Patently Obvious

The US Patent system has been revered in our country as an institution that protects the small business inventor and provides incentives for bringing innovations to market. In recent years, the US Patent system, and the US Patent Office have been subjected to greatly increased scrutiny and criticism. What exactly is the catalyst for so much furor over the patent system and its administration?

One point of criticism is the huge backlog of patents that have yet to be processed by the USPTO. At one point, the backlog was more than 700,000 patents as of 2009. The backlog is considerably lower now, due to new procedures at the patent office. According to an article by Mike Masnick at TechDirt, the backlog reduction has little to do with higher quality patents and a greater rate of rejection. In fact, the USPTO has lowered their standards to facilitate the approval of a greater number of patents.

Masnick says that there are few if any incentives for patent examiners to reject patents. Worse, there seems to be no such thing as a truly final rejection of a patent application - applications are routinely re-submitted in the hopes of wearing the examiners down. In 2001, the approval rate was close to 100%. In 2009, it was about 90%. There is no doubt that many of these patents are vague, overly broad and harmful to downstream innovation.

It seems that the USPTO has become a rubber stamp, approving patent applications rather than taking up the fight to defend their rejections.

In America, we have 3 branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. During the 20th century, American government relied more and more upon administrative agencies and did so for a good reason. Administrative agencies keep the courts clear so that citizens could get justice without resorting to legal process. Unfortunately, our USPTO has decided that rejecting patents is not worth the fight, deferring to the courts to figure out if a patent is valid or infringed.

There is a problem with that. The rules of evidence in patent law are tilted so far in favor of patent holders, that there is more incentive to settle a patent suit than to fight it. Worse, there are so many patents that it's expensive to do a search of patents before you embark on creating a new product. And here's the kicker: patents are intentionally written in broad, vague language to ensnare as many infringers as possible.

It has often been said that government regulation can be bad for the economy. Maybe so, but I don't see anyone identifying patents as a form of regulation. Jefferson is said to have reluctantly approved of the idea of those "embarrassing monopolies" known as patents. He said that a patent system is fine as long as patents are approve rarely and only with very good reason.

It is time to recognize patents as a form of private regulation enforced by government. Considering the success of free software and other forms of collaboration, it seems that the cost of patents are not worth the incentives they provide to innovate. Given the rate of innovation where people freely collaborate together, I think its time we abolished patents.

Google has always been about choice

There is considerable interest and concern about the dominance of Google. While is it is true that they are everywhere, on the computer, on the phone, crawling the World Wide Web and collecting terabytes of content, they have always been mindful of choice. They are now the subject of an FTC investigation for antitrust on two fronts. One for Google's alleged anti-competitive use of patents to ban certain products from the US market and second, for their dominance in search.

What follows is a letter I wrote to the FTC in response to the threats that these investigations pose:

Sirs,

I have read in the news that you're considering an antitrust investigation into Google for their use of patents to ban certain products from market. While most of the news concerning FTC antitrust investigations of Google centered on search, it is only today that I learned that your department is considering an investigation of the alleged abuse of patents by Google.

With regard to Google's dominance of search, I think it is worth considering that it is nearly impossible to eliminate the competition in search. While FairSearch complains that Google is dominant in the search industry, they miss an important point: If I want to use a different search engine, I can. As long as robots can crawl websites, anyone can build a robot to crawl websites, compile the results and make them available in a search engine.

It is important to note the loose alliance between Microsoft and FairSearch. Microsoft has an undeniable interest in gaining access to Google search algorithms. If access to Google search algorithms were to be made public, Microsoft would argue that since it is not dominant in search, that it should not be required to disclose Microsoft search algorithms. This entire campaign is designed to keep Google on the defensive through attacks from proxies like FairSearch.

With regard to your pending patent investigation, it should be noted that Microsoft has sought and secured patent license agreements with every Android manufacturer except one, Motorola Mobility. Microsoft and Nokia are working with a third party, MOSAID, to extract licensing fees from Android and Linux developers. This is well documented in litigation Microsoft initiated against Barnes and Noble - B&N has since settled with Microsoft. When 2 or more companies work together to eliminate competition through anti-competitive practices, such as patent trolling, isn't that a basis for antitrust investigation? 

Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle, and Apple are all giants in the tech industry. Google is the upstart and is the target of a concerted series of legal attacks against Android and Google in general. They are all using patents, a form of regulation, to mitigate or neutralize the competitive threat that is Google. Microsoft has already been convicted of using their industry dominance to eliminate choices in computer operating systems. Apple is poised to do the same. Nokia is losing market share due to some very poor management decisions. Oracle is dominant in the database industry and seems somewhat unhappy that it missed an opportunity to create a smartphone operating system. All of them are relatively old companies and have found that "when you're young, you innovate, when you're old, you litigate" in the tech industry. They are all litigating against Google/Android.

Google doesn't need to use patents to compete. Google has only used patents defensively and will retaliate against those who use patents against Google. A casual observation of the Motorola Mobility litigation will show that Motorola Mobility litigation has only been targeted at those who initiated litigation against Android or Google. Google doesn't care which operating system I use on my computer. Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle and Apple all seem very concerned that I might decide to use Android or Linux on my computer or smartphone. They have all chosen to exercise litigation rather than innovation as a means of competing against Android and Linux. 

I think that the apparent collusion between all the major industry players working against Google is a far more worthy target of investigation for antitrust concerns than anything that Google is doing. Google is agnostic about which device or which operating system we use to search. Google only wants to make it easier to use Google search, no matter how we do it. My experience after trying Bing, Yahoo and even Alta Vista, is that Google search offers the best search experience I have ever found. Google supports open standards better than any other company. Open standards promote competition. When Google uses open standards, open source software and leverages openness to compete, that is no crime.

I urge you to reconsider your investigations of Google and instead, investigate all of the companies that are litigating against Google. Are they communicating with each other? Are they timing their lawsuits with each other? What do they have to gain, collectively, against Google? Is is fair for a group of companies to gang up on Google for competitive advantage?

These are questions I urge to you consider before you launch an investigation or any lawsuit against Google.

Thank you.

Scott Dunn

[End of email to FTC]

So, what do you think? Did Google break antitrust laws?

A Powerful Proposition

Last weekend, I had the good fortune to watch an amazing video of a lecture given by Dr. Daniel Nocera. It's an hour and 18 minutes long, but it is totally worth it because there is real hope for mankind in that video. What is it about? It's about new technology that allows us to capture solar energy and store it for future use.

I read about Nocera's work a couple of years ago. He and his team have done some pioneering work in the field of artificial photosynthesis. Notice that the work is government funded. Why didn't the private sector come up with this first? Maybe they were too busy thinking about maximizing profits before humanity.

Here are the basics:

• Use a light activated catalyst to split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
• Capture the hydrogen and store it for use later.
• Burn the hydrogen to power the home.
• Use the hydrogen to fuel a car or use power generated by burning the hydrogen to charge the car.

Imagine a world where every home has a power source independent of the power company. Imagine an economy independent of the hydrocarbon fuels we now use. Now imagine that all of the infrastructure we used to use to distribute power as electricity and fuel is no longer needed. Artificial photosynthesis would free up giant chunks of the economy dedicated to distributing oil, gas and coal. It would also free up all the money, time and effort spent designing nuclear power plants and passing commission reviews of each plant. The health benefits of such change would be enormous.

The jaw grows slack just considering even some of the possibilities. The only new tech is the catalyst - everything else is off-the-shelf parts. Artificial photosynthesis decentralizes energy production. Imagine what happens to political power when energy production is distributed by the sun.

The math presented in the video is pretty simple. We burn about 12.8 TW of power today - every day. the sun delivers 1000 TW to the earth. On land, we get about 800 TW. By 2050, we will need another 28 TW to keep humanity humming. We won't be able to build power plants fast enough to keep up. But we can fit up homes with this system to scale out billions of little power plants that run off the sun. 

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have shown very much interest in clean energy. This is especially true of the Republicans. Perhaps they forgot about Richard Nixon. Maybe they want to. While the Democrats have shown some interest in clean energy, even some lip service, I don't see them talking about a game changer like artificial photosynthesis that has been around for two whole years. Maybe they're not ready to talk about it yet.

If I were running the Green Party, *this* would be my new platform: Personal Power for everyone is attainable through artificial photosynthesis. If the Democrats and Republicans won't touch this, the Green Party will be happy to take over.

Freedom of Religion

I've been thinking about religious freedom. The success of this nation depends on religious freedom. In almost every other country where people are not free to practice the religion of their choice, even not to practice at all, we find a certain homogeneity, a demand for purity and uniformity of thought among all. This lack of pluralism limits the views that can be considered in political discourse and discourages expression of dissenting views.

So it is with a heavy heart that I find that the Republicans, that Grand Ol' Party, have been promoting the idea that the United States is a Christian nation. The platform of the Texas Republican Party offers a good example. I find it hard to believe that the matter is even a subject of debate when the Constitution is so clear in the First Amendment on its face. Their words leave little doubt as to what they mean to say.

The passage, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is important enough to be the opening clause of the First Amendment. Yet, platforms of the various state chapters of the Republican Party make it clear that not only do they believe that this country is a Christian nation, they want to tear down the wall that separates church and state. That is really scary.

I wonder if they have considered the ramifications of what would happen to this country if they managed to make the United States in their vision of a Christian country. What about everyone else?

Many of the founders of this country were Christian, to be sure, but they came here to escape the religious tyranny of the King of England. They came here to practice their religion as they understood it to be. They found what works for them and stuck with it. Though many of them were Christian, some devout, they all knew the danger of a state established religion.

We have modern day examples of the danger of state sponsored religion. One need only look to Iran to see the ultimate conclusion: complete and total subjugation of women, dissent is either completely absent or hidden, and anyone who is not actively practicing the state sponsored religion is cast in a second, lower class. Is that what the Republicans are preaching? That is my impression. 

I don't want to see a state sponsored religion in these United States and I hope I never do. I do want a diversity of religions, which we now have. For it is only through human exploration of spirituality in all of its forms that we arrive at a state of mind better known as peace.

Would you like your regulation to be public or private?

I have to wonder what the GOP is talking about when they go on and on about reducing regulation. For example, during the prohibition years, there was no effective way to regulate the alcohol industry since it all went dark. Because there was no 3rd-party referee to handle grievances, the competitors resorted to gangland violence. Legalizing the business and taxing it brought it into the light and made it easier to regulate as well as providing relief for innocent bystanders. Are they suggesting that we return to a prohibition-era economic environment that is "free of government regulation"?

I'm not aware of any GOP politician that has acknowledged that when you remove government regulation, private law and regulation come into play (if you've seen one do that, let me know). Consider for a moment the recent ruling from the Supreme Court that permits corporations to eliminate the right to class action lawsuits in their terms and conditions for use of their services. That ruling has emboldened corporations to introduce their own forms of regulations. This is particularly evident among cellular phone companies with their data caps, sharing plans, and customer data sharing arrangements. Net Neutrality? Totally neutered.

In this context, I have to ask, which source of regulation does the GOP prefer, government regulation or private regulation? Either one can become quite onerous if we let them. The difference is that I can vote out the guys in government who set policy. I can't do that with corporations. In corporations, the members of the board of directors make decisions that set policy. Even if I own stock, I don't really get a say in their decision making process. Worse, corporations are a creature of government, below everything and everyone else. At least they should be.

Several Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rulings have turned our relationships with corporations upside down. The first ruling came in 1890 when the SCOTUS recognized corporations as persons. Second, the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations can make unlimited political contributions without disclosure because money is speech. The third came with a SCOTUS ruling preempting a state law that prohibited the exclusion of class action suits in contracts. Don't even get me started on patents.

The GOP lacks complete sincerity and honesty if they continue to omit private regulation in debates of public policy on the subject of regulation. I wonder if they will ever bring it up.

Redwood Road

I'm a California native by birth and I've been driving for 33 years, 28 of them in California. I've seen a lot of pretty nutty driving in California, but the things that I've seen in Utah make California pale by comparison.

As a California native, I'm used to seeing people drive pretty much the same all year round. But here in Utah, things are different. In summer, drivers can be aggressive, rude and even indifferent to the plight of other drivers. But when the snow comes in winter, the same drivers suddenly get all polite.

One notable exception would be SUV drivers. While I'm doing 20-25 MPH on the freeway in heavy snow, some SUVs are blazing by at 40-50 MPH. I remember asking about snow tires for my first winter here and I learned that common sense would serve me better than snow tires. Those SUVs? From time to time, I would pass them in a snowstorm as they faced oncoming traffic the wrong way on the freeway after a spin-out or on the side of the freeway – the wheels are spinning, but they're upside down. Tire salesmen I've talked to referred to that phenomenon as “SUV confidence”.

On the way to work one day, I was cut off by an SUV. As we came to a stoplight I saw that there was a bumper sticker on the back that said, “SUV drivers do it without looking!”. Fair enough. I considered that to be a fluke and went on my way. Only a few minutes later, another SUV cuts me off. This SUV had a different bumper sticker that read, “If you don't like the way that I'm driving, get off the sidewalk!”

Hmm. Is this the start of a trend? I'm less than a half mile from work when a giant, pearly white Lincoln Aviator abruptly pulls in front of me to be first in line at the next red light. Sure enough, their bumper sticker makes a finer point with, “What was that?”

Anyone familiar with the Redwood Drive-in Theatre on the west side of Redwood near 3800 South knows what a circus that place can be. Lines can form beyond the curb and extend from the entrance and back up to the north end of the block. In the painted center island in front of the theater, lines can form and back up the other way to 3800 South. Numerous times, I've seen multiple vehicles making simultaneous, desperate left turns in front of me or other drivers with less than a second or two to spare just to get into or to leave the theater. And that is just for the swap meet. I've come to think of them as the Stunt Drivers of Utah.

One particularly interesting habit I've seen looks like this: a driver on a side street will make a left turn to merge into traffic on the opposite side of Redwood Road. But he's not using an ordinary island as a place to wait for traffic to clear so he can merge. No, that won't do, no sireee! Instead, he's waiting in a left turn lane – facing the wrong way. I've encountered this head on and when I see them in front of me, I'm like deer stuck in headlights. The other driver? He does this every day and knows exactly what to do. He checks his mirror, waits for the traffic to clear, and then merges safely, like nothing special had happened.

The most curious incident I've seen though is very similar to the example above, but with a twist. A driver makes a left turn from the apartment driveway at 3860 South to head north on Redwood Road. He is facing the wrong way in the left turn lane but proceeds anyway. It's dark, so as he proceeds up along the left turn lane, he doesn't notice the small island in front of him on approach to 3800 South. He takes out a small post and strands his car on top of the island with the tires straddling the island. When I came upon him he was on his cell phone calling for help.

After seeing that, I found that my nomenclature was inadequate to describe some of the drivers of Utah. Now I think of them as the Stunted Drivers of Utah.

Drive safely.

The Failed Promise of Patents

Some say that patents are a prohibition on competition against an inventor, but I believe that patents very much prohibit cooperation among innovators. With regard to disclosure of the invention, the general consensus among many who do read patents is that they incorporate language that is so broad and vague, it is often hard to determine just what invention is actually disclosed. That vague language prevents cooperation among innovators with fear, uncertainty and doubt.

To put it differently, a person practiced in the arts described by a patent would be hard pressed to recreate the invention disclosed by a patent. This is particularly true of software patents which are so general as to be a patent on an idea rather than a specific invention. The goal in writing patents, it seems, is not to disclose the design of an invention, but to get a private monopoly on an idea.


Patent apologists implore us with the notion that without patents, inventions would not be disclosed, keeping inventions secret. The technology available today allows for reverse engineering down to a very minute scale. Given enough incentive and eyeballs, an invention will eventually be reverse engineered, and 99% of the time, we have the resources now to do it. Note how every DRM system ever released has been broken. There is even recent news of a workaround for HDMI encryption.


Besides, an invention with a design that is unavoidably disclosed is ripe for sharing anyway. The best that any inventor can hope for is good execution for the first mover advantage, even with a patent. The first few years of sales with very good execution and manufacturing will provide plenty of revenue to cover the costs of development.

Until I see conclusive evidence that patents have been a net positive for society, I remain unconvinced. Patent defenders will often point to the innovation we have seen so far, but that is innovation in *spite* of the patent system. I think they would find it difficult to show even one patent that has not hindered follow-on innovation or one that provided society with more wealth than the patent owner has gained. In sum, patents are great for litigation, not so great for innovation.

Patent Transparency

The news about Linux and Android technology is rife with stories about attacks against free software by Microsoft. The latest trend is that Microsoft has been threatening all of the major Android cellphone  manufacturers with patent litigation. To prevent litigation, Microsoft coerces Android manufacturers into entering a very restrictive license agreement with the understanding that the terms of the agreement cost less and have less uncertainty than litigation.

There is one really big problem with all of these agreements: they're all confined to secrecy through non-disclosure agreements. Through these patent licensing agreements, Microsoft is imposing their tax (alleged to be as high as $15 per unit on cell phones) on a free, open source operating system they didn't even build. This is the cost of knowing what those patents are and the cost of being "covered" by a license to practice those patents, even if they're not being practiced by the victims.

The purpose of the high licensing fees is to impose a cost on an otherwise free work of software that is greater than or equal to the cost of a Windows phone license. In other words, the message is, "Android? Say, that's a very pretty operating system you've got there. I'd hate to see anything bad happen to it. I think you'd be a lot safer if you paid us for protection and built Windows phones, too." Does the image of Marlon Brando come to mind?

Microsoft's strategy is simple on it's face: Approach a competitor with threats of a patent lawsuit. Then offer a way to eliminate the threat, but discussions only begin with a non-disclosure agreement. This way, even if negotiations fail, the patents are never revealed. It's important to keep those patents secret to prevent competitors from working around the patents. As negotiations continue to success, the result is a royalty agreement in complete secrecy, ensuring that no one else knows which patents are included or their true value based on the agreement.

This practice can be used anti-competitively and Microsoft isn't the only one doing it. To put this in perspective, in a competitive market, competitors strive to offer a better product to consumers based on price, product quality and customer service. In a combative market, participants seek to hobble or even disable their competitors to assert a private monopoly on the market. Patents were never intended as legal weapons of combat in the marketplace. They were only intended to give inventors access to capital to practice their inventions, but that's not how they're being used in business today.

It's time for some patent transparency. Patents are government issued grants of intellectual property and each patent is a matter of public record so anyone can look them up at the USPTO website (Google has just introduced a new patent search engine, too). Each patent is a monopoly on an invention. Patents are also assets that tend to substitute for research and development and customer service. Unfortunately, many patent owners have set up a shell game of corporations to make it hard to trace the true owner of the patents.

So I have a solution: all patent licensing agreements may not be kept secret by any non-disclosure agreements and that there should be no exceptions. Investors, public or private, have a right to know the true value negotiated for a patent. Investors have the right to know the impact on their investment when the company they invest in is approached by a patent aggressor, like Microsoft, or IBM, the king of patent licensing.

This proposed law should cover a few basic points. All patent licensing agreements, including out of court settlements (95% of patent cases settle out of court), and court orders, are to be made public and shall be registered with the patent office. The patent office must be notified in advance that patent licensing negotiations are about to begin, with notice of time, place and scope to ensure they eventually get a copy of the agreement resulting from negotiations. All patent agreements shall be made public in reports made to the Securities and Exchange Commission by publicly traded corporations. Any person or company contacted by a patent aggressor for royalty negotiations that are subject to a non-disclosure agreement will have standing to sue for relief. Finally, provide for refunds of all patent costs to the licensee should the patent be ruled invalid prior to expiration of the patent.

The penalty for failure to comply is termination of the patent. That should create plenty of incentive for compliance on the part of patentees.

The public has a right to know how government issued monopolies are being used to stifle competition and remove choices from the market in favor of patent owners (sometimes affectionately referred to as "patent trolls"). Removing the veil of non-disclosure agreements from patent licensing agreements will create greater transparency in a very murky market.

Moreover, competitors have a right to see how patents are being enforced in a particular market segment. With access to these agreements, competitors can see how the agreements are structured, what rights are conferred and determine the costs of entry to the market affected by a patent. They can also find ways to work around the patents to secure entry to a market without having to risk litigation first. Transparency will allow competitors to be sure they aren't infringing on patents, which is the point of patent publication in the first place.

Some are sure to cry foul. "Patents are private property! You can't do that!" Are they really? Patents are issued by the government as a temporary monopoly to the patentee. Patents are the only kind of "property" that allow you, the patentee, to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own private property. Clearly marking the true owners, the limits of the patents and the agreements relating to their licensing has no bearing on the value of a patent and would actually increase the value of the patent to the owner and society.

Congressional intent is that patents should promote the progress of the arts and sciences. A non-disclosure agreement is a sure sign that a patent aggressor has little interest in advancing the arts and sciences and is overtly thwarting the intent of Congress. It's worth noting that there is is a lot empirical evidence to show that patents have never encouraged innovation, much less advanced the progress of the sciences or the arts.

A closer inspection of patents as "property" reveals broad, general language as to the scope of the patent, making it difficult to tell where the patent begins or ends. Try reading a patent, especially a software patent, to see how it is practiced, or even how to avoid infringement. You're going to need a lawyer to help you. Even for engineers, this can be a hopeless quest.

Real property on the other hand is easier to understand. There are clear boundaries to real property and those boundaries are very well established so that everyone knows the limits of a property claim. Car ownership is just as easy to prove. But the metes and bounds of patents are about as clear as pea soup.

The law as it currently stands is very one-sided in favor of patent holders. In order to help weed out bad patents, there needs to be some penalty for gaming the system. What happens if a patent covered under a licensing agreement is eventually invalidated before the patent expires? My proposal takes this into account by providing civil remedies for a refund of all royalties paid, legal fees and other expenses resulting from any negotiations, agreements or litigation arising from enforcement of the patent upon the plaintiff. Criminal remedies shall be available in situations where the former patent holder fails to refund costs.

Because ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution (and I'm not advocating them here), there is nothing we can do about the patent agreements already in force. But the points above would go a long way towards cleaning up the fear, uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace. Perhaps we can create a voluntary patent licensing exchange so that anyone who wants to disclose previous agreements can do so, as an act of goodwill.

It is estimated that innovation has contributed 90% of GDP since 1870, with the vast majority of that innovation covered by patents issued by the government. We the People have a right to know how the patents are being used to control markets since they have a material impact on the well being of all of us.

Patents have no place in a free market. But as long as we have patents, transparency in patent royalty negotiations is essential to regulation of their use and maintaining choice in the market for consumers.

A Letter to my Congress Critters: On Copyrights

Dear Representative, 

The E-PARASITE Act and the PROTECT-IP Act, collectively known as the Internet Destruction Acts, represent yet another attempt by Big Content to impose their aging business models onto the Internet. Big Content has seen fit to fashion legislation in their own image, for their own benefit, without regard to the public. In recent years, Big Content has made steady encroachments onto the Public Domain through legislation and through misappropriation. They seem to think that consumers have no rights with regard to content, such is the attitude expressed in these Internet Destruction Acts.

These acts set aside due process rights in favor of the rights of Big Content. They set aside First Amendment rights in favor of Big Content. And they seek to create a captured audience, unable to choose which media they wish to view and where they'd like to view it.  Though Big Content benefits from and even capitalizes on copyright laws, they seem to have forgotten who the copyright laws are intended to benefit:

"The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors." --- Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 US 123, 1932

We the People, in the end, are the sole beneficiaries of the copyright laws. Not the multinational Big Content corporations who impose region codes on the DVDs they wish to sell, who issue DMCA takedown notices even in cases where their rights are not even proven, who have imposed DRM - a failed and broken technology that fails immediately when the authenticating servers are shut down, who have created secret agreements with Internet Service Providers to create a defacto 3-strikes law without the consent of the People and who have disregarded the will of the People at every opportunity to do so.

Big Content, and you, my representative, hear this: the only reason we still have copyright laws today is because it is the will of the People. As one of the People in this country, I urge you to vote no on these Internet Destruction Acts and others like it. They have no place in a free society. Remember, a free idea will create more jobs than an encumbered idea.

Scott Dunn

No PC Security in Vietnam

I've been on vacation in Vietnam for the last week or so. Before I got here, I recalled the state of the computers I've seen here during my last visit and came prepared this time. I brought with me Linux CDs and DVDs as well as a couple of USB drives to help the family with their computers. Today, I'm going to give a brief description of the state of the typical computer in Vietnam as I see them.

My findings are based on a pretty small sample of three computers. Despite the small sample, the uniformity of the install choices made, and the geographical disparity of all PCs suggest there is widespread agreement among the PC builders on how to best build a Windows PC. It seems that their highest priority is that the PC will function properly as a pirated copy of Windows. Every choice made by these PC builders leaves the user less secure, unable to recover Windows if the machine should fail, and more likely to fail due to the choices made. Unless otherwise stated, the conditions observed are seen in all three PCs.

First, not a single PC had a certificate of authenticity. You know that colorful little sticker you usually see on the side of your computer? That sticker is the license key for your copy of Windows. Having this key is absolutely necessary in order to install Windows and pass Windows activation. That sticker is your license for Windows unless you bought a boxed copy and left the sticker in the box. This condition leaves users unable to re-install Windows without having to take their computer to the shop so that a technician can do the work.

Automatic Updates were disabled. The obvious reason for this is to prevent Windows Genuine Advantage from being installed on the computer to check the validity of the license key on the computer. This leaves the user less secure against known security issues because Windows will not be kept up to date.

When Windows is installed for the first time, it creates a user account that is usually the administrator account for the machine. After the installation is complete, the computer will reboot and then walk you through setting up user accounts and Automatic Updates. The user accounts that are setup here are also administrator accounts. Administrator accounts have full control of every process and file on the computer.

Most Windows users are unaware of this condition, and they do not know that they should be running as users, not administrators. This is important because of the way malware installs on a computer: silently. If you are running as admin while browsing the web, and you encounter malware, or a "drive-by download", the malware will install on your computer without you even knowing what happened. After that happens, the only clue is that your PC is running a lot slower than before.

Next up is the file system. By default, Windows will format a hard drive using NTFS. NTFS assigns access controls to each folder and file. This security information assigns access permissions to each file and folder, allowing users to access their own files and prohibiting user access to files that are not theirs. This is important for security in that it prevents viruses from accessing system files and changing them - if you are not running as an administrator account.

Here in Vietnam, it is common practice to install Windows to a FAT32 file system. Some of you may find that the term "FAT32" is familiar. Some of you might even remember that FAT32 was a feature in Windows 95 and 98. Unlike NTFS, FAT32 provides no access controls to files and folders in the file system. This means that even if you are not using an administrator account, you still have access to every file on the system and can change or delete them at will (and at your own peril).

Taken together, all of these conditions add up to one very insecure computer, even with antivirus installed. The FAT32 file system allows non-administrators to access system files and change them. User accounts are admin accounts and Windows Update is disabled. This is a playground for botnets in Asia created for the very purpose of pirating Windows.

When people pirate Windows, they fail to realize the true cost of using pirated Windows. To prevent piracy, I recommend installing Linux (like Mint, or Fedora). Linux has a few qualities that you won't find in the way Windows is installed here. With Linux, you get file and folder security by default. You don't run as admin by default. And you get automatic updates by default without having to worry about Windows Genuine Advantage consuming your time and money.

Some people are starting to wake up and smell the choices, however. By one estimate, there are more than a thousand Linux users in Vietnam. I'm gonig to do a conversion today from XP to Xubuntu. Even the Vietnamese government has taken note of the opportunities afforded by Linux. Many small countries from around the world, including Vietnam, see Linux as a opportunity to create their own software industry. Linux is also a way out of dependence on Microsoft and other American software vendors. In fact, Microsoft depends on piracy to survive.

So get safe, get legal and get Linux, Vietnam.

The Linux Debates

There is a debate within the Linux community concerning which office suite is better?  OpenOffice or LibreOffice? There is another debate about desktops. Which one is better?  GNOME or KDE? How about XFCE? Who cares?

I'm really quite oblivious to the debate and have been for the four years I've been on Linux. What matters to me is the incredible variety and number of applications to choose from. And I'm not just talking about what you see on the desktop.

Let me give you an example. I got curious about the QR code, a barcode that most modern smartphones can read, and wanted to learn more.  With a little digging, I found a nifty little utility, QRencode for Linux in the package manager. In a few minutes I had it installed, with web pages on how to use it in front of me.  In a few more minutes, I had created my first QR code and tested it on my phone to be sure that it worked as promised. It did.

While I happen to prefer GNOME, the experience I shared above was possible irrespective of the desktop used. That experience didn't tell me whether or not one desktop is superior to another. But it does tell me that Linux is a hell of a lot more excitement for me than Windows or Mac. Discoveries like QRencode are priceless and they just don't happen on Windows or Mac as easy as they do on Linux.

Whether I use GNOME, Unity or KDE, or some Office suite we haven't heard of yet, those itty-bitty utilities are what make Linux so exciting to use. QRencode is just one example of the UNIX philosophy of programming which is to make small programs that do their job really well. These little programs are what makes Linux so much fun to use because they can be combined in very powerful ways. This is a feature missing from Windows and hidden to most users in Macs, yet it has been here all along since the beginning of UNIX.

Republicans Vote To Authorize Endless War

A letter to Jason Chaffetz, who represents my district in Congress:


Mr. Chaffetz,

If you come home to tell us that the Democrats don't have a plan, I for one, will consider your conclusion as a ruse.  Republicans hold the purse strings for now, and we can be sure that if the Democrats had a plan, committees with Republican majorities will never let a Democrat plan out of committee.  We all know your plan to end Medicare as we know it, has been pitched as a plan to save it.  It is really a plan to shift the cost of care for our seniors from government to them.  Under your plan, the cost of healthcare will leave little room left for anything else for tomorrow's seniors.  Few have seen it as a plan to divide the vote and pit the young against the old, but that's what it is.

I see also that the ACLU has reported that the latest defense authorization bill will permit "endless war", ostensibly as a way to stimulate the economy.  We know from eight long years of Bush rule, that war doesn't create jobs.

Say what you like, but I will be telling my friends that the Republican plan is a plan to send income upwards.  It's a plan that will permit a further concentration of wealth into the hands of just a few men and women who think they know what's best for us.  You, sir, are going to help create a Banana Republic at the expense of the everyone else.

So I ask you, have you noticed that the United States became the most powerful economy on the planet when the top marginal tax rate was 90%?  Perhaps you could try raising taxes to close the deficit.  Think about that.

Sincerely,

Scott Dunn

CEO pay tops pre-recession levels

The Associated Press is reporting that in 2010, the CEO's of 334 of the corporations listed on the Standard & Poor 500 raked in 24% more than the previous year and more than in 2007, before the Great Recession began.  According to the article, the highest paid executive was Philippe Dauman of Viacom, with $84 million.  The average pay, including all forms of compensation was about $9 million.  Aren't we *still* in a recession?


Why yes, we are, if you're an employee.  Average employee pay increased by only 3%, and topped out at $40,500.  Employees are apparently being told that due the weak job market, they can expect lower pay.  So the board of directors at the largest corporations have no qualm about paying CEOs more money during a very deep recession while at the same time holding the line on wages for employees.  How...consistent.


Top management will be the first to insist that if we just lowered the tax rates, they could create more jobs.  But economists have documented in detail how tax rates are lower than they have ever been in 80 years.  Despite these low tax rates, particularly during the Bush years, we have seen fewer jobs created than when tax rates were much higher.  In fact, we're experiencing an essentially jobless recovery and have been for two years.  We have decades of empirical evidence to show that lower taxes do not lead to more jobs, simply because they are as low as they are ever going to go.


I have a theory about why the economy is growing so slowly.  Currently, the top 10% own more than 85% of all the wealth, you know, like in a Banana Republic. Most of that wealth is socked away in securities like government bonds, stocks and real estate.  The same top 10% have all the money they want and don't really need any more for survival - this is especially true for the top 1%.  At that point, their choices for entertainment become limited.  They may find that competition is too tough, so they sit on their money taking dividends and interest.  With enough money socked away into investments, it becomes a full time job just to manage the funds.  


Are they working?  Are they creating wealth?  Are they asking for tax cuts?  Maybe, probably not, and yes.  They're working if they're managing their funds, but are they helping other people or maximizing their profits?  They're creating wealth if they're actually creating something other people can use.  But given the current conditions, with so much wealth cornered in the top 10%, the name of the game is wealth extraction because there is simply too much competition for wealth creation.  That's because most of the wealth is locked up somewhere, and that's why when the Federal Reserve Bank tries to inject "liquidity" in the market, it does little good, remember, interest rates at the discount window are near historic lows.  When the Fed makes more money available to loosen up the economy, the top 10% is right there at the spigot, capturing as much as they can before it can even get to the middle class.


Members of the top 1% club hate inflation.  That works against their investments and their dividends. If inflation is what we get when there is too much money floating free in the economy, then the opposite is when the money is locked up in long-term investments where it won't create jobs.  Get my drift?  Creating jobs would fuel inflation by putting money into circulation, and that is adverse to the interests of those who would prefer to sit on their money - that top 1% again.


Now about those tax cuts.  We see Private Ryan asking for tax cuts in the House, with a request to lop 10% off the top marginal tax rate of 35%.  His justification is that cutting taxes will create jobs.  But, as mentioned before, cutting taxes for people who already have money is like offering a drink to a man who already owns a bar.  Giving tax cuts to the to the top 10% doesn't mean they will spend more money.  As Robert Reich is so fond of saying, "they've already spent all the money they want to spend." It is worth noting that American became the greatest economic power on Earth when the top marginal income tax rate was at 90%.  


I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but I know for sure it isn't tax cuts as the Republicans propose.  Democrats and Republicans worked together to give us budget surpluses by 1992.  We can do it again without having to gut the government or send the middle class packing.  The extreme concentration of wealth has set all of us against each other.  With fairer taxation we could put more money into circulation to rebuild the economy, and help us all to cooperate together, again.

A letter to Orrin Hatch: Patent trolls

Mr. Hatch,


I read with some displeasure, this article about a patent lawsuit against users of Linux: https://lwn.net/Articles/440090/.  The article points to a lawsuit instigated by "Bedrock Computer Technologies" (BCT), wherein they prevailed against Google despite the prior art that should have invalidated the asserted patent.  The prior art in question was in the source code for Linux dating back to 1997.  Of course, BCT prevailed in a jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas, aka, "The Rocket Docket."  Apparently, the jury refused to even consider the prior art, probably because it didn't come from the USPTO.


Which brings me to my next point.  I see that Microsoft has just argued before the SCOTUS, in i4i v. Microsoft, their position that burden of proof in patent cases is lopsided, and that the burden of proof for defendants should be reduced to give them a fighting chance against trivial patents that should never have issued anyway.  There needs to be an effective check on the power of the USPTO and apparently there is none.


Since patents are essentially a social contract for innovation, patent owners should not be given so much power so as to chill other innovators.  Google is one of the most innovative companies in the world and should not have to worry about patent lawsuits where prior art is so obvious and evident as in the case linked to above.  Worse, the patent is on an algorithm which is nothing more than *math*, and the last I heard, you can't patent math!


I also think it's time for a "loser pays" patent court system to keep the trolls out of the business.  If their patents aren't worth the paper they're printed on, they should not be so bold as to sue on a patent covered in prior art just so they can get an easy settlement.  If they really want it, they should be made to work for it, and suffer the consequences if they lose.  This would take all fun out of litigation for patent trolls.


I think it is very likely that patent troll victims are signing settlements that waive their right for a refund if the patent is later found to be invalid.  The law should say that this right cannot be waived.  This will further chill out the trolls and encourage innovation *and* execution, for no matter how good a patent is, execution is where the money is made.


I'll leave you with one last thought: A patented idea will create fewer jobs than a free idea by virtue of the fact that more people can use it.  Reducing the number of silly patents that are issued by the USPTO would go a long way towards creating jobs in America.


Thank you for reading this far.


Scott Dunn

Medicare - The 55 and Older Plan

I see that Michelle Bachmann believes that everyone over 55 gets to keep their Medicare benefits but everyone else should be "weaned off".  She is of course, referring to The Ryan budget plan, which seems nice until we take a close look at what it means.  First, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the "plan" would cost an additional $34 trillion in expenses to everyone who gets to take part in the "voucher" program.  As noted by Dean Baker, this is 3 times the estimated shortfall for Social Security.

So let's look at it from the perspective of taxation.  It is a well understood principle that those who pay taxes should be the ones who receive the benefits from the taxes paid.  For example, gasoline taxes are using to pay for the roads.  Taking the taxes collected and using it for something else is very bad public policy.

Most pundits are proclaiming the Ryan plan as the end of Medicare.  If the Republican Plan is to end Medicare and turn it into a voucher program, then we need to see if the plan will provide the same value as before.  As Baker and many other economists have shown before, it does not.  And if they really want to wean everybody else off the Medicare idea, then they need to stop collecting taxes for the Medicare program and let everybody else plan for the eventual demise of the program with their own money in their own retirement account.

Their theory is that if people have to shop for insurance in their old age and pay for it with their vouchers and any money they have left over, then the lack of money will provide economic incentive to reduce the price of coverage.  Experience with the auto industry has shown that even without a voucher program, rates will continue to go up due to inflation.  Experience with people who don't even have Medicare show that heatlth care insurance rates continue to rise faster than inflation even without government insurance or vouchers to help them.  What makes Republicans sincerely believe that the elimination of Medicare will reduce the cost of health care given past experience despite the mounting evidence before them?

Instead, the Republicans seem to be intent on eliminating the Medicare program to remove what is most likely the only brake on health care costs that we have.  They seem to recognize that Medicare is a "single payer plan", and that such plans are reviled among conservatives.  Getting rid of the plan would score serious points with the Tea Party now, wouldn't it?  Or would it?  We don't see them talking about ending the Veterans Administration health plan now, do we?  Why is privatization good for Medicare but not VA health care?

Now about that $34 trillion of increased costs that future seniors would have to pay for their insurance.  Future seniors would get a voucher to purchase private health insurance instead of health insurance through the government.  The assumption is that "competition" among insurers would actually bring costs down where the government could not. This is the privatization of Medicare that pundits have been talking about.  Republicans seem to be missing something very obvious in their quest to reduce healthcare costs.  The United States has one of the most highly privatized health care systems in the world, yet we pay more than 3 times the cost per person as other OECD countries.

The trend then, is that privatization has increased the costs of health care in this country, not the reverse.  Why?  Private insurers have to pay for marketing, advertising, overhead, litigation, campaign contributions and lobbying.  For what?  To ensure that their executives are among the highest paid in the world?  Medicare doesn't have to do all that.  Medicare uses empirical evidence to set rates and to determine the best possible treatment.  Private insurance seems to find what works and uses that information to deny coverage to those who need it the most.  The private insurance and Republican message seems to be, "get well soon, or die."  Just ask any cancer patient who has ever had to fight for treatment.

So before they send us off the cliff without a parachute, we need to consider some other alternatives for reducing costs.  There is a lot of talk about competition.  Well how about globalization of health care?  Globalization has worked well for cars, electronics, clothing and tech support.  Why not health care?

The noted economist, Dean Baker, has articulated the solution rather nicely.  By setting up international mutual agreements to trade medical professionals, we can expose our health care system to international competition. This will help to control the costs imposed by health care providers working here while providing ourselves with a broader base of professionals to choose from.  There is also the phenomenon of "medical tourism".  We could allow citizens here to use their "vouchers" to purchase health care in countries that have more efficient systems, further exposing our health care system to international competition.  Remember, all other OECD countries are spending 66% less than we do with better outcomes and longer life expectancies.

Another point, and I'll make this the final one, is that of patents and copyrights in health care.  Few are willing to discuss the chilling effect of patents and copyrights on medical research, devices and techniques.  Fewer still are willing to discuss all the government funded research that leads to patents that eventually impose significant costs to the health care system.  Patents on drugs and medical devices impose very significant costs on health care with drugs and devices that sell for several thousand percent more than the marginal cost to produce them due to patent royalties.

A partial solution to this problem is compulsory licensing of the patent at reasonable and non-discriminatory pricing for patented products that resulted from government funding.  Such a policy would have a ripple effect across the health care industry, forcing pricing down, and allowing greater access to the drugs and devices so desperately needed by our aging population.  The complete elimination of patents for drugs and medical devices would eliminate the rent-seeking behavior that we have all seen from patentees.  That behavior imposes additional costs in the form of litigation, threats of litigation and the inhibition of research and development.  A good recent example of this behavior can be seen as exhibited by the owners of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer gene patents.

In summary, there is a lot we could be doing before we even consider the privatization of Medicare.

Life with Linux

I've been using Linux since the summer of 2007, and so far, I've enjoy the trip.  I've managed to get through all the bumps, too.  Today, I'd like to share with you my experience upgrading from Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat to 11.04 Natty Narwhal.  They are the same operating system based on Linux, but the desktop interface is very different from 10.10 to 11.04.

I started with an online upgrade through the Synaptics Package Manager.  Synaptics prompted me with an opportunity to upgrade my system as soon as it became available on April 27th.  I discovered that trying to upgrade on the first day was a bad idea, even on a fast connection.  So I waited until Friday and ran it late that night.  Then I saw download speeds often approaching 2.2 mbs, but averaging around 1.4 mbs.  That took about 30 minutes for the download to complete.

Then the packages were unpacked and installed.  Synaptics will provide a good progress indicator showing how much has been done, how far there is to go and prompting for any input required.  That took about an hour.  There were about 1800 packages to download and install.

Once all the packages are installed, a clean up operation runs to detect software that is no longer needed or supported, and then the user is provided with an option to remove them or keep them.  I removed them.  When the cleanup completed, I was prompted to reboot my computer.  This is always the most exciting part because I've been waiting for the reveal of the new experience.

On reboot, I was presented with this: grub>.  This is a problem that I had not encountered in any previous upgrades.  After doing some research I found the documentation I needed.  that I could use a live CD to reinstall GRUB so that the bootloader could find the operating system and the kernel needed to start up properly.  Then entire operation (sans downloading the live CD) took about 15 minutes and some cautious typing to do.

First, I booted my computer to the GNOME desktop with the latest live CD for Ubuntu.  Then I started a terminal.  Setting that aside, I opened the hard drive to locate the UUID number.  The UUID is assigned to a partition when formated and makes different hard drives easier to distinguish.  Once I had the UUID displayed, I could enter the following command inserting the UUID where "XXX" appears:

sudo grub-setup -d /media/XXXX/boot/grub /dev/sda

This command reinstalled GRUB with the proper settings to the correct folder.  I used sudo to assume root privileges when I run the command that follows. "grub-setup -d runs the setup and the path that follows tells where to do the install.  "/dev/sda" names the drive.  In Windows, drive C is the boot drive and if you look at the drive through the BIOS of your computer, it will usually be SATA 0.  In Linux, drives are numbered a, b, c, and the drive letter isn't as important as the UUID.  Linux will map the UUID to the drive letter as need, but when GRUB looks for the files needed to boot, it goes by the UUID.

Then I rebooted my computer.  As the computer booted, I watched as the BIOS loaded and instead of getting "grub>", I got a blank splash screen, which I think I'm going to change later on, and then the login prompt for my desktop.  What a relief.  Documentation is king.  The lesson in this story?  Make sure you have a live CD ready to go before you do an upgrade.  You just might need this.

Some of you might also be familiar with GNOME.  GNOME looks a lot like Windows and has some similarities to the Mac interface as well. There is something like a start menu, icons on your desktop, and when you open folders, you get square windows with icons therein.  While Unity offers that, one big difference is the Launcher.  The Launcher usually stays hidden until you need it.  But when you need it, just move your mouse over to where it will appear.  Mine is on the left side so when I move my mouse over there, the Launcher slides into view from the left and allows me to pick the application I want with my mouse.

I can customize the applications that appear there by right-clicking on one at a time and clearing the check next to "Show in Launcher."  If I want to add items to the Launcher, I click on the Ubuntu button at the top-left corner of my screen, search for the application I want, then drag the icon for that application to the Launcher to the position I want it to appear.

So far, I'm enjoying the new experience of using the Launcher and I'm planning on test driving it for a couple of weeks. If, in the end, I find that I don't like it, I can still go back to GNOME and use that as my default.

If you don't have Linux installed, but want to try it out, you can download the Live CD and boot from it to test it out.  You can get it here.  Remember, when you run the live CD, you can test it out without making any changes to Windows on your hard drive.  When you're done, just reboot the computer by clicking on the power button in the upper-right hand corner of your screen and selecting "restart".  During restart, the CD will eject and you will be prompted to press Enter.

If you want to install Ubuntu over Windows or Linux, be sure you have backed up all your data.  Ubuntu will import your users and their data into new folders during the install, but you must follow the prompts closely to do that.  If you want to try an install, it is best to do it on a spare computer first.  That's how I got started.

I hope you find this information useful and look forward to your comments.

Tax Cut Addiction

Since the Christmas recess in Congress ended, the debate over the automatic expiration of the Bush era tax cuts has resumed with vitriol and fervor. We see that Paul Ryan has proposed what appears to be a rather extreme prescription for debt reduction with zero discussion of cuts to defense spending and additional tax cuts.

We have heard from Warren Buffet, one of the most successful investors of our time, suggesting that we should let the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire. We also see a new club of philanthropists forming, pledging to give half their money away. Perhaps this is their token offering of appeasement to the middle class for what they did to them to get where they are now. Or they may be waking up from the buzz of an addiction as I'll explain later. In any case, we know that change is coming, we just don't know the form or the time of it for sure.

I bring all of this up because last year, I read this very interesting article which discusses the question of whether or not income inequality creates unhappiness in America. Here is the relevant part of an article by Timothy Noah of Slate Magazine where comments on a point made by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks has said that income inequality doesn't create unhappiness, and Noah responds:

"Living conditions improve over time. But people do not experience life as an interesting moment in the evolution of human societies. They experience it in the present and weigh their own experience against that of the living. Brooks cites (even though it contradicts his argument) a famous 1998 study by economists Sara Solnick (then at the University of Miami, now at the University of Vermont) and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health. Subjects were asked which they'd prefer: to earn $50,000 while knowing everyone else earned $25,000, or to earn $100,000 while knowing everyone else earned $200,000. Objectively speaking, $100,000 is twice as much as $50,000. Even so, 56 percent chose $50,000 if it meant that would put them on top rather than at the bottom. We are social creatures and establish our expectations relative to others."

So the majority of people in the study would prefer to know that they make more money than others rather than to know that what they have is a lot and more than enough to cover their expenses, even if others are making far more. That can probably be extrapolated to the general population without much controversy. That extrapolation would make sense since the need for social hierarchy is hardwired into human brains. What this suggests is that what makes the top of the line Mercedes so appealing to a higher ranking human is that other people can't have it, not just that he can have one with everyone else, right?

To put this rat-race in perspective, this article describes what it's like to have everything you could ever want and still be unhappy. According to the author, he has attained his goals and acquired what he wanted: a house, a wife, a few cars, and plenty of money in the bank with good prospects for retirement. Yet, he's unhappy and says he was happier when he had less. How could that be?

To summarize up to this point is this: humans have a natural tendency to establish social order, and those that attain the highest levels of social order expect differentiation and exclusivity. It can also be shown that for many, getting everything they want means they're going to have to have their own initiative if they want to be entertained, even if they can pay for entertainment.

There is one more point to make about upper income status before we move onto taxes. Consider the predicament of someone who has everything he has ever wanted, faces no real challenges from others in order to satisfy his needs (assuming he can identify and articulate them), and has time on his hands. What to do? What to do when making more than $75,000 a year doesn't necessarily buy happiness? 

If what we've witnessed in the last 10 years is any indication, the most popular choice of late is to take extraordinary risks regardless of what will happen to other people, using their money. This risk-taking behavior may include acts that, if not illegal, are at least immoral. That would point most likely to investment firms like hedge funds, banks, and corporations. All of them use other people's money as a platform for risk taking, and lately, they've been paid handsomely for doing it. They have been paid their bonuses and salaries, and they have even received money from the government to cover their losses.

This is why the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy need to expire. My point about higher taxes for the extremely wealthy is that the act of making money for the top 1% has become something more like an addiction rather than a necessity. It's like they have developed a tolerance for money, and the rush they used to get from making money doesn't come anymore, so they need greater and greater rewards to get the same rush. 

To get that same rush, they are willing to endure greater and greater risks, regardless of who else they might hurt. Here, we see that the very wealthy seem to think that insider trading is the norm and that they need to engage in it to get an advantage over everyone else. Competition at any cost appears to be their philosophy. In case you haven't heard already, insider trading is securities trading activity based on "inside" information on stocks that most people aren't privy to. But if you're wealthy, you can entice the right people to give that information to you.

Taxes are imposed on things we don't want, want to discourage, or that require regulation. We don't want the biggest financial institutions taking extraordinary risks with other people's money, especially without adult supervision. These same institutions could take the rest of us with them in their failure. Does anyone remember Enron? Who was playing with fire there? Some were members of the top 1% club, and they were probably psychopaths. Given those conditions, I'm not sure I want "trickle down" economics even if it did work, but it doesn't. Tax cuts don't create jobs, they create tax havens.

Consider that the top marginal rates for income taxes are lower now than they have been in 80 years, which puts the last low point back in 1929 (seems familiar, doesn't it?). Such low taxes have encouraged very wealthy people to take very great risks. And since 2008, we've seen the damage done by the addiction to the euphoria associated with making gigantic sums of money while taking great risk with other people's money. We may not be able to stop all of it, but we can certainly discourage it.

So, from a sociological and psychological perspective, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for at least the top 1% makes perfect sense. It's not like they have the greatest track record for allocating resources in this country despite any notion that they are leaders. These same leaders took great risk, lost their bets and then asked the government for help and got it (that's what I mean by "other people's money"). That's leadership? They proved themselves wrong in 1929 and in 2008. Why should we reward them again with a tax cut extension?

Update 1: One other aspect of the tax cut addiction that I forgot to mention is the property and employment tax enticements offered to large corporations by various states to welcome large employers. This works well when times are good. But when times are bad and austerity measures are introduced, the workers tend to pay for it as seen here in Ireland. The only people who ever seem to benefit from those deals are the executives who run the companies that enter into them. The employees never see the millions of dollars in tax savings, but the employers do. So when the money runs dry as it did in Ireland, the executives are well insulated from the fallout while the employees have to deal with the results with limited resources. Is this what we want?