I'm sorry, but the ignorance expressed in this thread by some is absolutely astounding. Per mile, truckers drive far more safely than the typical driver. Just to put things in immediate perspective.

Beyond that, though, some people here are spending a whole lot more time blaming the drivers for the inevitable lapses in safety that occur when you're driving thousands of miles a week. Of course, it's definitely more comfortable to do that than consider the systemic reasons that happens, and your own role in it.

Goods have to be transported. The almighty market demands that. Which is to say, you demand it. So various companies have sprung up for centuries to transport those goods. These companies compete to lower costs as much as possible. If they don't, they're driven out of business, because stores know consumers prefer something to be a nickel cheaper even if it's bad for the environment, the truckers, and other nearby drivers. If a price is higher, companies choose to go with the trucking company that offers the cheaper price, because consumers like their nickel.

The way we've set up the system incorporates the public safety dangers into the price, via lawsuits etc., and the way we like it is to essentially demand that companies force drivers to drive the hell out of their trucks and their lives. We like our fucking nickels. At least more than any safety concerns.

Some here have said "well if the job is hard, then quit it!" Wow. Do you think people don't do this? Do you think that changes the market equilibrium at all? It doesn't. Whoever replaces him or her will drive under the same demands and incentives, and will on average respond the same way to those demands and incentives. No benefit.

I've seen also some victim blaming in saying "well if the job is hard, ask for a raise or get a union!" Interesting story there. Back in the mid-20th century, trucking was one of the most heavily unionized industries, via the IBT primarily. However, in the 80s and 90s, various Republican and Democratic administrations collaborated with trucking companies to make war on the unions. Originally truckers were employed directly by the companies, but eventually those companies realized they could react to unionization by outsourcing truckers, either into private shell companies that closed down as soon as unionization hit or by hiring truckers as contractors. Various NLRB boards aided and abetted this regulatory change.

The ruling elite (of which we are all part) largely cheered this on, because those greedy truckers are stupid and uneducated and don't deserve to make as much as us hardworking educated intelligent people, masters of the universe that we are.

So, we got our way! And our nickel. Drivers ended up atomized and could not collectively bargain against the buyers of their labor, decently-sized companies who had monopsony power in the trucker marketplace. So everyone ends up driven to the least common denominator.

If you want a better system, fight for it. Moreover, vote for it. Otherwise when some trucker nearly drives you off the road because they have to feed their family, you're just getting what you paid for.

It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident?

His arguments here are just so disingenuous.

"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK."

Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition.

"It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?"

Yes, because Google isn't using an artificial barrier (the patent system). And because those patents are bogus. Because most, if not all, software patents are bogus. That's pretty clearly Google's stated position.

"First, the “estimate” of $1 billion was partially set by Google itself."

But there's no denying that this is by several times the largest amount ever paid for a patent portfolio.

"They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself, simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s competitors."

Yes they are arguing against the patent system, at least for software, as do many in the industry. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

"Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?"

This argument betrays either a very weak understanding of how defensive patents work or a deep dishonesty of argumentation. Maybe both. This argument can be applied to the very idea of defensive patents.

It's conflicting that someone who's so obviously intelligent and often terribly insightful (not to mention witty) can be so willfully dishonest.

I'm going to back to only reading Gruber's writing on Apple, and ignoring his writing on anything else.