|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 24, 2011 18:28:36 GMT -5
Time will tell whether or not this turns out to be just a political stunt. If the British precedent is anything to go by, it won't change things much. If there's one thing Americans are not, it's British. And if there are two things, it's British, and capable of competent, socially responsible governance. So maybe we're British after all. |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 24, 2011 19:38:41 GMT -5
I wonder how long it's going to take for some teatard to bitch about this idea being "communist" or "socialist" or whatever...
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 25, 2011 2:25:11 GMT -5
Wait...ending software patents? Elaboration, please. First of all, the difference between copyright and patent: Copyright covers an individual work (so you can't sell copies of someone else's program). Patents cover techniques, which are overly broad for software. For example, software that updates itself over the internet could be (and has been) patented. And pretty much everything else. The only thing preventing complete gridlock is mutually assured destruction. A perfect analogy would be if they allowed literature patents. Imagine if an author could claim "forbidden love", "plague that ends civilization", or "immortal vampires", and nobody could write a story about those things without paying royalties. Pretty soon, no book could be written without running afoul of a patent. That's what software patents have done. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 26, 2011 2:31:05 GMT -5
Remember when the Republican Party did the same thing a few months before the 2010 elections? And we had pretty much the same results? It didn't do a thing to change their positions.
While I hope to be proven wrong, this is just a political stunt. Nothing will come of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Sept 26, 2011 3:01:42 GMT -5
But the Republicans dislike change. Granted the Democrats appear to be afraid of what will happen if something is changed, so I suppose you might be right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miles, The Slightly Off on Sept 26, 2011 14:03:58 GMT -5
Whilst I hold the same pessimistic attitude of this that others seem to, I really want to see this go somewhere. A lot of the things being petitioned are issues that really do need to be fixed/things that need to be changed.
I'd say give it three weeks or so and see if they respond to any of the petitions. At the very least, they should do that much.
Of course, I'm young and stupid, so I may just be putting way too much trust into it. But hey, there's the slight chance that someone might grow a backbone and start making things at least a little better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Sept 26, 2011 14:15:03 GMT -5
The government still tries to foster the illusion that citizens' ideas are given serious consideration.
|
|
apedant
Full Member
Over himself, over his body and soul, the individual is sovereign--J S Mill.
Posts: 139
|
Post by apedant on Sept 26, 2011 14:59:58 GMT -5
The British version has some effect that is perhaps denied to the USA as it works best in a Parliamentary system (ie the executive is drawn from within Congress, which for America would mean the president being the leader of the majority in the House). If a petition on the British government website passes a given number of (legitimate) names Parliament must debate it. The effect is limited as it doesn't have to be a bill, or be given a decent time slot (7pm on Thursdays with most MPs back in their constituencies for weekend surgeries is the most common) but it does give an opportunity for on the record debate of issues.
|
|
