Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

All that tedious communism

Does simply thinking about a 'patented fact' infringe the patent? The NYT reports the US Supreme Court is hearing a case claiming just that. The Time's columnist, Michael Crichton, ends by stating wryly:

'I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings hurt us, but the patent for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned. So I thought to end with a quotation from a famous person, but that strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay the "end with summary" patent fee, since it was the least expensive.'

The Boston Globe seems to be confusing the US government's penchant for obfuscating intelligence matters with 'open source' software, by claiming parallels with the release of 'millions of pages of captured [Iraqi] files' to the internet in an 'unprecedented effort' to 'disseminate raw intelligence material' - so that enthusiastic amateurs can translate it. They quote one law professor enthusing that 'open source' means that 'Workers control the means of production, but without all that tedious communism'. To others it's 'just more evidence that the Bush administration doesn't take national security seriously' - and the government's willingess to play 'chinese whispers' with sensitive intelligence material (that has formerly been part of the basis for going to a war costing tens of thousands of lives) strongly supports that belief.

Speaking of 'communist-style control' (to quote the ACTU this morning), under the Australian government's undemocratic IR laws there is now a $6000 fine for workers who dare to ask their boss for unfair dismissal protection - while in France, they take to the streets for less. Here it seems public disquiet with Man of Steel's 'not extreme' methods is cowed by the threat of fines (and quite possibly by Sedition laws.)

Item posted by AutoEditor at 2:03 pm ::