Remind me not to invent anything

[Easy Mac]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,68894,00.html

Nice to know the US government can use whatever you invent without paying for the rights. What really bugs me is someone else got rich for someone else's patent and these guys got nothing. So all you have to do is get a contract with the government and you can steal anyone else's ideas for a hell of a lot of money.

As a corollary, if I just get a job in the NSA, I can download all the music I want right? I mean if I listen to my Ipod while on the job, its got to be considered a state secret, so I'm not infringing on anyone else's work anymore.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Hey Mac... Just thought I'd remind you... Don't invent anything.

[ThunderingHERD]

If you're even thinking about inventing anything right now--lose that thought.

Unless it's a six-bladed razor. I could really use a six-bladed razor.

[Tekneek]

People continue to be surprised that government is out of control and above the law? People warn about these sorts of things all of the time and are routinely ignored. Because it is a minority of the population that will ever be affected by this type of thing, the majority won't do a damn thing about it.

[Airhog]

That's kinda sad if you ask me. These guys inveneted a great product, and lucent basically stole it from them. I hope those guys that screwed them over from lucent burn in hell.

[sterlingice]

No, no- everyone's got it wrong. Wilson or Penn should be suing him for stealing the tennis ball idea!

Originally Posted by Tekneek

People continue to be surprised that government is out of control and above the law? People warn about these sorts of things all of the time and are routinely ignored. Because it is a minority of the population that will ever be affected by this type of thing, the majority won't do a damn thing about it.

Yeah, but when you scream "Big Brother", you're a conspiracy theorist nut and quickly marginalized even when there's a lot of legit evidence of this kind of behavior like in this instance. People have just gotten so paranoid and this administration has done nothing but fuel that mentality and allow stuff like this ("in the name of national security"). It would have gotten some major play before, now there are people on both sides of the aisle who would rather give up some control to the government and see nothing wrong with this.

SI

[gottimd]

Hey Easy Mac, just as a reminder, whatever you do, avoid at all costs, inventing something.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Because it is a minority of the population that will ever be affected by this type of thing, the majority won't do a damn thing about it.

I disagree. I believe it's because the majority supports the use of regulations like the one described here. Sorry Tek, I'm really not seeing any problem with this as described, at least not governmentally.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Airhog

That's kinda sad if you ask me. These guys inveneted a great product, and lucent basically stole it from them. I hope those guys that screwed them over from lucent burn in hell.

Lucent has just turned into a giant pit. At the time when I started school, it was my dream job to try and work there. I'm not sure how much more accurately I can put it: They invented the 20th century. Bell Labs invented the transistor, binary digital computer, fax, long distance tv transmission, solar cell, transatlantic telephone cable, laser, LED, communication sattelite, DSPs, wireless LAN, optical digital network, and cell phones and they met all kinds of landmarks like "first 1 GB/s transmission", etc

But then they were spun off as Lucent, ruined by Carly Fiorina's inept management, and has just hemoraged money ever since. As an aside, after bringing ruination to Lucent, she was given the head job at HP and forced the moronic HP/Compaq merger that does neither company any good. Just to show how stupid business is sometimes with the "Good Old Boys (Girls)" Network. But the takeaway is that Bell Labs invented half the technology of the last 100 years and now is just a shell of its former self.

SI

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I disagree. I believe it's because the majority supports the use of regulations like the one described here. Sorry Tek, I'm really not seeing any problem with this as described, at least not governmentally.

I hope you never make a case for an "open market", because this will serve as a huge contradiction. In an "open market" the government is just another customer and doesn't get to trump anyone's rights just because they are the exclusive user of a product.

You think a majority agrees with it? I bet a majority doesn't even know such a thing exists and will only find out when they personally bump up against it. There are a lot of people who didn't know about eminent domain until that USSC decision this year, and still some don't believe that it exists.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I hope you never make a case for an "open market", because this will serve as a huge contradiction. In an "open market" the government is just another customer and doesn't get to trump anyone's rights just because they are the exclusive user of a product.

This isn't about "use", it's about "national security" & yes, I believe that trumps any & all concerns above _anything_ else. And I believe that is true for the majority of Americans (albeit not always with the loudest ones).

[sterlingice]

Some of this article is just kindof scary:

Originally Posted by Wired

Indeed, the list of cases in which the state secrets privilege has been invoked seems a pantheon of injustice. The privilege was upheld in 1982 to prevent former Vietnam War protestors from learning more about an illegal CIA and NSA electronic surveillance effort that targeted them during the 1970s. In 1991, it was used to stop a lawsuit by a banker who'd unwittingly been roped into an illegal CIA money-laundering operation, and who claimed the agency had ruined his career when he tried to get out.

In 1998, workers at the Nevada airbase known colloquially as Area 51 were blocked from learning what chemicals they'd been exposed to during illegal burning of toxic waste by base administrators.

In 2004, the Bush administration resorted to the privilege to silence former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who said she was fired from the bureau after reporting security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program. And in perhaps the most disturbing case, this year the Justice Department asserted the privilege to kill a lawsuit by Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who, in 2002, was picked up by U.S. officials as a suspected terrorist while changing planes at JFK, and promptly shipped off to Syria for a year of imprisonment and torture.

"Here's a guy who was a victim of a crime, that is, kidnapping, who was sent by us to a foreign country to be tortured to get information for us," says Weaver. "That violates all kinds of laws and the Convention Against Torture and who knows what else."

SI

[Dutch]

I liked this part of the article.

..."state secrets privilege" - an executive power handed down from the English throne under common law that lets the government effectively kill civil lawsuits deemed a threat to national security, even if the state is not a party to the suit.

National Security is not something just an old English throne should be worried about. We all need to worry about it. What is this guy thinking by writing that???

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This isn't about "use", it's about "national security" & yes, I believe that trumps any & all concerns above _anything_ else. And I believe that is true for the majority of Americans (albeit not always with the loudest ones).

Part of it does have to do with use:

The patent-infringement portion of the case has since been dismissed, under a federal law that says a company can't be sued for infringement if the development was for the exclusive use of the government.

Until I am able to invoke "personal security secrets" as a privledge, I won't agree that it is ok for my government to do it.

I made an edit to clarify the last sentence.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Some of this article is just kindof scary:

About the only thing I see that's even vaguely disturbing is that anyone would question that:

-- the details of electronic surveillance capabilities remaining secure far outweigh any concerns in the 1982, and yes, especially where it concerns protestors who provided aid & comfort to the enemy by their actions.

-- I can certainly believe that there were things involving national security involved in any Area 51 lawsuit.

-- I have zero interest in any lawsuit by a Syrian-born Canadian who was picked up as part of an anti-terrorist operation.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This isn't about "use", it's about "national security" & yes, I believe that trumps any & all concerns above _anything_ else. And I believe that is true for the majority of Americans (albeit not always with the loudest ones).

But by that measure, the government can just yell "national security" any time they want with little scrutiny. Yes, national security is important, but there has to be something (court) to make sure they're not abusing that. What's to say they don't use EasyMac's example: "Well, we use mp3's on the job and can download all we want"- at this point, they could do something that silly with no recourse if there are people bleating crap like "National security is most important, above all things, and with no questions asked" as you are implying by your statement.

Point to me how a tennis-ball coupler is matter of life-and-death national security that should not allow these guys their day in court. Sure, it's probably being used for some underwater surveilance or something, but how should that preclude them from being able to even sue Lucent for stealing their intellectual property?

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

... but there has to be something (court) to make sure they're not abusing that.

Sorry SI, but at this point, I trust the government not to abuse it _more_ than I trust virtually any court to make a good judgement on what's abuse vs proper use. Note: that's a different statement than "trusting the government absolutely", I'm just weighing the options you offered.

but how should that preclude them from being able to even sue Lucent for stealing their intellectual property?

If the suit can be proven without disclosing the usage, I'm not against the suit. But the minute it gets into the realm of comprimising the value of the surveillance asset, or even runs the risk of doing so, the suit is what falls by the wayside in importance.

[Tekneek]

Maybe the lesson here is to make sure you only sell your products to the federal government. You can just copy or steal other company's products at will as long as you only sell those items to the federal government. No one is allowed to sue you, under federal law, as long as the feds are your only customer.

What a scam.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Maybe the lesson here is to make sure you only sell your products to the federal government. You can just copy or steal other company's products at will as long as you only sell those items to the federal government. No one is allowed to sue you, under federal law, as long as the feds are your only customer.

What a scam.

Do you feel better?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you feel better?

It is a lot more pleasant to find the 'silver lining' in the story instead of focusing on the clouds.

Too bad I'll never have the connections to pull it off, unlike Halliburton. Until such protections are gone, anyone in government claiming they want an "open market" is a hypocrite.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It is a lot more pleasant to find the 'silver lining' in the story instead of focusing on the clouds.

Too bad I'll never have the connections to pull it off, unlike Halliburton. Until such protections are gone, anyone in government claiming they want an "open market" is a hypocrite.

Halliburton is another one that is guilty regardless of whether they actually are or not.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Halliburton is another one that is guilty regardless of whether they actually are or not.

I didn't accuse them of anything other than having the type of connections that would be necessary to make a lot of money under that law. Even you should be able to admit they've got a great connection with the federal government and already derive great financial benefit from it.

[Raiders Army]

Tesla.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Tesla.

Nikola Tesla?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Nikola Tesla?

Nah, the band.

SI

[Airhog]

Let me clarify my position. I don't think the Government did anything wrong persay. However, I do feel that Lucent should have given them a fair amount for their idea. That is the part that I really do not like.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Airhog

Let me clarify my position. I don't think the Government did anything wrong persay. However, I do feel that Lucent should have given them a fair amount for their idea. That is the part that I really do not like.

I guess we all have different axes to grind.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

About the only thing I see that's even vaguely disturbing is that anyone would question that:

-- the details of electronic surveillance capabilities remaining secure far outweigh any concerns in the 1982, and yes, especially where it concerns protestors who provided aid & comfort to the enemy by their actions.

-- I can certainly believe that there were things involving national security involved in any Area 51 lawsuit.

-- I have zero interest in any lawsuit by a Syrian-born Canadian who was picked up as part of an anti-terrorist operation.

I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone accepts those three points you've made. However, as I've said before, you don't represent my America (ie, "land of the free").

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Airhog

Let me clarify my position. I don't think the Government did anything wrong persay. However, I do feel that Lucent should have given them a fair amount for their idea. That is the part that I really do not like.

The problem with your statement is that it was the Government that made it possible for Lucent to give them nothing and prevented them from ever forcing Lucent to give them anything. So, you *must* have a problem with *something* the government did.

[stevew]

Hey, just in case you are getting the inkling, DONT INVENT ANYTHING!

[sterlingice]

Cool! I'm glad you reminded me because I almost did

(I suppose it's not the greatest case of thread necromancy ever. heck, I've been going through and cleaning out old FOFC "to read" bookmarks today- been one of those days I guess.)

SI

[timmae]

I could try to pull up a few more videos of Ditka for ya...