(Seriously, how is that off-topic? It's a reasonable assessment of the current mood in places like Europe, and I personally know people who would be in exactly the position to benefit that I described if the US does stick with the legal position as it apparently stands today and so conveniently removes some of the competition that would otherwise exist for European firms.)

You might consider the possibility that if Arista did charge less for their devices -- maybe much less, if say they were promoting a different business model that wasn't based primarily on very high margins on hardware sales -- then one possible consequence might be that Cisco would be terrified that their goose that lays golden eggs was on its death bed.

Not that I'm in any way claiming that this hypothetical scenario does have anything to do with anything, you understand. It's just a possibility that you might consider.

Well, God help the US IT industry, anyway. Even with the dubious "diplomacy" the US employs when it comes to exporting intellectual property laws, I expect most of the world would see such an obvious and needless barrier to competition and interoperability for what it is. Prohibiting that kind of competition in the US would just be good for... well, everyone who develops software in another jurisdiction, basically, as long as those other jurisdictions don't propagate the mistake.

Then you're either not trying hard enough or not considering large parts of the Western first world to be democratic. They're pretty much all at it, with or without the meaningful consent or support of their populations. The US just has a bigger budget and a higher profile.

...wrote the Anonymous Coward.

I'm not sure whether I'm hopeful or ironically amused that this is currently on the Slashdot front page a few slots above a story called "Ron Wyden Introduces Bill To Ban FBI 'Backdoors' In Tech Products".

Inescapable truth of the day: If you force developers to build back doors into their hardware or software that your people can exploit, you also force them to build in back doors that anyone else can exploit.

You can't value and protect security except when you later decide you don't want it to be there. This is that rare kind of issue, a truly black and white one: either some hardware/software/communication has a certain vulnerability, or it does not.

I would agree that ideally it should be something everyone considers, but I think we both know that not everyone will unless it's pointed out front and centre...

That may all be true, but the information on the pages I linked to generally seems to be accurate and it's certainly much better than the wishful thinking nonsense posted by the AC I was replying to.

I'm sorry to hear that. I've never been in that position, but I've been in court as an independent witness after I saw a car crash. What the person being prosecuted (and ultimately found not guilty) went through, and for how long before the case was finally resolved, was absurdly disproportionate to the offence they were charged with. As far as I can tell, under our current system you also don't get any sort of automatic compensation for all the time spent and distress suffered, even if you do eventually win your case and you might be able to claim back at least some of the actual costs involved.

In any case, I admire your principled stand, and I wish you the best of luck in your case and in finding a way to get fair compensation afterwards.

For serious crimes it might well be a stolen vehicle anyway, so the plates won't help no matter how many cameras see them, unless as you say the vehicle used can be identified and tracked fast enough for actual police officers to catch up with it while the perps are still inside.

Meanwhile, the concern with cloned plates is not only the escape of the guilty party but also the innocent person whose plates were cloned, who is probably about to get numerous automated penalties for speeding, not paying congestion charges, parking violations, etc. There is a real problem with the level of such charges and the lack of compensation to the wrongly accused for losses they incur defending themselves. For many people, it simply won't be cost-effective to take time off work and/or retain legal counsel to travel to court and fight the charge, because you'd wind up spending more to clear your name than the original fine on the ticket even if you win.

Sure it does, the same way the only blame for the theft lies with the homeowner who installed a defective lock on their front door, and the only blame for the rape lies with the pretty girl in the short skirt who was asking for it.

Oh, no, wait, maybe the blame for a crime lies with the people who committed the crime.

No, but some people will always vote for a candidate with a stronger, better-funded campaign, and where does that funding come from?

One step at a time... I want politicians to be responsible for anything!

Oh, I completely agree. International tax rules are certainly not easy things to set up in way that is transparently fair to all parties. That's how these big businesses can play these games right now, but going too far the other way would be harmful to commerce as well.

The current thinking from the tax authorities in the UK seems to be that they should have generic rules available to them, so they can unilaterally and possibly retrospectively declare a tax scheme against the rules. The General Anti-Abuse Rules that came into effect last year were already one significant step in that direction. I'm not sure how I feel about those, because on the one hand abuse has obviously been taking place, but on the other the new rules fundamentally rely on the tax collection authorities (HMRC, in this case) to make fair decisions about who owes them money but they have a track record of interpreting other rules to claim more than they were entitled to.

Just in case anyone here might mistake the above wishful thinking for, you know, law... It is not even close to what the law actually says or how courts actually work in this country.

In England, copyright infringement is usually a civil rather than criminal matter, so the standard of proof required is merely the balance of probabilities.

See also the Top 10 Copyright Myths page from the UK Copyright Service.