and the problem is?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| purplewizard Jan 23, 2007 4:28 AM EDT |
I don't see the problem. Filing software patents in SA can't be done. Which means none of the things patented are software patents. If anyone wants to use of them fine the defense of "we wrote some software and it does this but there are no software patents in our country so we cannot be infringing any" seems pretty rock solid as they go. As a defense it is basically saying it does not exist therefore we could not have done anything with it. |
| jsusanka Jan 23, 2007 8:28 AM EDT |
"Ravicher none-the-less used the word 'obnoxious' to describe the US's claim that any internet site that a US citizen can interact with falls within the jurisdiction of US courts." had a scary thought - maybe this is what the whole net neutrality issue is about the government using the telecoms taking control of what the us citizens see on the net if your country isn't in the WTO then we will not allow our citizens to see your pages. scary and I hope it isn't true. |
| jimf Jan 23, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
> maybe this is what the whole net neutrality issue is about the government using the telecoms taking control of what the us citizens see on the net What's 'really' scarry.... That's the first time I've heard a reason where net neutrality has made any sense at all. |
| jezuch Jan 23, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:"Ravicher none-the-less used the word 'obnoxious' to describe the US's claim that any internet site that a US citizen can interact with falls within the jurisdiction of US courts." So, all land that any US citizen can see from the border belongs to US too? After applying this reasoning iteratively it seems that at least both Americas entirely belong to the US... I'd say that claim is... bold :) |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2007 2:16 PM EDT |
> So, all land that any US citizen can see from the border belongs to US too? The US government has been making extravagant claims about its jurisdiction for some time now. Speaking as a US citizen, I think it's about time some of the other countries around the world slapped them down slightly. Unfortunately, the only ones which appear to be willing to do so are run by nuts like Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il. It's a sorry state of affairs. |
| Abe Jan 23, 2007 3:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:run by nuts like Hugo ChavezYou must believe the media. I personally don't. |
| dcparris Jan 23, 2007 3:41 PM EDT |
Well, I do believe Kim Jong-il is nuts. I'm not as certain about Chavez. He could be, but I am less certain of it. |
| jimf Jan 23, 2007 4:13 PM EDT |
> Well, I do believe Kim Jong-il is nuts. I'm not as certain about Chavez. He could be, but I am less certain of it. Kim Jong-il is a genuine evil psychopath, and paranoid to boot. Chavez, on the other hand, is quite sane. A lot of the things he does and says are true from a non-US point of view, so, of course we don't agree with him. |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2007 6:25 PM EDT |
> You must believe the media. Not really, but if Chavez thinks Cuban style socialism will work any better for him than it has for Castro, he's completely off his rocker. Especially since he won't have the Soviet financial backing Castro had. |
| Abe Jan 23, 2007 7:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:but if Chavez thinks Cuban style socialism will work any better...Jdixson, I think you are mixing between socialism & communism. Castro is communist but Chavez is not, he is socialist. Most European countries have socialist systems (ex. Scandinavian countries that have highest standard of living), heck, we here in the great US are partially socialist (what do you think the middle class is?). Chavez is being demonized because he stuck it to the big man, the oil companies, by doing good for the people of his country. Where else can you buy a gallon of gas for $0.25? You can't even get that even in Saudi Arabia. His relations with Castro is mostly business. He is using the oil money to buy services for his people from Cuba for as little money as possible. It would have been the US instead of Cuba if we were a little smarter. He is not communist. If he was, he wouldn't buy Citco (you know, the gas stations) and run it as a profitable company here in the US. Would he? What I hear from Venezuelans is that, he is well liked by his people and he was democratically elected by a good margin. I wouldn't call him nuts. Kim Jong-il is a different story and I fully agree with you that he is a serious nut case. No offense, I just wanted to point that out. |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2007 8:03 PM EDT |
> I think you are mixing between socialism & communism. By your definitions, probably so. I think it goes without saying that I disagree. >...we here in the great US are partially socialist... Yes, but only because our government has never obeyed the 10th amendment. Socialism requires effective government control of the economy, which is not granted anywhere in the Constitution. However, that's a war which was lost in the 1860's, and the fact that it means the eventual fall of the US government is something I realized and accepted a long time ago. However, this isn't the place to discuss the matter, it beng outside the TOS. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 23, 2007 9:55 PM EDT |
> I think you are mixing between socialism & communism. Also remember that socialism means something different in the US than it does in e.g. Europe. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!