A Voice in the Dark

This post is offensive. It has been placed “below the fold” because some people simply can’t deal with it. (more…)

Filed under: Gay Rights, Philosophy, Politics
1 Comment

In film ratings, we had a problem with PG, R, and X much like the current “Hot Coffee”-inspired ratings controversy.

PG was covering too much ground. The PG-rated “Gremlins” included a scene where Phoebe Cates’ character explained in grim detail how she discovered there was no Santa Claus. Many parents were upset about it, having taken children far too young to hear this into the movie.

R was not covering enough ground. The R rating couldn’t include sufficiently explicit sexual content for modern sensibilities without running the risk of an X rating, which would immediately disqualify your film from being shown in major theatre chains. (Consider this: how often do you see a penis at the theatre? Have you ever seen an ERECT penis outside of the pornography industry? And yet, we’ve seen Angelina Jolie do some awfully erotic things on screen - and I’d need both hands to count the number of times I’ve seen Winona Ryder deflowered.)

The response of the film industry was to create the PG-13 and NC-17 ratings, which expanded the resolution of the system.  

It seems to me that in the ESRB system, a PG-13 style rating between T and M is likely to be useful (perhaps “OT” for “Older Teen”), just as an NC-17 style rating between M and AO is likely to be useful (perhaps “A” for “Adult”). Perhaps the M rating simply needs to be split, so we can identify pre- and post-change games: OT and A could simply fill the gap left by elimination of the M rating.

Of course, somehow, the NC-17 rating inherited the stigma of the X rating anyway and made it just as useless. So now we have proposals on the table to add another rating between R and NC-17. Maybe we need to do something altogether different.

Filed under: Gaming
No Comments

After some reflection, I think the patent system can be fixed with three minor adjustments.

First, don’t evaluate a patent application. Just grant it. If someone tries to patent something, let them. Make no effort whatsoever to evaluate or qualify their claims. Simply place a statement at the end of the application saying that the applicant certifies his application is for a patentable discovery for which no patent currently exists and he has the right to patent said discovery. Take his $650 and give him the patent.

Second, require that all patent holders make their patented inventions reasonably available to all potential licensees under fair and equitable terms. Require also that they submit an annual accounting transcript of licensees and their fees for each of their patents, along with a percentage of those fees - say, five percent. No licensees, no fees, no payment. This accounting is placed into the public record.

Third, if a challenge is made to the patent OR a claim of infringement is registered, require that the patent holder bear the burden of demonstrating to the court that their patent is valid, does not infringe on another patent, and has been made reasonably available to the other party under fair and equitable terms. Permit the patent owner to revoke his own patent at challenge time by refunding all license fees collected. He forever loses the percentage paid to the PTO.

If the patent holder cannot demonstrate these things to the court’s satisfaction, his patent is revoked. He must pay back all of the license fees collected as above. He is liable for the challenger’s court costs and attorney’s fees, and the court may assess additional fines. HOWEVER, if he does in fact demonstrate the validity of the patent, the challenger pays the court costs and attorney’s fees, and is required to either license the patent under the terms deemed fair and reasonable by the court OR cease infringement of the patent. (Existing inventory may be distributed, but no further production is permitted.) Again, further fines may be assessed by the court.

It is now expensive both to hold an invalid patent and to dispute a valid patent. The value of a particular patent is readily apparent when you pull out the annual accounting made by the company. Since that accounting is a matter of public record, any potential licensee can look and see who paid how much to license the patent. If a patent is closely held or exorbitantly licensed, it can be invalidated by the court. Just about every problem in the patent system goes away.

Looks sound to me. Anyone disagree?

Filed under: Politics, Software
No Comments

Marginal Revolution asks whether the death penalty saves lives.

I believe there are two elements to this question.

First, there is the question of whether the death penalty prevents an individual who has murdered no one from murdering someone. I believe that this question is probably answered in the affirmative, but to a much lesser degree than you might expect - killing someone is a terribly difficult thing to do. Most people will never encounter a scenario where they might, let alone do. So I consider this question rather insignificant.

Then, there is the question of whether the death penalty prevents an individual who has murdered someone from murdering someone else. The answer, in my opinion, is no. Once you are subject to the death penalty, what else can they do? Kill one, kill fifty, dead is dead. So the death penalty doesn’t serve as a deterrent to people who are already murderers.

So in my opinion, no, the death penalty is not a deterrent. However, the death penalty serves an additional purpose of removing a dangerous element from the prison community - thereby protecting the many people there who, having paid their debt to society, will re-enter the world at large. Furthermore, once you kill the prisoner, he doesn’t cost the taxpayer money. It is difficult to argue that a multiple murderer should be kept alive at taxpayer expense and left to terrorise other citizens (prisoners or no) with minimal consequences.

So yeah, kill the bastards. What’s good for the goose and all that.

 

Filed under: Notices
No Comments