Since when did patents ever legitimately cover algorithms in the first place?

The idea that 'doing it on a computer' is enough to get a patent is ridiculous. The computer is a general purpose calculating device that applies to any known practical algorithm. IT IS OBVIOUS to put your algorithm on a computer.

Software patents are intrinsically unpatentable. End of story.

The argument that allowing patents on algorithms benefits society is a fail also. Patents are a contract between inventor and government that grants a limited right to prevent others from practicing an technique in exchange for revealing the details of the implementation.

Since anyone with a reasonable toolkit can monitor code execution the contract is completely one sided. We get nothing. They get a monopoly.

> So what do you call 3.4 billion a year for the next ten years, as approved in 2012 when the postmaster general asked to close branches and congress instead laughed at him and whipped out the checkbook?

I call that fair. If congress is going to insist on the USPS providing unprofitable services they should finance it. If people don't like the results they should stop whining when the USPS closes a post office in their area.

The USPS gets a lot of interference from Congress. If Congress were to leave them alone they no doubt would be more efficient.

That's why I stopped using UPS's on my home computers. I was having more failures caused by the UPS's than if I didn't have them in my system.

I think the turning point was when journaling file systems came to Linux.

Yes, you are right. It was 1789. It was actually the 5th act of Congress to establish the customs service and begin collecting taxes on imported goods.

So the date is wrong by two years

It is STILL a fact that one of the first acts of Congress, the FIFTH, actually, was establishment of the Customs Service which enabled inspections at ports of entry to enforce collection of tarriffs. (July 31 1789).

And it does and has allowed seizure of personal effects since the very founding of the Republic. After all contraband and articles subject to tarrifs can and are often smuggled in personal effects.

To protest otherwise exposes your ignorance.

What are we going to quote next? The Daily Mail?

USE PRIMARY SOURCES PLEASE.

The Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate trade. You cannot do that without the ability to inspect items coming into the US.

One of the very first laws passed by the first Congress in 1787 was the provision to allow customs inspections at borders.

What people are complaining about here is US law that is just as old and well established as the Constitution itself.

As a matter of fact 329 ports of entry is a far smaller area than a 100 mile wide swath around the entire periphery of the United States.

The bill of rights is not the entire Constitution.

The Constitution does give the Congress the duty to secure borders and regulate commerce. In fact one of the very first acts of the first Congress in 1787 was to establish the border search provisions that you are complaining about.

It's my understanding (and I've seen this in ACLU publications and so on) that the 4th amendment free zone only applies at entry points.

The 100 mile range applies more to issues like immigration stops visa checks etc.

http://www.visaserveblog.com/tp-110714115312/post-121023152428.shtml

Actually they can go over 100 miles if they feel like it.

"That whenever in the opinion of a chief patrol agent or special agent in charge a distance in his or her sector or district of more than 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States would because of unusual circumstances be reasonable, such chief patrol agent or special agent in charge shall forward a complete report with respect to the matter to the Commissioner of CBP, or the Assistant Secretary for ICE, as appropriate, who may, if he determines that such action is justified, declare such distance to be reasonable."

Liquidity was provided by the large investment banks - look it up, they were leveraged 40:1 and higher. It is exactly where the money came from to purchase the MBS's that were being sold by the lenders. The only hand the government had in it was not regulating the leverage ratios properly. Look at the 2005 / 2006 issuance peaks at the huge increases in investment bank leverage that occurred at the same time!

Unregulated derivatives is the mechanism by which these banks were able to leverage themselves to these insane levels. Do you know how to calculate the leverage ratio of a naked CDS? I sure don't because it would require division by ZERO! Regulate the derivatives and 40:1 will NOT happen. It should have been done in the 1990s when derivatives took off but ex-industry people in government opposed it. Rubin, Summers etc. Guess what they are doing now? Selling derivatives!!

The term subprime covers a LOT of ground. There is a legitimate subprime market - many people are barely subprime and are still good risks. However that's not what these banks in their rush to sell MBS to Leahman etc to serve as the basis of CDOs, CDSs, etc.were issuing.

Criminals like Countrywide were selling NINJAs, liar loans, negative amoratization loans and every other scam possible, many illegal. For one reason. Greed. And the ratings agencies were slapping AAA on these! Sorry, but this not any way related to any government actions.

You are incorrect in several ways.

1. The bulk of MBS etc. were sold to private parties, not F&F.

2. Because of this the GSEs had no influence in lending standards. Because of the profitability of these private sales it turned into a race to the bottom.

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. During the 1880's and 1920's there were similar crashes due to mortgage securitization.

3. Derivatives based on these MBS's (F&F did not participate in these in any way) levered up the effects of defaults terrifically. Ever hear of the CDS? The naked CDS? CDOs? CDO squared?

4. Only 1 in 25 of the subprime loans where subject to CRA regulations.

The idea that Freddie and Fanny purchasing these loans was the cause of the crash is just not borne out by facts. In 2002 before the sub prime boom they owned about 54% of all mortgages. In 2006, when the boom was underway that had dropped to 40% because these loans were being bought by private banks.

Whoever is telling you that GSEs are the cause of this is wrong.

Public prior art SHOULD still be a statutory bar to obtaining patent.

Slashdot publishes a lot of OMG Patent stories that are based on lack of understanding of what a patent is or should be.

But this one I think they are right on. It is completely ridiculous that somebody should be able to get a patent based on the filed claims.

Along with that look at this:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1924831

It points out that mortgage securitization has failed every time it has been tried.