<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for White House and enviros amp up efforts to pass climate bill in House]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by setb http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-18-climate-bill-ad-blitz/ Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:02:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-18-climate-bill-ad-blitz/1 Can it really be considered an all out blitz when it includes the major caveat of strengthen? What if Congress don't strengthen it--then what?

 

]]> Can it really be considered an all out blitz when it includes the major caveat of strengthen? What if Congress don't strengthen it--then what?

 

]]> Comment #2 by Global Changes http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-18-climate-bill-ad-blitz/ Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:56:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-18-climate-bill-ad-blitz/2 If they dont it will be their undoing. The foundations of American lifestyle has to radically change if we are going to get out of seveare climate change. The land has been consumed a much has and still is wasted or wasteful.

]]> If they dont it will be their undoing. The foundations of American lifestyle has to radically change if we are going to get out of seveare climate change. The land has been consumed a much has and still is wasted or wasteful.

]]> Comment #3 by Edwin Y. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-18-climate-bill-ad-blitz/ Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:34:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-18-climate-bill-ad-blitz/3 Unfortunately, that is a messy one. It is easy to suggest(and very likely desireable) that bills not include bundling to sneak things through. However, since it is strategically desirable to do so in many cases, you would actually have to prohibit the practice to keep it from happening. Trying to draft a workable definition of "about something, and only about something" that excludes abuses without excluding legitimate conduct, and doesn't rely on "good faith"(a commodity known to be in short supply near most legislative chambers) is virtually impossible.

In a case like this, it would be trivial to argue that, since technology is almost certainly a component of any viable response to climate change plus all of the fossil fuels, and all of those machine which uses oil even in the hike of oil prices, and since IP is arguably connected with technological development, IP protection is arguably related. If you are subtle enough, you could easily slip in broad enough wording that your climate change bill has ramifications for all kinds of IP, while ostensibly remaining "on topic".

It might be possible, and would certainly be desirable, to curb the worst abuses; but there is essentially no way to attack the (large) grey area.

]]> Unfortunately, that is a messy one. It is easy to suggest(and very likely desireable) that bills not include bundling to sneak things through. However, since it is strategically desirable to do so in many cases, you would actually have to prohibit the practice to keep it from happening. Trying to draft a workable definition of "about something, and only about something" that excludes abuses without excluding legitimate conduct, and doesn't rely on "good faith"(a commodity known to be in short supply near most legislative chambers) is virtually impossible.

In a case like this, it would be trivial to argue that, since technology is almost certainly a component of any viable response to climate change plus all of the fossil fuels, and all of those machine which uses oil even in the hike of oil prices, and since IP is arguably connected with technological development, IP protection is arguably related. If you are subtle enough, you could easily slip in broad enough wording that your climate change bill has ramifications for all kinds of IP, while ostensibly remaining "on topic".

It might be possible, and would certainly be desirable, to curb the worst abuses; but there is essentially no way to attack the (large) grey area.

]]>