I would also, in the case of software, advocate putting the source code in escrow, to be released to the public at the end of the copyright period. There would, of course, be nothing preventing the author from improving the code in the meantime and acquiring new copyrights at any time, but the new copyright would only cover the changes, not the original unmodified code.