“You can have my dead body,
but you can never have my obedience.”
(2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948)
Source and full size graphic: NewScientist.com
Question
License
Chanakya: Eliminate Debts, Enemies and Disease
2008/12/16 — grant czerepak
Chanakya was the Chief Minster of Chandragupta Maurya between 323 B.C. and 298 B.C. Prior to Chandragupta’s reign Alexander the Great’s legacy had left much of the Indian region under corrupt foreign rule. Chandragupta with Chanakya’s guidance was able to raise an army and eventually seize control of much of what is now known as India and reign over it for the betterment of the people for 25 years. This achievement is considered legendary to this day.
V. K. Subramanian has compiled a collection of The Maxims of Chanakya with both the original Sanskrit and the English translation. Chanakya has been referred to as the “Machiavelli of India”, but I do not regard that as a fair parallel. Chanakya was a pragmatist believing that wealth was both the goal and the cornerstone of the state, however he also believed that wealth should be used to cultivate the best in rulers and the kingdom. Chanakya believed:
Nothing should be allowed to remain of debts, enemies and disease.
But he did not believe in direct confrontation if it could be avoided. He always felt it better to “win over” these three evils than waste the resources of the state. The method was “other people’s money” pitting one opponent against another instead of pitting oneself against either.
The American people consider “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as fundamental rights. Is not life the elimination of disease? Is not liberty the elimination of enemies? Is not happiness the elimination of debt? Perhaps if the United States and every nation made providing disease eliminating healthcare, enforcing inequality eliminating laws and observing debt eliminating economics the only goals of the government, business and people we would all be “healthy, wealthy and wise”.
Chanakya’s only failing was to not have the wisdom to see his legacy preserved beyond his own lifetime.
The Property Ontology
2008/11/01 — grant czerepak
Court limits ‘business method’ patents
|
|
Oct 30, 3:45 PM (ET)
BY DANIEL WAGNER
WASHINGTON (AP) – A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled against a man trying to patent a business idea, a decision with far-ranging implications for the financial services and high-tech industries, which have major players on both sides of the issue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Bernard Bilski, who wanted to patent a method for hedging against weather-related effects on businesses. Because his process did not involve a particular machine and did not physically transform anything, the court said, the process was not eligible for a patent.
Relying heavily on 1970s-era U.S. Supreme Court decisions that established the “machine-or-transformation test,” Chief Judge Paul Michel wrote for a nine-judge majority that Bilski’s patent application did not meet this definition of “process” under patent law.
The court affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of Bilski’s patent, saying the agency’s interpretation of the “process” was correct.
Consulting firm Accenture and banking company Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) (GS), among others, believed that processes like Bilski’s should be eligible for patents.
Denying the patent “eliminates a whole class of innovations from protection – business methods that rely on humans for execution,” Accenture wrote in a fact sheet arguing for reversal of the patent office’s decision.
But Bank of America Corp. (BAC) (BAC), Wachovia Corp. (WB) (WB) and a host of other companies argued in court briefs that allowing abstract ideas to be patented “hinders rather than promotes innovation.”
Companies that rely on computer-related patents could take heart from the court’s statement that processing data counts as “transformation,” making them patent-eligible. But the court punted on the question of whether mentioning a computer is enough to argue that a process involves a machine.
Two judges filed long dissents, arguing the decision could disrupt industries operating with patents that could be affected by the decision.
It would be nice to see India and China develop their own framework for rational, limited property rights. The West’s property system is arcane and outmoded. It reflects a patchwork ontology and is abusing the rights of the individual by corporate interests to the point of irrelevance.
There has to be a new method based on systems or networks of classification of property. One that pulls the foot out of the cow pie. I say clear the ground in the East and build a new independent property institution. Then phase it in globally.
I’m struggling with what the new ontology for property should be. Are North Americans even the one’s who should reach the conclusion?
The United States Constitution was crafted before the United States corporation–legal slight of hand performed during the conclusion of the United States Civil War–existed. Are we truly equipped philosophically and conceptually for individual rights, corporate rights and digital systems property?
If You Don’t Like the Speed, Get Off the Ride
2008/10/28 — grant czerepakWe have lived in “exponential times” since the big bang (if there was one)
