![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![The Almighty Buck The Almighty Buck](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/money_64.png)
![Patents Patents](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/patents_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
When More Information Isn't a Good Thing 200
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "'Most of the time, speedier, cheaper information allows the economy to produce more from less, often by eliminating mistakes, cutting wasted effort and shrinking doubt,' David Wessel writes in the Wall Street Journal. But better information through technology has a downside; sometimes, efficiency benefits certain players to the detriment of society. One example Wessel cites: software that tells patent litigants which courts have the most favorable historical record for their side. 'It doesn't help the economy produce more goods or services. It creates nothing of beauty or pleasure,' he writes. 'It simply helps someone get a bigger slice of the pie.'"
Welcome to planet Earth (Score:4, Insightful)
'It doesn't help the economy produce more goods or services. It creates nothing of beauty or pleasure,' he writes. 'It simply helps someone get a bigger slice of the pie.'
Welcome to planet Earth.
Re:Welcome to planet Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. There are plenty of examples that just help people get a bigger slice of the pie, starting with pretty much any software used by stockmarket traders. This is the nature of companies though, I'm not sure why this is news.
Misses the point, methinks. (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, if the laws allow one court to decide differently than another court, then they're probably not good enough laws. Laws should be ultra-clear. Patent law as much as any other law.
Secondly, if the laws are clear, then the judges should be deciding even-handedly. If they were, what would the software have to "detect"?
Re:Misses the point, methinks. (Score:2)
This is impossible in practical terms. In order for a law to be "ultra-clear" as you suggest, it would have to detail the rules for every possible situation that it covers -- this is impractical on its face, as there are literally countless quadrillions of variations for any situation you can think of. Enumeratin
Get Free Or Get Out Of The Way (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to planet Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
We can use this software to easily find out which judgest to bust for corruption.
Re:Welcome to planet Earth (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. In fact, it isn't an economic system at all. You can have democratic socialism and democratic capitalism, producing two very different societies.
The idea that we are all supposed to work within "the system" to get as much as we can is ridiculous. If we were playing Monopoly or Risk that would be a sensible approach, but life is not a game.
America is run by lawyers, for lawyers. Stories like this confirm it. The rest of us are just in the way.
Re:democratic socialism, uh, not really (Score:2, Insightful)
Try to think of economic policy along a continuum. At one end you have Capitalism (pure free market theory), and at the other end you have Communism (pure govt controlled theory). In the middle somewhere you have socialism.
Along this continnum you will find every modern country, at some point. This is just economics, not politics. So China and US right now will likely be as close to the capitalism side, most european countries in the middle, and former china and USSR, North korea, etc ne
This is along the lines of (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is along the lines of (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is along the lines of (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Unfortunatly (Score:2)
Also Strangly
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The "problem" is not too much information, it's too limited availability of information. It's the advantage gained by those who wish to disallow others from having it. In war, it's necessary. In political and government operations, it's anathema.
The other, obvious advantage of ready access to information is increasing the fluidity of the economy. It helps to level the playing field. Instead of over-reliance on PR and advertising, businesses and consumers can make more informed decisions.
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
That is, if each buyer and each seller are aware of all other buyers and sellers and all their preferences and prices, then no one will gain a surplus of utility by under or over paying for an item. See, e.g., http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/wpd.pl?fcd=dsp&key= market [amosweb.com]
One of the things computers are beginning to provide to the economy is cheap information in useable form. Though, of course, the bi
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
1) This presumes the difference is due to bias. Much of it probably is; however, you should bear in mind that some of it is normal stochastic variation. Determining the direction of bias also implies determining an absolute — how do you do that? An average, perhaps — but what if the courts as a whole have a liberal/conservative/plaintiff/defendant bias?
2) Correct that how?
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Then there is no advantage to having information on the differences in bias because there are none. On the other hand, if one judge consistently rules one way, and another the opposite way, then having that information is useful.
I agree we the earlier poster who said that the problem, at least in this example, is the lack of dissemination of this information, not that the information is available. If the information is
When More Information Isn't a Good Thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:When More Information Isn't a Good Thing (Score:3, Funny)
Where's the -1 OH GOD MY EYES!!! mod?
Re:When More Information Isn't a Good Thing (Score:2)
Everyone knows that Batman doesn't fly -- this warning would be much more appropriate on a Superman cape...
Re:When More Information Isn't a Good Thing (Score:3, Funny)
Hm... what is "Shit I did NOT FUCKING NEED TO KNOW"?
My parents were hippies. I'm just lucky I'm not named Brussel Sprout or some shit.
Re:When More Information Isn't a Good Thing (Score:2)
Why? Where you conceived in a garden by the Brussels Sprouts on a pile of some fertilizer?
Re:When More Information Isn't a Good Thing (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, it was either that or Picabo Street.
Re:When More Information Isn't a Good Thing (Score:2)
Tell that to Rosie O'Donnel's kids...
Software is a tool. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Software is a tool. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software is a tool. (Score:2)
Well, if the Wikipedia article on the subject of software patents in the US [wikipedia.org] is accurate, the US Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and the US Patent and
Re:Software is a tool. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry - not following that one. If the USPTO did their job perfectly we wouldn't need the courts in these cases. You seem to be blaming the saf
Re:Software is a tool. (Score:2)
Re:Software is a tool. (Score:2)
hmm, information wants to be free (Score:2, Insightful)
How about choosing which school has the best results for certain subjects.
If the number of applicants is the same for these examples then society doesn't benefit whichever I choose [discounting the relative merits of my self / children to society], so by his argument I shouldn't need that information.
Finding the lowest price for a product could be considered detrimental to society [less sales tax / corporaqtion tax
Re:hmm, information wants to be free (Score:5, Informative)
Moderation: overrated! Your analogies are poor.
Choosing which hospital has the best success rate for my operation is in the same ball court.
No, it is not. If you choose the hospital with the best success rate then you increase the liklihood of your survival: this is a social good. In the patent case cited, the goal is to determine the social good. That's the court's job. Gaming the system degrades its efficiency.
How about choosing which school has the best results for certain subjects.
Also not analogous.
If the number of applicants is the same for these examples then society doesn't benefit whichever I choose [discounting the relative merits of my self / children to society], so by his argument I shouldn't need that information.
That doesn't make sense. If the information helps a person needing a heart transplant to find the hospital that does heart transplants best and a person needing brain surgery to find the hospital that does brain surgery best then overall society benefits by allocating the right patients to the right hospitals. Ditto for schools.
Finding the lowest price for a product could be considered detrimental to society [less sales tax / corporaqtion tax paid or some such].
Now you're totally out to lunch. The capitalist system is based upon the competition that ensues when consumers select products based on price and perceived value. If society produces products more cheaply then people buy more products. They don't just stuff their money in their mattress after they've bought the basics as cheaply as possible.
Choosing to buy one's fuel based on price is bad for the exchequer too, it is the highest taxed item in my country.
The exchequer primarily benefits from the overall health of the economy. High energy prices reduce economic performance by making it expensive to manufacture and transport goods. If the government wants more money from gas prices it is much more logical for them to raise the gas tax 1% and increase their SHARE rather than encouraging citizens to buy more expensive gas thereby enriching the gas companies much more than themselves.
So, I'm sorry: your analogies are not analogous.
Re:hmm, information wants to be free (Score:2)
If there are 200 places for operations at each hospital, lets say one has a 50% success and the other 60%
That means whichever *I* choose makes no difference to the number of successful operations, ergo society's net benefit is the same.
From *my* perspective I should choose the one with the best success rate (all other things being equal).
Schools
There are so many places to fill, equal to the number of children. There is no net benefit to society whichever school *my* child goes to.
Re:hmm, information wants to be free (Score:2)
That depends on your point of view -- I would think that "survival of the not so fittest" weakens our species as a whole, and thus weakens society. Or that survival of these people
Re:hmm, information wants to be free (Score:2)
Damn, who pulled the pins off the jumpers on *your* motherboard?
Look, the whole *point* of an economy is to provide an environment where each entity is able to seek out it's own "best good". Hence, gas stations *compete* by lowering prices, and we *reward* that behavior as consumers by purchasing from the distributor who gives us the best deal. Otherwise....why even HAVE an economy? We could just go on good faith and virtue.
Not unique to information (Score:5, Insightful)
"The sword cuts both ways" is a phrase that was invented long before the information age.
Easy access to large amounts of information has benefits to society that vastly outweigh the detriments.
-Charles
Re:Not unique to information (Score:2)
Easy access to large amounts of information has benefits to society that vastly outweigh the detriments.
Right. And that's exactly what the article says.
Computer and communications technology is making more and better information available ever more quickly. This is a good thing -- usually.
You paraphrased the first line of the article and acted as if it were a rebuttal to the article. Then you got modded up to insightful!
Re:Not unique to information (Score:2)
Information as a tool (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a tool and it can be used for good or bad purposes. The good almost always outweighs the bad.
guns as a tool (Score:4, Insightful)
go ahead. mod me troll or flamebait... i'm still not convinced there's a "good purpose" for guns, and i have no idea how they are a "tool" that can be used for good
in the case of shooting the guy who's trying to break into my house, i'll give you a bit, but i'd rather call that "necessary, but still bad" rather than "good"
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
Your right, there really is no good purpose for them.
Sure they're useful for self defense, but so are tazer.
And they're also useful for hunting, but farms have long since relegated that to a hobby rather then a means of survival.
The main reason guns can serve the good is because they are very effective at stopping other people with guns.
I mean we would have had a hard time wining world war 2 without guns. But then again, if the Germans wouldn't have had guns would the war of
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, killing a large animal for food.
Or the damned huge bear behind your house, trying to eat your child.
Don't get me wrong, stronger gun laws are a -good- thing.
But to say a gun can't be a tool, is just plain ignorant.
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
You know, killing a large animal for food>
WHAT? Killing and eating animals? Nonsense! Barbaric! I get my food from the grocery store. It comes in nice little packets, with a clear plastic top, so you can see whats in it.
Some of it is called 'beef', and some is called various varieties of 'pork'. I even think they have some 'chicken'.
I don't know where it comes from (and I'd rather not know), but it in no way involves actual 'killing'. I think it comes from somewhere called a 'meat processing
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
Naah. See, here's how it goes:
1) Person decides to break into your house.
2) Person weighs options: if he breaks into your house, he might get shot. [0]
3) Person decides to proceed to do so.
4) You shoot person, thus removing those stupid genes from the gene pool.
You've improved all mankind for future generations. I'd say that's Good. Not exactly the o
Linguistics (Score:3, Insightful)
You agree on the substantive part, that it is better than the alternatives. What words you prefer to use discussing it does not affect what actions you recommend people take.
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
Well, they weren't placed in the Constitution, they were placed in the Bill of Rights, which came later. Here's the actual text:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The world, especially the USA, was a very different place in 1789. The land that our country occupied then shared borders with not entirely fri
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
Every word still insightful and applicable. You're just naive and narrowminded. For a state to be both free and secure, not only do it's citizens need protection from outside aggression, but they need protection from hostile people within their communities (civillian policing isn't a task of the federal armed forces. Local police forces are civillians who are allow
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
Read the text again. It doesn't say that the militia is required to defend the country, it says that it's required to maintain security.
Re:guns as a tool (Score:2)
Then it should be a cinch to change the 2nd Amendment, which is still the law of the land unless amended.
Re:Information as a tool (Score:2)
What is the "argument" that you think that this article is making? It points out that computers as a tool have some potentially unexpected side effects that we should consider when desiging systems and regulations. Just as policemen and bodyguards must take the existence of guns into account when designing (for example) security systems for public buildings, courts should consider the impact of computers when deciding how they will allocate cases.
Re:But what is Good??? (Score:2)
Re:Information as a tool (Score:2)
Re:Information as a tool (Score:2)
Hmm. I'll take a shot (bada-bing!) at that one...
1) Those people in my family that do (or have) lived in rural areas and/or worked farms have made regular use of them. Killing rabid animals, preventing predators from killing or running livestock, and even in running vandals/thieves out of machine sheds/barns with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of farming equipment and fuel. Certain varmits will invade cow pastures, producing holes in which cattle break
Re:Information as a tool (Score:2)
Happily, I don't have to "believe" it at all, since the facts are right there in front of us.
There are roughly 80,000,000 gun owners in the United States (and this stat is a few years old, so of course it's more now). Note we're talking gun owners, not guns. Their ownership of guns spans hunting, recreation, self defense - al
The argument goes... (Score:2)
A: Why would anyone want a gun?
B: To shoot criminals who try to attack you!
A: Wouldn't it be safer to just give them your wallet or whatever?
B: Criminals are cowards, who only attack people because they think they can get away with it. If a random potential victim could be packing, do you think they'd still try it?
A: I'd still rather not get shot.
B: Okay, fine, I'll be over to your place to take your computer, because you'd
Re:The argument goes... (Score:2)
Conservitives will always try to dominate a situation. Always take responsibility only for them selves, and will take every chance they can to screw someone else over.
And if the case goes to trial... (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, we can moan all we want, it's a fact of l
Re:And if the case goes to trial... (Score:2)
Re:And if the case goes to trial... (Score:2)
Ohhh.... you mean like O.J. No? Like Michael Jackson then. Rodney King?
Re:And if the case goes to trial... (Score:2)
Why do we have voir dire? (Score:2)
Re:Why do we have voir dire? (Score:2)
Because voir dire is the SYSTEM stacking the jury, not just one side or another. The legal system has unsurprisingly set itself up with rules that confer itself significant advantages that are really nothing but disadvantages for individuals seeking justice.
Since you seem inquisitive, lookup "fully informed jury" (or FIJA) to see the alternative view to the legal system's view of juries.
In my own opinion, juries should be selec
I was hoping for someone defending the system. (Score:2)
That said, remember how the ancient Greeks chose their leaders by lot from the available pool of citizens? Man, they had a lot more faith in their average citizen than we do.
BS (Score:3, Insightful)
The one with the most money to throw around has always had an advantage in patent (or any other type of) litigation. This software doesn't change that.
What it does do is make the process more efficient, which reduces use of resources that can now be spent on something more productive, rather than having been "wasted" on patent litigation.
That in fact DOES 'help the economy produce more goods or services'. It even helps the 'little guy' by allowing them to do a type of search and analysis with lower resources.
Anyone who thinks that lowering the cost of entry to perform a particular activity helps the big players at the expense of the smaller players needs to go back to economics 101 and stop reading so many technophobe books.
This article is similar to saying 'The low cost of the Apache web server software allows big companies to get a bigger slice of the pie, since they no longer have to pay as much for serving web pages. Since big companies have more web sites per company than little companies, they save so much more money. How will the little people keep up!?!?'
It's complete and utter BS to blame a tool becoming more efficient for how that tool is used by someone.
Re:BS (Score:2)
While the really large company is already in a better position to pay an even higher fee to get the information.
Misplaced blame (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems like an issue with the ability of litigants to go forum shopping in the first place (a problem with the judicial system), rather than the fault of information and processing tools.
Information Cuts Both Ways (Score:2)
This could equally be used to reform courts that are too biased in any direction, ensuring that justice is equal for all. It's all about how you use the information that you already have.
The pie itself is getting bigger! (Score:2, Insightful)
When an economy grows the pie gets bigger. I hate it when people think that when somebody (Gates, Ellison, Jobs, etc.) gets richer that means somebody else is getting poorer. That is not necessarily true!!!
The best way to get rid of a bad system (Score:2)
This is a common gripe for me. (Score:2)
The problem is America is in the Information age (or the nano Tech age) and we are celebrating the fact that we can get so much information we don't think
It goes both ways (Score:2)
The larger issue is that the availability of information provides the most benefit to those with the time/resources to deal with it. This is why focused interest groups are doing so well in political advocacy. The average voter can only really be concerned with so many issues; lobbying groups can easily fly under the public's radar to push in a direction that, if they had time to think about it,
sounds like advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
You just described 99% of modern "brand-awareness" marketing. When will ads for Pepsi featuring the most recent just-overage female singer be recognized for the waste of resources that they are?
Re:sounds like advertising (Score:2)
I think you meant "just-of-age", that is 18 or older.
But yes, I suppose it is a waste of my time to watch those commercials, drooling over the young female singer, when she could be my daughter and I probably wouldn't even have a chance with her mother....
All laws benefit lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
Every law carves off a slice of the economic pie for the legal profession.
Every member of the legislature has a fundamental conflict of interest, as they do or expect to move between law firms, legislative posts and judicial positions.
Florida has (or had) a Constitutional provision prohibiting lawyers from being members of the legislature. It was not/is not enforced.
Lew
yeah but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
WSJ = Dow Jones Private Info Services (Score:3, Interesting)
Arrow has contradicted himself (Score:2, Interesting)
How about the service offered by LegalMetric LLC, a start-up founded by patent lawyer Greg Upchurch? Contemplating a patent-infringement case in Delaware? For $795, Mr. Upchurch will tell you which judges rule most swiftly and which tend to favor patent holders. Making a motion for summary judgment? Mr. Upchurch can tell you how the judge has ruled on similar motions versus his peers.
- Will possibly make apparent significant biases of one judge over another, and allow procedures to be s
Re:Arrow has contradicted himself (Score:2)
- Identifying which genes lead to diseases is the first step to preventing/eradicating them at the genome level for everyone.
Let's assume we can't eradicate genes at the genome level without extreme measures, but we can diagnose who is likely to have some illness. In that kind of world, only people who were diagnoed as likely to be ill will be inclined to
Sack 'em (Score:2)
Reality check: bad judges are almost never kicked out no matter how disastrous their decisions are to other people's lives; the legal system is massivly more devoted to making life easier for its "workers" than it is for the people.
TWW
Economists... (Score:2)
Every once in a while one will come up with what seems like a startling revelation: "Giving people more freedom doesn't help 'the economy'".
And, for a brief second, they sit back and contemplate what it all means. Their unwavering faith in 'the economy' and 'production' is momentarily, almost, slightly shaken by the realization that the goa
The fastest way to get an unjust law repealed... (Score:2)
The same goes for failing systems. The case of the court database simply exposes the problems inherent in the system.
Technology has a habit of enhancing things, the bad as well as the good. The problem isn't the technology, but the problem it exposes (in the cited case: the inconsistencies in rulings by judges, and the natural human bias in any such system).
This is like tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion) where you avoid paying taxes by taking advantage of loopholes in the
vulnerability scanner for the judicial system (Score:2)
This can have positive side effects as well. If enough people exploit abnormal judicial variation, that variation may be reduced, the laws which allow plaintifs to shop for a jurisdiction may be changed. In general, the system can be adapted to compensate for the problem once the problem is clearly identified.
Not more information--but easier access (Score:2)
This argument is misleading: people have been keeping track of which courts have what biases for decades. That you can identify a court that is more favorable to your arguments using computers isn't terribly new--but insurance companies were keeping track of this kind of information l-o-n-g before personal computers and the adoption of the Internet.
How do I know? Because I helped design a system doing more or less exactly what is described here for one of the largest insurance companies in the world--back
Backwards Bastiat (Score:2)
Give journalism five years to clear out the old crusty paper-saurs and people who use IT for the wrong reasons will face the wrath of good investigative reporting. Yahoo's already catching hell for it's Chinese tomfoolery.
Think it through, Mr. article writer (Score:2)
Hogwash. The problem is not that there is better information; the problem is that only those people that benefit from the information have used it to their advantage. Why can't we use the information to push for standard application of the law?
Let's examine his argument:
(1) Patent laws are adjudicated differently in different courts;
(2) These differences in how pa
"Free Markets" in theory (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:2)
I don't see a good reason why this software should be considered detrimental.
I don't see the "bad" (Score:2)
Security through Obscurity (Score:2)
What people on Slashdot might not know is that governments are also markets, except they trade in votes or the power to gelp get votes. The players in government are competing groups of voters and politicians. The only difference is that the real market and the political market wield different powers (the political market can do things like drop nuclear weapons legally) and they have different units of currency.
There is no "
Just becoming more common knowledge (Score:2)
The ACLU in particular is believed to manage challenges to new laws in such a way that insures that the case is heard before a sympathetic judge.
LK
The big boys have always had this. (Score:2)
According to them this process is detrimen
More FUD (Score:2)
He seems to think that being aware of what diseases one is likely to be succeptible for either guarantees one will get those diseases, or that one won't buy health insurance because of that. Most people are already doing that; young and healthy people tend not to buy health insurance.
He also ignor
Now complete with better formatting!!! (Score:2)
Peter: (angry) Yeah? Well, maybe it wasn't such a good idea for you to sleep with Lumbergh!
Joanna: What?! What are you - Oh! All right, Lumbergh...
Peter: ARGH!!! Ah God! Lumbergh!!
Joanna: Peter! What is wrong with you? That was like to years ago! What, do you know him?
Peter: Yeah, I know him!! I know him! He's my boss!! He's my unholy, disgusting, pig of a boss!!
Joanna: Oh, he's not that disgusting.
Peter: H
Re:Here we go (Score:2)
Registrant:
jbwebcraft
3885 Kingswood Dr.
Boise, ID 83704
US
Registrar: DOTSTER
Domain Name: NEILCB.COM
Created on: 21-JUN-04
Expires on: 21-JUN-06
Last Updated on: 21-JUN-04
Administrative, Technical Contact:
, support@jbwebcraft.com
jbwebcraft
3885 Kingswood Dr.
Boise, ID 83704
US
208/869-2093
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.JAMESBRENNAN.ORG
NS2.JAMESBRENNAN.ORG
Based on this, I
Re:Here we go (Score:2)
Re:Here we go (Score:2)
Re:Actually, it may help bake more pies via econom (Score:2)