No Mystery. Managers and executives are exempt from having to learn to use the tools of their trade, which are generally reporting tools. Most of the time, even a small business would be WAY better off with a web based client-server core business system (be it stock management, documentation tracking, transaction handling, etc) with reporting baked right in. Instead, they all use Excel and Email. This is understandble for a very small business, in which there simply isn't time to deal with IT and getting uch a system set up is a hefty capital outlay, but in business of 15 or more people where management heirarchies start emerging, the managers ought to know what tools are available (i.e. software packages), and how to use them. Statisticians, mathematicians, mining scouts... you name it; if there is specialised software for the field, students of the field are expected to learn how to use at least two or three different options in an undergraduate course. But MBA's aren't taught how to capture/store/generate their own data. Jesus! Acess would better than excel and relational algebra is NOT THAT HARD. Would you contract the services of a builder who only knew how to use a hammer and used it for everything?

Well, since Swoden is apparently in Russia, doesn't he qualify as a sort of cosmonaut in this case? It's a sort of a nod ;)

Why wouldn't it be enforceable. I didn't suggest that it couldn't be enforced, but that the owner couldn't rent-seek on it. He is prefectly free to license others to use his patent, and to sue those using the technology without license. What he's not allowed to do is not licence it anyone, and then sue others for using it IF he isn't using it himself. To continue the nuclear power technology example: The inventor patents some technology improving cooling efficiency by X%, thereby reducing costs etc etc. In theory, he should at least be able to develop a working prototype at small scale as a proof of concept, and the patent would have to describe how it was done. He can now either license the patent to power companies with the resource to scale the technology up, or he could sell the patent to one of those companies if they were interested. He can sue anyone using the patent and not paying a license fee, as long as he does it immediately that it comes to his attention and he is willing to offer them a license to use his patent. If he is not willing to allow someone to license his patent, he must sell it, or he forfeits it. My idea is that if you want to patent something and NOT license it, YOU must actively use the patent yourself (be you a company or an individual). Patents aren't there to protect trade secrets that can't be kept. Also, the inventor would be forced to sell or forfeit the patent if they aren't using the patent themselves, and I don't include licensing in the term 'using'. The inventor must continue actively researching or developing improvements if they cannot use the patent themselves. Here, I'm definitely open to the idea that an original inventor might be able to keep a patent without using as long as they license it, but even here I'm a little nervous. What worries me is that the inventor might choose to license only at ridculously high fees, effectively meaning noone can license it but legally he's not preventing anyone from licensing it. In this situation, there's not an open market to effectively determine a fair price. But if the inventor is forced to sell the patent to someone who can use it, and it provides enough of competitive advantage to the buyer's business, you have a situation where the buyer and the inventor are likely to come to a fair price. The buyer wants it because they see advantage in the patent. The inventor can hold out for as much as he thinks it's worth and play the power companies off against one another. You're suggesing that the power companies might hold out until the law invalidates the patent. This would mean either the patent doesn't appear to the power companies to be worth paying a 'fair' price for, or that the power companies are colluding, essentially boycotting the inventor. That's already illegal. It's basic game theory. If the patent is worthwhile, the power companies all get ahead equally if none of them (even if they not collude and all come to the same conculsion individually) buy the patent, but one power company can get a comparative advatage if they do buy it, at a price that preserves that advantage. Finally, once the patent has been transferred to a power company that is actually using it, they make more profit by using the patent. The patent will expire, so their advantage won't last indefinitely. This is good. If they ever come develope a different cooling method and stop using this one, they are forced to sell the patent or foreit it early. This too is good. They may choose not to license out the patent, but it's an economic question as to whether it's worth licensing it out. They might make more money from licening fees than they would lose from losing their competitve advantage. But that depends on the actual numbers. The point is, this way, no-one gets screwed. No one get's obscenely rich for nothing, but no-one gets screwed.

Maybe, although it also makes sense explaining it from the individual agent perspective. If I'm driving over a long segmented bridge, then every time I hit a new segment, it causes my car to bounce slightly. If I'm driving at the 'wrong' speed the end of my bounce coincides with the next segment dip, meaning my bounces get increasingly worse. So I slow down a bit to avoid this effect. If I'm a bird, and I'm flying behind and to the left of another bird, and every time my own wings aren't providing lift happens to coincide with a down draft that's coming at regular intervals, I'll instinctively adjust the timing of my wing beats so my own flight is as stable as possible.

No, my law wouldn't require that he go into the energy business. He would have to sell it to someone in the energy business, or actively continue research until he could either go into the energy business himself or could make the patent attractive enough to sell to someone who could use it. What he could *not* do, is come up with a great idea and not share it because he's not in the energy business. He could *not* come with a great idea and demand exorbitant amounts of money for it thereby preventing it's practical use, because the patent will expire sooner without use, the market won't bear inflated prices. I agree about obvious patents though. Allowing obvious patents breaks my system too.

The best outcome here would be to have a law introduced saying you are not allowed to rent-seek on patents (or any other IP for that matter). You may only hold a patent if you are actively using it yourself. Not a subsidiuary, or parent company. The company that holds the IP must be using it. If the patent is sold off then the buyer must actively start using it within X amount of time, or it becomes invalidated. Researching and development should buy you a couple of years so you can patent early and still take some time to market.

Most people already own and 'control' some automated systems, and we have a functioning legal framework for establshing liability. Some examples:

1. An automated sprinkler system. If your sprinkler system sprays outside of your property onto some passerby's extremely expensive suit, you as the owner of the system are liable. You are in control of the system, have set it up to spray beyond the bounds of your property, and have given the system instructions on when to start and stop spraying, usualy via a timer. You could argue that the system is deficient, or there is a manufacturing fault which prevents the system from operating as intended, i.e. spraying where you tell it to within commmonly acceptable limits. If the nozzle comes broken and it sprays 360 degress instead of 60 degrees, you can attempt to pass the liability for the incident on to the manufacturer, assuming you can convince people that you didn't know about the defect in advance, in which case you should have acted to mitigate it.

2. An automatic robot vacuum cleaner. I have one, and while it's not a common thing in households yet, the liability surrounding it is pretty clear. You can block of certain areas with a magnetic strip that it comes with (it's a neato). In summer it's really hot, and I like to leave my front door open to get a breeze going through the house, but the neato can just fit under the security gate. So I put the magnetic strip across the front door. If I forget to put it there, and one day it goes off to clean in the street outside and it cause an accident, I'm liable, not Neato (the company). It's functioning as intended. I accept this risk as part of owning the robot. If it decides to go AWOL and *cross* the magnetic strip, not performing as intended, and cause an accident in the street, then Neato (the company) is responsible, or at least I have a good case to make them responsible.

Now why wouldn't an autonomous vehicle fit into the same framework. If an autonomous vehicle causes an accident while not under autonomous control, it isi definitely the drivers responsoibility. If an accident happens while the vehicle is under autonomous control and functioning as intended, it's the passenger's responsibility, because they presumably gave the instructions to the car, however since the instructions to the vehicle would be very high level, as in 'take me to X destination' and the intended function of the vehicle is to get you to that destination safely, you would have to have issude an order like "take me to X latitude, Y longitude" which happens to be just the wrong side of a cliff. Even then, the vehicle *should* avoid situations like these. If the vehicle does not perfrom as intended, i.e. it collides with something, which it is not meant to do, then it is the manufacturer's fault, or rather, again you have a good chance of making it their responsibility assuming you can prove the car would act consistenly incorrectly in the same situation. As far as disclaiming liability is concerned, make the autonomous systems get the euivalent driver's licenses, i.e. to sell a driverless car, it must be certified as capable of driving autonomously, which could be made to mean: will always act to avoid a collision in all directions, will drive on a particular side of the road, will negotiate with nearby autonomous vehicles using a standard protocol, will obey traffic signals, etc...

The legalities are not that hard!

P.S. If you like this idea, or even have improvements and/or comments, don't just make them here, go and fill in question 74 on the questionnaire. Even if it's the only thing you fill in. You only have to answer questions on which you have an opinion.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Let the market for the work drive it's copyright term. I think most copyrights should be registered in a database, the only exceptions being works with exteremely short life spans such as news items. Rights holders should get a certain short period of free protection, where the length of the period is dependent on the nature of the work (music recording, video, novel, poem, song lyrics, news broadcast, combinations thereof). The period would be determined factoring the costs of production for the type of work, and the general longevity of the work, e.g. movies aare expensive to make compared to a music album, but less likely to be popular 5 years hence. Production costs proportionally increase the period length for the type of work, and potential longevity proportionally decreases the period, because longevity in popularity extends the commercial viability of the work. At the end of the period, the rights holder may renew the copyright registration for a significant cost, for the same amount of time. At the end of the second period, renewal costs double, and double again for the third renewal etc. In this way the length of a copyright term is tied to the specific work's contribution to society via a market mechanism. As long as the work is profitable, which is an indication that society in general finds it worth while, it is worth while paying the renewal costs. Consider some examples:

1) A successful popular music album. The artist creates the album, registers the copyright, and gets 1 year free copyright protection. In the first year it makes a lot of money, and is still selling well towards the end of the year. The artist renews the copyright for a fee (say 100 euros). At the end of the second year, sales have started to taper, but the artist still feels 200 euros (doubled from 100) is worth paying. At the point where sales drop to a level that the ever increasing renewel cost is more than the profit made in a year, the artist is encouraged to produce a new work, if they haven't already.

2) A news broadcast or article. No need to register because it would take too long, but they are only covered for a month. After that, registration is required to renew. The financial potential of news works diminishes rapidly, and it is in the public interest that it falls into the public domain equally quickly so that it can be discused, analysed, and derived into secondary works without limit as soon as possible.

3) A film. Production costs are high, and the chances of becoming a classic are low, so we would have a long period for films, say 5 years, which should be enough to recoup the production costs and make a profit. If it isn't, then film was likely a commercial failure anyway. 5 years should be enough time to determine whether a film has any value as a so called cult-classic in the era of digital distribution and social media. Renewal costs for films start at 10,000 euro though because the term is so long.

In each of these examples, the length of the copyright is regulated by the perceived value (where entertainment is also considered valueable) of the individual work by society at large. This also encourages rights holders to make their works as widey available as possible in the shortest amount of time possible, and makes rent-seeking behaviours un-profitable very quickly. Finally, it ensures long term availability by making sure the work fall into the public domain as soon as the rights holder no longer deems it profitable, which is exactly how long copyrights should last.

Sorry, I admit that I was slightly off topic there, responding to the separation of church and state comment. I was trying to point out that separation of church and state doesn't practically exist. I'm not saying the company is trying to make it difficult, I'm saying the religion as whole is trying to make it difficult for EVERYONE, not just their adherents. Mind you, why should one employer be exempt based on religous grounds but another employer not be exempt from paying for work place safety because the owner of that system is a free market capitalist who doesn't believe he should have to pay for worker safety? Why is religous objection special? Why do we even entertain these arguments, but not say technology company that doesn't want to have to pay for medical costs related to cancers with incredibly high mortatlity rates regardless of treatment. Or CPR, which has something riduclous like 4% chance of being successful. These arguments are based on on a sincere belief in that data and backed by evidence.

Looking from the outside, your separation of church and state in the U.S. is a joke. The fact that issues like abortion and contraception are issues of state/federal policy and not individual conscience is only the most obvious indicator of this. Then there's the disproportional political clout of the bible belt in your politics. Yes, while technically the U.S. is a secular state with freedom of religion, the electoral system links the church and state in non-explicit ways. Practically speaking, the U.S. is a Christian nation which tolerates (very impressively in most cases) the practice and observance of other religions, but for the most part it's laws are drafted from a Christian moral background, and generally benefit Christians above others.

In general religions can be organised according to their permissiveness, and Christianity is fairly permissive. But when it comes to politics, we don't like to talk about permisiveness. We prefer to call it liberty. Some religions believe in some incrediblby harsh punishements for minor social/religious infractions. But no, in a modern democracy, where some people (i.e. 'Us Christains') don't believe those infractions are infractions at all, or merit such punishments, we call it 'liberty' and say people can't be punished that way. I agree with this, personally. Up a level, some religions don't allow the eating of pork. But some people like pork and eat it (i.e. 'Us Christians' again), so we can't ban prok products outright becasue that would infringe on my liberty. You are free not to eat pork products, but you can't stop me from having them. That's called 'liberty' buddy! Some religions don't like people having casual sex (generally women are judged more harshly in this than men, but I'll ignore that for the moment). But some people do like fucking around, so we can't interfere with their practices ... well actually, fine! we can't BAN it, but we can make it difficult, i.e. interfere with their actions, for those people to have access to the medical care that supports their choices. Because that's 'liberty' buddy, I'm free to do as much as I (a modern Christian) want to do, but anything I don't like... well that's different.

The insurance provider is required by law to provide coverage for contraception, but it's still free to charge what it wants for that coverage based on risk. Why don't they create a plan which they offer only to specific groups people where that plan still provides coverage for contraception/maternity/etc, based on a vastly reduced risk factor. The risk of a nun wanting contraception is very small, but not non-existent I'm guessing. The risks of a nun needing maternity care are slightly higher (e.g. in cases of rape, where the nun would never choose to abort or prevent pregnancy with a morning after pill). The point being, because the risks are low, the insurance provider can say: Hey, on our plan, you won't pay for cover of contraceptives, maternity, family planning etc, but we will still provide the cover if it happens, because the risk is so low the cover can be paid for out of a little bit of the general risk pool. Every insurance provider manages has a general risk pool, where they aggregate all the possible events that occur so infrequently as to be entirely stochastic over the time periods in question, for example, a year, 5 years etc. They just can't plan for covering the expenses down that level of risk detail, because the stats don't work at such low frequencies. I'm sure there will be cases, but very rarely, in which maternity care and even possibly contraception might be medically necessary for someone who hasn't acted against their faith. Again, the case of rape springs to mind, but there's also the use of oral contraceptives to deal with disease related hormonal imbalances, and probably others.

There are sensible ways to do this where faith doesn't need to be compromised, so yeah, this is about a certain group of people trying to enforce their own way on other people. Cristian Scientists refuse a wide variety of modern medical procedures becasue it goes against their faith. Will they get to challenge mandatory health care in it's entirety?

Storing value on a or other physical token that is clonable and/or manipulable basically means you can create 'value' out of nothing. This is government sanctioned. Created value isn't taxed, can be used a anonymously as cash, and can be used to transfer money (real or fake) without the governments knowledge. Granted, I don't see your local drug dealer accepting cloned MiFare cards... actually, chances are local organised crime already distributes them, so they are already part of the same economy, so if they can be sold, they could be accepted. But bitcoins are bad? I don't get it.

Yes, different tool for different jobs, but presumably you expect your plumber to know how use his tools effectively and productively. Same for your electrician, car mechanic, etc. Also, you expect these guys to be able to do basic diagnostics and repairs on their own tools. Why then do you think it's okay for your local government admin clerk, or bank cashier, or receptionist to be able to competently use their tools, i.e. computers. Sure, they only need to know how to use MS Word, how to connect to the network, the internet, the filesystem, excel, how to burn a CD/DVD, ... wow, actually there's quite a bit to know. So much so it takes some time to learn it all. If you don't know all of it then you are not qualified to do your job. Yes, not everyone needs to know the command line, but everyone who uses a computer professionally does need some basic admin skills.

Not strictly true. All companies have a brand. Brands are a form of intellectual property, and trademarks are the legal representation thereof. Almost every company has IP to benefit from, but most companies don't care because even if someone rips of "Joe's plumbing" brand, he's so small and has enough business anyway that it doesn't affect him. It will only affect Joe when when someone mistakenly sues him instead of "Jo's plumbing"... And this is an unlikely mistake, since the identity of a company isn't just it's name/logo, but it's contact details, physical address etc, when it comes to law suits.