The federal government has sovereign immunity. Congress has a to waive immunity otherwise they can't be sued.
No bigger fish are already doing that. The president of the United States has come out strongly for patent reform. The problem is:
a) Democrats in congress like legal fees
b) There are Republicans who believe intellectual property laws should be strengthened.
However there is light. Innovation Act (H.R. 9) is really good and bipartisan. It doesn't fix the system but it does make very good minor change and starts the process of congress getting this system under control. Essentially it tightens up the rules for an infringement filing so that it goes from allowing filing of the form
Product X infringes patent Y to requiring
Product X infringes patent Y by doing Z
You are just vastly decreasing the number of lawsuits. That might be a good reform. But essentially the burden on filing is so high and the costs so great that it would almost always (or possibly always) pay to resolve problems outside the justice system. Which means that structures that require lawsuits won't function. For example if debts aren't collectable the loan system collapses. The only way to get a loan would be a loan shark type investor who doesn't depend on the courts.
Your numbers need to be tweaked. 125% cap, liability for 100% of the amount sued for... too high. Something like a 300% cap and 10% liability and I'd agree with you.
Very good list of traits for a legal system.
I'd add to your list a requirement for
due diligence: a party should be encouraged to investigate claims on their own before making them in court.
rapid settlement: parties should be encouraged to make offers to one another in a timely matter
punishment for stalling:
encouragement towards truth telling: admitting flaws in your case rather than requiring the other party to prove them should always be to your advantage
reduced cost: the system should work to adjudicate matters of fact cheaply. The expenses should be reasonable relative to the amount of money at stake.
A company in the industry doesn't do enough due diligence to check whether X did infringe or not. I don't have any problem with them getting their head handed to them. You have an obligation in your filings to have very good reason for believing what you are saying is true, and that should be more than just your gut instinct.
Instead, the fees are based on fairness- if you file a frivolous suit, you can plan on being ordered to pay the defendant's costs
The problem is that the courts have a minimalist view of what is frivolous and don't require due diligence or good faith to avoid a claim of frivolousness. If the courts were more aggressive about whether initial fillings were in good faith this would be fine. The loser pays is based on the belief that judges are not going to rulle out huge classes of disputes from being judged even though our society can't afford justice to be cheap.
Better IMHO would be tiers with very different procedures (and thus costs) at each tier:
small claims: up to $20k
reduced claims $10-200k
standard: $100k - 5m
enhanced expectations: $2.5m+
As for admitting it is a problem... part of the problem with the USA in terms of good faith is not admitting something is almost always to your advantage. That's something the courts would want to discourage. Admitting a wrong should reduce the claim while failure to admit it should increase it. That encourages people towards settlement.
good luck trying to win a case against Microsoft or IBM or similar patent trolls
A patent troll is a company that doesn't sell goods or services based upon a patent but enforces patent rights. Microsoft and IBM both make their money from making stuff. They are not by any means patent trolls. Patent troll should be reserved for the companies that just buy up patents otherwise you turn an argument about particularly noxious entities into a more fringe argument about intellectual property.
Small wronged person who is sure they have a solid case which they can prove can now sue big corporation and because it is rarer is more likely to be believed
Small wrong person who has an iffy case can't sue.
Well you can go bankrupt more easily than they can.
Also uou could set it at a percentage. You sue Sony for $1m you have to put $100k in escrow that they can collect on for fees. You sue them for $1b you have to put $100m in escrow.
There were already emerging chains on Jessie last year where packages needed a recompile or work to run without systemd effectively That's not to say that every system had such chains but that they were starting to emerge and complicate work. The systemd advocates never said Jessie wouldn't work without systemd but rather that:
a) Jessie was likely the last version that would work while being a broad based distribution without systemd
b) They couldn't insure that upstream packages would continue to support initd based features for 2-3 years so not using it would introduce security issues
c) Given the speed of systemd development and its ties with architecture the changeover was likely to be vastly more breaking 3 years later (i.e. 2015 is going to be much easier than 2018).
As for choice and flexibility... Debian is a compiled distribution Most packages don't introduce complex chains of dependencies but some do. And on those Debian has had to make choices about defaults. The way those choices are made is by looking at the direction of upstream. Debian's policy is pretty clear. If the initd people want initd then work with the upstream software to make sure their software is not introducing systemd dependencies and work with the package maintainers or easy option switches. Debian supports that. What they can't support is 2 different distribution. If Devuan ever comes to be then you'll have a long term systemd free Debian. If not Crux, Alpine... exist . No one is taking away choice from Linux.
The FAT32 example might be an anti-trust violation. Most of the other stuff probably has nothing to do with Windows desktop OS however. Remember Microsoft was a big player in phones for many years until Apple / Android.
l. I do, however, care about their OS, the stability and performance of which has been degrading steadily since the loss of Jobs.
That's just false. OSX stability and performance in 10,10 is far far better than say 10.4-6. Take for example the complexity of the video subsystems required to overlay 3 different screens for retina displays. The video subsystem handling of high performance video cards wasn't finished until 10.4 And wasn't stable or usable then. 10.7 is when what 10.7 does became possible. The memory handling for battery life requires a tremendously complex kernel. 10.10 is advanced over 10.9 over 10.8 and really before that you don't have anything remotely as complex.
So I'm going to throw it out this way. What subsystem is less stable or lower performance today and say 5 years ago? Let's hit your list:
Issues like the keyboard and trackpad freezing
That's a bug that gets fixed soon. Apple had bugs in 10.2, 10.3, 10.4...
Messages (which is now part of the OS) using over 2GB of RAM for its own process while making use of another kernel-level process that manages to eat 5GB (watching kernel_task go from over 6GB of RAM to 1.1GB just by closing Messages is freaking silly),
That is. You are loading something else. Run a diagnostic like etrecheck.
I experienced none of these issues in any version of OS X released while Jobs was active within the company.
There were many more bugs in Job’s day. You sound like you have a worm or something, that isn’t OSX.
Care to give any examples of what was un-balanced about Apple's machines under Jobs
The G4 had terrible throughput for memory and hard drives relative to CPU speed. The result was that the machine pulled a lot of no-ops. It was a bad CPU in a period when Intel CPUs were cheap and much more powerful. The G5 was excellent but then Jobs wouldn’t commit to a laptop version so just as his CPU problems were fixed he migrated away.
Another area where Jobs made sacrifices was on his memory sourcing. Apple customers often had to pay 5x or more street price for memory.
2nd or 3rd in every category isn't beating Android. The players are iPhone, Android, Windows Phone, and Blackberry
By 2nd or 3rd I meant compared to individual phones. i.e. HTC One M9, Samsung Galaxy S6, HTC Desire Eye, Motorola Moto X, Lumia 1520
and major apps that exist on both platforms (like Adobe's suite) are routinely found to perform better on Windows.
While the opposite is true on Android vs. iOS. If this were about Tim Cook that shouldn’t be happening.
In the end we disagree that there has been slippage in the software to any great degree. I don’t disagree with your point philosophically: were OSX’s all around experience worse than Windows the hardware wouldn’t make up for that. What I disagree with you on is a matter of fact, that OSX’s experience is worse.
A trusted application is trusted to authorize applications. That's what it means to trust. If you want applications that are only semi-trusted: capability computing, sandboxing, virtual machines... permissions systems are not the way to go.
Well clearly it is not the best OS in 2015. Yet they continued using it for years. Ergo...
OSX app store though is mostly wide open. There are some restrictions, for example sandboxing and use of external services, but mostly the idea is that the App Store for OSX should have 95+% the diversity of OSX applications.