"The change represents a fundamental shift in power in the Internet economy that threatens to undermine the competitive market structure that have served Internet users so well for the past two decades"
"But then, in the 1990s, a patent-friendly appeals court handed down a series of decisions that opened the door to patents on software. That triggered a wave of patenting that has drowned the technology industry in litigation."
"If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years."
I get that all these things resonate deeply with hackers. But Rush Limbaugh's broadcasts resonate deeply with his audience, too.
> I get that all these things resonate deeply with hackers. But Rush Limbaugh's broadcasts resonate deeply with his audience, too.
I don't see how you should be casting stones considering the rhetorical device you're employing right here.
He's super libertarian, for sure, and he writes about technology policy, so what did you expect? There is still legitimate content here, these are not techcrunch articles, and dismissing it like this is just weak.
I don't know what you mean by "legitimate content," but saying things like "prosecutors would have sought the maximum penalty (of 50 years)" is just wholly inaccurate. If you said that on HN during the daylight hours, eventually an adult would come around and correct you.
It's not merely "unlikely" that Swartz was going to get 50 years. It was impossible. He could have plead not guilty, and then taken the stand, answered every question with "LAWRENCE LESSIG SAID I AM SPECIAL, SO I AM ALLOWED TO GO WHEREVER I WANT" and he still would not have gotten even half that penalty. "It's not hard to imagine Swartz getting 10 years" says more about the speaker's imagination than any real reading of sentencing guidelines.
It's like an average-quality HN commenter got a journalism job and didn't bother actually learning things that disagree with his worldview. Saying "Swartz was facing 50 years!" sure gets the blood flowing, doesn't it?
Apparently our industry is "drowning" in legislation. Given the tremendous rise in power and salary for all players, I bet other industries wish they were "drowning" the same way we are.