The article makes several references to "licensing" and "pricing." These are euphemisms for shakedowns.
Patent trolls shakedown developers with patents that never should have existed in the first place. Why should a developer have to pay ANYTHING to a patent troll? Why should a developer have pay ANYTHING to defend themselves against a patent troll?
The only solution is to eliminate software patents. Entirely.
Capitalism also means DDT, which kills mosquitoes that are vectors for malaria. However, statist intervention bans DDT and allows mosquito populations to thrive, thus killing large numbers of people in places like Gambia where...wait a minute! Places like Gambia where malaria rates are in free-fall! And why? Because of the use of insecticide treated netting...(kinda makes you wonder what kind of drop in malaria rates could be achieved through DDT, huh?)
So, socialism and enviro-wacko statist intervention gets people killed by malaria through bans on insecticides, which turn out to be the most effective counters to malaria.
My impression is that EA has some great creative talent, but that the business management function is entrusted to people who have honesty and competence issues.
One of the big problems with American business is the focus on academic credentials, particularly with regard to "soft skills" (no skills?) in areas such as management. You will not learn management in a classroom. Furthermore, if you can't grasp the fundamentals of what you are supposedly managing, then you are just in the way.
The path ought to be:
Become an engineer -> Become a high-performing engineer -> Get some business education -> Do management
If you can't handle the engineering phases, why on earth should anybody put you in a decision-making position in an engineer endeavor?
While the practice should not be barred, it is unproductive for universities to offer "management" degrees at the undergraduate level, unless such degrees require the demonstration of significant prior work experience. Graduate management programs should not accept twentysomethings arriving straight from undergraduate programs.
"...don't focus on those with big-business credentials who may be accustomed to having a lot of rules to follow."
This is EXACTLY the kind of rule that a big business uses. It involves no judgement, no thinking, no consideration of the individual situation being addressed.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
Freelancers are a good bet for small companies and also for side-projects. All Hail the Freelancers. But that rule about candidates who worked at a large business is not reasonable.
Good ole socialist wealth envy class warfare blah blah blah.
Wealth is produced. If there were a fixed amount of it, we'd all still be nomadic hunter-gatherers. Therefore, the gain of wealth is NOT a zero sum game. When some CEO (good, bad, or hopelessly incompetent) makes 14 bazillion dollars, that does nothing whatsoever to take anything from you. You don't need to worry about what that CEO makes. You need to worry about what YOU make.
Consider the White House Chief Calligrapher makes $96,725 per year. What a complete and utter waste of tax money. If it were not for the fact that its our tax money, it wouldn't matter a hill of beans. If Microsoft or Apple wanted to hire a Chief Calligrapher at $96,725 or $967,250 it wouldn't matter a hill of beans except to the shareholders of each company who might not think such an expenditure is going to pay off all that well.
Interesting that they don't just move somewhere else. In any case, lower your taxes, reduce state and municipal spending, and reduce state regulation of business. A federal repeal of PPACA would also be very helpful. I can't imagine living in California.
Anything that uses the term "denialists" is just AGW cult propaganda. What climate change there is is a natural process we are unable to significantly speed up or slow down. By the way, has Mann stopped falsely claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner yet?
The government of the United States is divided into three branches: executive, judicial, and legislative. Federal laws require either the agreement of the legislative and executive branches, or overwhelming support within the legislative branch alone. (A president can sign a bill passed by both houses of congress or he can veto it. A veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of congress.)
Therefore, petitioning the White House for a law is ineffective and reflects a lack of understanding of constitutional government in the United States. Instead, try contacting your congressional representative or one of your senators.
Government handouts of taxpayer money only creates dependency. If you wish to give money to the poor, then give YOUR money to the poor. Do not vote to have government give your neighbor's money to the poor. Your neighbor's money does not belong to you. When you vote for politicians who favor government handouts of taxpayer money, then you are acting as a thief who lacks the courage to perform the act of robbery himself. Socialism is therefore simply a cowardly form of theft.
The minimum wage, however, while not theft, is a destroyer of jobs. The minimum wage increases unemployment. Raising it, further increases unemployment. Additionally, you are telling people under what terms they may enter into voluntary business arrangements with each other, which is none of your concern. You have no natural right to direct the affairs of others.
Raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. Additionally, having any minimum wage at all increases unemployment. On top of the unemployment problem, a minimum wage is an intrusion into the rights of the individual to voluntarily enter into business with others.
Wha-huh? Of course not. Neither is 35, 45, 55... I plan to work until I'm at least 80, if I live that long. I was still playing in the Army at 25. Take a look at MIT's Open Course Wear videos for Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs - half the class looks past 30 and some have gray hair. Go for it.
The article makes several references to "licensing" and "pricing." These are euphemisms for shakedowns.
Patent trolls shakedown developers with patents that never should have existed in the first place. Why should a developer have to pay ANYTHING to a patent troll? Why should a developer have pay ANYTHING to defend themselves against a patent troll?
The only solution is to eliminate software patents. Entirely.