An eight month suspended sentence (so all he has to do is not commit crimes for eight months)
That's not how that works. He needs to not commit crimes for the duration of his probation, which is likely significantly longer than eight months, under the threat of having to serve those eight months.
All this hype about omgz Google is so innovative. Let's take a step back and see what they have actually created shall we?l
So all you fanbois - with all the fanfare and hype - what exactly has Google really invented or developed that is so way out there?
Your problem here is clear - you don't know the difference between innovation and invention.
Interesting that parent was rated "Funny" - it's also insightful that the attempt to stop information can actually make things worse - a lot worse.
Read the other posts. The Streisand effect mention would be insightful. The Kaupthing effect mention is humor through the (intentional) appearance of ignorance.
1) If you aren't already including it in "how happy you are with either job", consider how much you have to put up with other peoples crap. Since you say that you enjoy management, do you really already understand how much more other people's ignorance and attitudes you will have to DEAL with (as opposed to just LIVING with it as non-management)?
2) Where are you more needed? Often times management has more underqualified individuals in it. Or just people who are otherwise qualified but just lack the management skills. Or are you that good at the techie stuff that you are the one that really makes stuff happen most of the time? How many others are there that easily could fill your spot in either position, should you not take it? I don't mean this in a "for the good of the business sense" way, but rather in the sense that making a bigger difference in either role could add additional "happiness" to the basic aspects of the jobs themselves.
The point is that what you quoted is not the purpose of the law, it is the method by which the purpose is to be achieved. Once the method BECOMES the purpose, then the law is no longer constitutional (as the stated purpose is the only one that Congress has the authority to legislate this issue by).
I never said that the law didn't originally do that, I said that it wasn't the purpose of it. Thus, what I said WAS entirely correct.
And that is ignoring the ignorance behind calling it "stealing".
You are wrong, what I said IS entirely true.
Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution lists the "enumerated powers", one of those being "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;".
If a copyright or patent law is not designed for that purpose, then it is unconstitutional. (I.e. our intellectual property laws have been expanded unconstitutionally.)
Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas, and NOT to be used as a legal weapon against other companies.
Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and NOT to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas.
Fixed that for you.