I'd certainly like to see EFF on that list, but we've got Business Software Alliance (Microsoft) and Engine Advocacy (Google) on there. No one with strong grassroots ties among startups unfortunately.
BSA? One of the more prominent backers of SOPA? Are you kidding me? These are the same goons who send threatening letters about EULA violations on their members' (Apple and Microsoft being prominent) behalf. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You're getting the nerd outrage talking points mixed up. This thread is about patent trolling (which the BSA is against), not copyright trolling (which the BSA pioneered).
Speaking of Microsoft, aren't they patent trolling Android phone makers like right now?
Sure, it depends on your definition of what a patent troll is, but IMHO, a company that failed to innovate for years until Apple and Google did and that makes more money from Android than from its own OS is a patent troll.
Do you really think these guys think the same things we do when we mean "patent reform"? If anything they will make it worse (and better for corporations). They do represent corporations after all. And do you really expect Microsoft to want to "fix" the patent system? They make money out of it.
Except the BSA only wants to end the patent trolling that's done by individuals and small entities. Which won't be distinguishable from small entities defending legitimate patents.
Legitimate patents can die for all I care. We have a brain too; using it in a particular way before someone else do should give you no advantage. Let the implementation do the fighting.
It is very commendable that rackspace is taking this to task on both fronts, individual patent challenges and lobbying efforts to change the law. However, this also has the immediate effect of encouraging trolls to go after the little guys and no longer companies who can afford litigate.
Patent trolls try to force them to settle for nominal amounts to avoid litigation, one example I heard is a troll sending demands to the end users of copy machines "that scan to email" instead of the manufacturers and retailers. At that point it is a numbers game if they get 1% of end users to pay $1000 it adds up. Now that is some of the more egregious (maybe unlawful) examples but it will become more common.
Here's a thought: if we're serious about patent trolling, I mean really serious about it then why not march? I'm talking about demonstrating in front of cityhall with signs and speakers on megaphones. I'm talking about a rally against patent trolling. If potheads can get together for their 420 rallies then why can't we get together in a visible way to express our views? The quote from Howard Beal in the The Network (excellent movie, by the way) was especially apt.
We start by designating an official "patent free day", blessed by the EFF and Free Software Foundation. This is the day that we hold our demonstrations. Imagine the sight of hundreds of out of shape engineers demonstrating with their pocket protectors -- they must be serious. I'd do it, at least if it was over the weekend. For me, at least, it would be awkward to do it over a weekday, because the company I work for is big on patents (even though the rally is really against patent trolling and not software patents themselves, although I am against those as well).
Good. There's nothing that can ruin your day faster than getting a letter in the mail stating that you are in violation of this and that and you could be prosecuted for up to a quarter million dollars.
Just to stick up for my kind a little (lawyers that is), Thomas Jefferson was a 21 year old lawyer when he drafted the Declaration of Independence; good ol' Honest Abe was a lawyer and pushed for the Emancipation Proclamation; and one of my personal favorites is Gandhi.
And to stick up for the profession not just a few individuals, when Clinton lied under oath, the only real action taken against him was by his State Bar who immediately disbarred him despite him being President and unlikely to ever practice again.
Edit: Jefferson was 33 when he drafted the Declaration of Independence (credit - rqwerwqerwr)
It could also be argued that they did good things in spite of being lawyers.
Looked up the thing about Thomas Jefferson drafting the Declaration of Independence at 21 and this is what I found in wikipedia [1]:
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776)
Seems like he was in his thirties. Care to correct yourself?
Apparently the original text of the 13th Amendment was quite a bit different than what it eventually came to be.
Is the appellation "Lawyer" not a "Title?"
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
Not in the US. In the US it has never been more than an unofficial professional title (like "phd"). How you clearly know its not a title is that it's not granted by any entity, not has it ever been. Anyone can call themselves "esquire" unless they do so in a context that amounts to unauthorized practice of law (just like with "doctor"). You can sign your letters "D9u, esq." just as you can sign them "D9u, M.D." though either might be the first step in a course of action leading to unauthorized practice of law/medicine.
If I tried to pass myself off as "D9u, Esq," I would be seen as even more of a troll than you already see me as, and if I were to dispense legal advice whilst masquerading as "Blah Blah, Esq" I could find myself in trouble.
The authority to practice law is *granted by any entity," and that entity is called the Bar Association.
The "Esq" is to denote deference to the "Honorable" Judge, or magistrate, etc.
It may not be a crime for me to append an honorific to my name while residing in the USA, but such is not the case in many other nations.
To reiterate:
Regardless, the terms "Attorney at law," or "Esq," are still in use in the USA today.
One is bestowed said honorific by an "entity," which is called the "Bar Association."
The beginning of my position was that such titled individuals were once prohibited from holding public office.
> To reiterate: Regardless, the terms "Attorney at law," or "Esq," are still in use in the USA today. One is bestowed said honorific by an "entity," which is called the "Bar Association." The beginning of my position was that such titled individuals were once prohibited from holding public office.
The term "esquire" is not bestowed by the bar. It something some lawyers affix to their names, but it doesn't have any more legal significance than any other informal, unofficial, honorific (e.g. "professor"). It did have such significance in the U.K., but never in the U.S. to my knowledge. "Attorney at law" is not an honorific but an advertisement of licensure, like "certified public accountant" or "certified financial planner" or "registered nurse" or "professional engineer." At no point in U.S. history were attorneys ever prohibited from holding public office. Indeed, it's interesting to note that in both the 1st Congress (1789-91) and the 112th Congress (2011-12), exactly 37% of each body was lawyers.
The "titles of nobility or honor" that are referred to in the text you cited are things like "Duke" or "Earl."
According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.
By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.
If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant.
For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy.
As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).
And now you've descended into tinfoil hattery, using the classic technique of tinfoil hatters: punning on the words "honor" and "privilege."
1) Lawyers don't enjoy any special protections from lawsuits. The only special privilege they enjoy is practicing law, just as doctors enjoy the privilege to practice medicine, or professional engineers enjoy the privilege to sign off on certain building projects.
2) The partial immunity of government officials and judges in the scope of their official duties is contemporaneous with the founding, so it's unlikely that the founders would have objected to it. It was so pervasive that if the founders had intended to abrogate it, they would have done so explicitly.
It's a very old principle of legal interpretation that when words are arranged in a series, they should be read consistently with each other. So in the phrase "titles of nobility or honor," "honor" must be read in the context of "nobility." What is a noble? A noble is someone with certain intrinsic privileges. Informal honorifics, like "doctor" or "professor" or "reverend" or "judge" are not "honors" in the sense of the language in the proposed 13th amendment, because they're terms of politeness directed to the office, not the person.
Thanks for taking the time to help me see your points.
However:
So in the phrase "titles of nobility or honor," "honor" must be read in the context of "nobility."
I don't see why "honor" must be read in the context of "nobility" when there is an exclusive conjunction joining the two words.
I interpret the meaning to be "titles" which may be "noble," or "honor" related.
Anyhow, hope you're having a good day today, Aloha.
