Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses The Almighty Buck Patents News

When More Information Isn't a Good Thing 200

Posted by Zonk from the gobbling-money-pac-man-style dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When More Information Isn't a Good Thing More

When More Information Isn't a Good Thing

Comments Filter:

  • Welcome to planet Earth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jamu ( 852752 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:41AM (#13629393)

    '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.

    • 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.

    • What is this attitude that people shouldn't hear about specific problems, just because we can expect that type of problem? It's the worst kind of apathy. If you don't want to hear about the threat, you're free to ignore it (at your own peril). But why stand in the way of people trying to engage the problem to do something to solve it? You're siding with the problem. I know you're "just another Earthling", so you can't be expected to help without getting a bigger slice of the pie in return. But why don't you
    • Personaly, I think this is a great thing.

      We can use this software to easily find out which judgest to bust for corruption.

  • This is along the lines of (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bhadreshl ( 841411 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:42AM (#13629399)
    'Knowledge is Power' vs 'Ignorance is Bliss'
    • "Knowledge is Power" only when the knowledge is used properly. Similarly "Ignorance is Bliss" when it doesn't hurt you. Unfortunately, most of the society ignores the latter part of both those rules.
    • There were always those who had the knowledge, and hoarded it jealously. The bias of some particular court is probably well known to a number of people. But when that knowledge becomes "public", somebody starts to complain. More knowledge spread around, a more level playing field.. Obviously those who had the high ground is bound to complain.

  • Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hotsauce ( 514237 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:42AM (#13629408)
    It helps us identify courts with bias, and hopefully correct that.
    • Right. This is a step towards a better legal system, even if it allows some to exploit existing flaws more effectively.
    • As may lead to pressure for congress to write better patent litigation guidelines.
    • There is very little reform in our judicial system. Lawyers want the system as screwed up as possible to keep themseves as relevent as possible and make them apear to earn their keep. Big business likes the legal system because it allows them to use SLAPP tactics, and get away with it for far less than correcting internal problems. Many people are afraid to let lawmakers have any say in the issue for fear that they will only make things worse (name one good reform and I can name three bad).
      Also Strangly

    • Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:57AM (#13629539) Homepage Journal
      Everything about the article's premise is simply incorrect. One of the main reasons that transparent and fluid dissemination of information is good is that it more readily allows for review. If the courts have been producing skewed decisions based on arbitrary results, well then, let's see it! Open the doors, and shine the light on the subject. Hopefully, some self-review will occur.

      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.
      • The parent is right: one precondition for an ideal market is perfect information in the hands of all parties.

        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
    • It helps us identify courts with bias, and hopefully correct that.

      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?

      • but what if the courts as a whole have a liberal/conservative/plaintiff/defendant bias?

        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)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:43AM (#13629418) Homepage Journal
    When your parents are discussing their sexual preferences.

  • Software is a tool. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:43AM (#13629420)
    The problem lies with the court system and the patent office.

    • Re:Software is a tool. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:58AM (#13629546) Journal
      Actually point more toward the court system. With the exception of the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS most courts have a horrible misunderstanding of patent law and the patent process as a whole. And pointing blame at the USPTO? Of course that gets modded Insightful instead of offtopic or trolling, cause after all hating the PTO is cool thing to do on slashdot.
      • Actually point more toward the court system. With the exception of the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS most courts have a horrible misunderstanding of patent law and the patent process as a whole. And pointing blame at the USPTO? Of course that gets modded Insightful instead of offtopic or trolling, cause after all hating the PTO is cool thing to do on slashdot.

        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
      • So... what? We should disapprove of the courts for not always deciding correctly in a high-cost court battle between two (biased) litigants, but not the USPTO for wrongly granting the patent that caused the problem in the first place? When the courts are called-on for a million different things, but examining and granting patents is the Patent Examiners only job?

        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
        • Ummm? Perfect? You must've missed that memo on the imperfection that is everything. You are talking about an office that is taxed with tons of patents and who have to determine, in a limited amount of time, whether or not there exists any prior art for the invention. If you really want to blame someone, then perhaps blame Congress for keeping millions, if not billions, of dollars that the USPTO earns from fees. This money gets sent to other agencies and prevents the USPTO from hiring even more examiners
  • Choosing which hospital has the best success rate for my operation is in the same ball court.

    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)

      by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul@presco d . n et> on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:06AM (#13629618)

      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.

      • you missed my point

        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.
      • 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.

        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

      • So, I'm sorry: your analogies are not analogous.

        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)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:44AM (#13629432) Journal
    This issue isn't unique to information. Kitchen knives make nice tools for cutting up dinner...or the neighbor's cat. The entire concept of "significant non-infringing uses" is the foundation for the legality of such devices as ubiquitous as the VCR, CD/DVD recorder, TiVO and photo copy machine.

    "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

    • 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!

  • Information as a tool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:44AM (#13629433) Homepage
    I'm sure someone applied the same argument to guns when they were first invented (well actually, people STILL do).

    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)

      by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:00AM (#13629560)
      I'm sure someone applied the same argument to guns when they were first invented (well actually, people STILL do). Its a tool and it can be used for good or bad purposes. The good almost always outweighs the bad.

      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"
      • While I personally love guns....
        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)

        by Kiashien ( 914194 )
        Hunting.

        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.
        • Hunting.
          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

      • 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"

        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)

        by Gorimek ( 61128 )
        i'd rather call that "necessary, but still bad" rather than "good"

        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.

    • 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.

  • ... there's SmartJury [cts-america.com]. I worked at a client site where they were considering this software/service that would allow an attorney to assess how jurors might vote on a case from within the courtroom. This not only helps attorneys guess how the case is going to go, but whether or not they ought to use one of their "free strikes" against a given juror based on any criteria they choose, including race, economic stratum, political affiliation, you name it!

    Unfortunately, we can moan all we want, it's a fact of l

    • Unfortunatly, that is not likely to change. Juryies have no advocates in the system, whereas Lawyers and Judges do. That's why the jury selection process is so messed up. IMHO, there should be a first pass to weed out people with mental handicaps and excessive pre-concieved notions (IE, knows about the case ahead of time or is just a racist or something), but after that force the Lawyers to work with whatever Jury they get. In fact the Lawyers shouldn't be allowed in the Jury selection process IMHO, sel
    • Can someone explain to me the function of jury selection? Why can lawyers ask questions beyond "do you know the people involved in the case?" and "do you understand the responsibilities involved in jury service?"? How does voir dire differ in any meaningful sense from jury stacking?
      • How does voir dire differ in any meaningful sense from jury stacking?

        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
        • Well, I was hoping for a response from someone supporting the system---someone who could actually back up the system as it stands today. Because "THE POWERFUL TRAMPLE THE WEAK" wasn't what I was looking for.

          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)

    by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) <sharper AT booksunderreview DOT com> on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:47AM (#13629456) Homepage Journal
    '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.'

    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.

  • Misplaced blame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:49AM (#13629477)
    One example Wessel cites: software that tells patent litigants which courts have the most favorable historical record for their side.

    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.

  • One example Wessel cites: software that tells patent litigants which courts have the most favorable historical record for their side.

    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.

  • It simply helps someone get a bigger slice of the pie.

    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!!!

  • Is to take it to ludicrous extremes. The Patent System and the Stock Market are outdated 19th century ideas- I applaud anything that takes them to ludicrous extremes.
  • Access for the sake of access doesn't help much. We don't need to have instant access to everything in the world, granted we should be able to get it but we don't need to be able to use it in ways such as these. As long as regulators can see stuff like this, the general populace doesn't need to. They can however see outcomes of certain cases and so on.

    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
  • The availability of this information also lets the public identify jurisdictions/courts where changes are needed.

    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,
  • '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.'

    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?

    • 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?

      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....


  • 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)

    by trybywrench ( 584843 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:06AM (#13629613)
    a "bigger slice of the pie" is a thing of beauty and pleasure to some people. To a lawyer, this "bigger slice" for him/her and their client is a job well done. I have no problems whatsoever with anyone using freely available information, in a legal way, to help them in their jobs.

  • WSJ = Dow Jones Private Info Services (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:08AM (#13629628) Homepage Journal
    More information, even info like this (weakness in patent vetting system) is a good thing. But only when it's more info consumed by more people. Unfair access to these kinds of stats has always been the privilege of the rich, the connected, the Harvard Law School. Tech makes it cheap enough to be more widely available. That means a "level playing field". And quite possibly closing the holes revealed by the stats. If only because the Harvard Law School needs to keep equitable access to system vulnerabilities as proprietary knowledge, closing the holes that offer nonmembers any comparative advantage. No surprise that the Wall Street Journal wants this cheap dirt off the streets, and back in the boardrooms where (they think) it belongs.
  • After RTFAing...

    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
    • If deciphering the human genome allows each of us to know the precise odds of contracting a dread disease, life and health insurance will be very tricky.
      - 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
  • Use the info to kick out bad judges.

    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

  • Capitalism is a funny thing. It creates an entire breed of people who sit around all day wondering about how to increase "production" and how to benefit "the economy".

    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
  • ...is to enforce it absolutly.

    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
  • 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.

    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.

  • 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

  • You could also argue that not breaking windows is harmful to the window repair industry and GDP. The benefits of this new information and access to it so overwhelmingly outweigh the negative effects that this article comes across as luddite scare-mongering.

    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.
  • "But better information through technology has a downside; sometimes, efficiency benefits certain players to the detriment of society."

    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
  • As a Theoretical Construct, the concept of "Free Markets" requires perfect, factual information flow - in order to function. In other words, when two manufacturers are competing to sell the same product, the customer must have complete information on the cost of that product to him or her. This includes; cost to drive to and from both retail outlets, including the customer's time (if one store is less conveniently located), cost to the consumer in the form of warranties, and intangibles like the quality o
  • That makes the unwritten assumption that the patent litigant does not deserve a favorable ruling. If you assume that any given litigant has a 50% chance of being in the right (that is you assume that one party is more right than the other) then this software had no net effect. It certainly doesn't benefit benefit one member of society over others.

    I don't see a good reason why this software should be considered detrimental.
  • If every loophole or rent-seeking opportunity were well known and easily exploitable, then eventually they'd be closed up or everyone would have fair access to them rather than an elite few.
  • Security through obscurity is not security, everyone on Slashdot should know that.

    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 "
  • It's widely believed that some lawyers have decoded the supposedly "secret" systems of how cases are assigned to appeals courts.

    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
  • It's an interesting choice of example. What he is picking is based upon the assumption that selecting your court of appeals a) is a bad thing and b) that litigants shouldn't be doing it. Whether it produces beauty or not is a different issue. The WSJ has been on about this toppic for a while (mostly on the editorial pages) where they have supported the Bush Administration's efforts to prevent individuals from being able to choose what court they sue a company in.

    According to them this process is detrimen
  • The article gives an example of people having exact knowledge of their own predelection to various diseases and thus buying health insurance based on that knowledge causing uncertainty in the insurance market.

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close