Its far more appropriate that a company make money selling hardware, the stationary of software speech, than it is that they control what we can say.

20 years ago perhaps, there were few enough computer programmers that proprietary software could bribe or bluff them all into preserving a monopoly. Perhaps there were few enough computers or solution models that they could dominate all the working solutions.

Another clear example of lobbyists doing a disservice to the population at large allowed record companies to reclassify most recording contracts as 'work for hire'. This class is meant for jobs of limited\or delegated creative input. If you say paint me a flower there or build me a ladder the 'artist' actually receives much of his\her direction from the patron. Clearly for most audio recordings this is rediculous, it places them in a lower category and allows the Record Companies to pay reduc

Lets 'license' a shovel

I wonder if I could license a shovel to users. This shovel would be designed to shovel my fertalizer but not allow the licensee to lift, move, or affect a change in snow or other shovelables. If society would pay for inforcement I'd be willing to take a paper loss on each shovel sold if it supported my fertilizer.

While it is always possible to ignore the importance of stories and go on with your life regardless, it may still be interesting to see what the interactive nature of the web does to journalism.

Nobody who reads a newspaper expects a way to read cout transcripts from their chair at the push of a botton. Nobody expects to be able to tell the author what they think with minimal trouble -- except on the web.

The issue over who defines what is the best format for Intellectual Property is a huge one for the world right now.

Intellectual Property owners have been very succussful in phrasing the argument such that anyone who opposes them is somehow suspect. This simply isn't so.