The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
from the so-full-of-good-ideas dept
The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest recently brought together 180 experts from around the globe at a forum concerning intellectual property issues from a public interest perspective. Together, they recently released what they're calling: The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. It's a fantastic document that basically lays out key recommendations for how policy makers should view intellectual property questions. It's such a fantastic list that you can almost certainly guarantee that policy makers will ignore it. Among the suggestions:- Valuing Openness and the Public Domain
- Strengthening Limitations and Exceptions
- Setting Public Interest Priorities for Patent Reform
- Supporting Cultural Creativity
- Checking Enforcement Excesses
- Requiring Evidence-based Policy Making
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, patents, public interest
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A radical restructuring of world economics and politics may be required
Here are some reference points:
Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control
Peak Oil, Peak Debt, And The Concentration Of Power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A radical restructuring of world economics and politics may be required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A radical restructuring of world economics and politics may be required
One of these Keys are Rupert Murdoch, who owns a considerable sum of "news" organisations and mass media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Actor-Network_Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarde
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Taken almost verbatim from here.
Thought I'd give the shills a break since they work so hard copying their bullshit over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Had my eyes rolled back almost all the way in my head until I got to the last line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
America has become static, in almost all forms of its society. It is heading for a cliff called "Destruction" and there are those who will profit heavily on its destruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians Against Public Interests
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians Against Public Interests
I wonder how much 1st Amendment protections cost to have a law circumvent it?
How about the 4th Amendment? I wonder if Congress will ever stop selling out people's rights in order to continue supporting plutocratic interests instead of their constituents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians Against Public Interests
I wrote a letter to my senators (Feinstein and Boxer) expressing my opposition to PROTECT IP. I got no response at all from Feinstein and Boxer sent me a letter back detailing her position on net neutrality.
Great to know they're actually listening to their constituents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politicians Against Public Interests
Here's the idea, a Kickstarter for $500,000, pick up a Youtube page, and ignore all the rhetorical BS that goes on in the White House.
Find ways to support your platform through smaller donations instead of the legalized bribery.
In regards to answering emails, you could do it through Youtube once a month.
Congressmen should be responsible to their constituents, not the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What document?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
What document?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL, nice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that your accounts can be frozen, you can be locked up in debtor's prison, the fact that you can be indicted on charges of copyright infringement, and you have no say in this manner, makes that quite difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And that is why they try to stop you from getting said summons in time or at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is a key statement, and the reasons why things like this fail: They aren't in the public's interest, they are in the public's short term desires.
Public interest is the longer term good, not the short term benefit. The inability to separate the two in discussion here is the reason why there is so much confusion. What you want right now isn't always what is good for you in the long run.
It's is on par with the sick kid who doesn't want to take his medicine. The short term desire is to avoid the icky tasting cough syrup. The long term interest is in taking the medicine and feeling better. Sometimes you have to accept the icky taste of something because it does you better in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it is rich greedy bastards vs the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If anyone was truly against the public, would they make the IP that the people want? Or would they just hide it all and say "f-off public, we are against you?"
Your argument is meaningless sloganism, and clearly puts you in the "short term gain" category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price. That, however, is something that the industry has been unwilling to provide, and so because of this, "unauthorized" means of distribution are able to provide what the mainstream providers refuse to give, which is a market failure on their part.
Their actions, as I have stated before, are motivated by greed, fear of change, fear of loss of control, and fear of irrelevance. And, of course, denial of those very things that motivate them. They are an industry unwilling to adapt and unwilling to service their customers in all the ways they potentially could with today's technology. And so, as long as they continue their present course of action, they will eventually collapse and be overtaken by those who do truly value the wishes of those who experience their content. It is the only logical outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the product isn't what you want, they fail. People want Lady Gaga, they want TI, and they want all that other stuff that sells really, really well. They sell what you want, because if you didn't want it, there would be no money in it.
If you are stupid enough to buy what they are selling when you don't want it, you are possibly one of the most illogical idiots around.
After that, you attempt to broad brush the public with your opinion rather than with facts, which once again shows your lack of a logical argument.
Greed isn't a functional motivation without buyers. Greed and no customers is worse than doing nothing. Clearly, they haven't made millions by selling nothing.
Would you care to try working more logically next time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure that is a good business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"After that, you attempt to broad brush the public with your opinion rather than with facts, which once again shows your lack of a logical argument."
Which was preceded by:
People want Lady Gaga, they want TI, and they want all that other stuff that sells really, really well. They sell what you want, because if you didn't want it, there would be no money in it.
Just because some people want Lady Gaga and TI, doesn't mean ALL people want them. How sad you can't figure that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many people like LGG and buy accordingly. Many do not like LGG, so they take their business elsewhere. What else is new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because I don't buy her music doesn't mean she won't be successful with others. As I see it, the AC has no logical basis for his statement. It seems to run purely on Troll logic (Trope)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that limits the time you spend on other projects...
Once I have seen a movie I tend not to watch it again.
Ok, but what about fans who watch movies 4-5 times in theaters? What about the people who purchase other goods related to a series or a movie? I like Scott Pilgrim. While I didn't pay for the books, I bought the movie and got the T-shirts. That's just one aspect I can think of right now. By no means is content the end product. There's plenty of products that can be bought for a series, a movie, book or anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the stuff people are pirating. They aren't pirating Corey Smith albums or Sita Sings the Blues. They appear want what comes out of the evil *AAs.
It isn't a broad brush, it's what is out there. No, not EVERYONE wants any one thing, but that would be a silly sort of bizarre absolute argument, wouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is illogical to make the claim that industry content is all they want when monopolists control all of the offline distribution channels and thusly, independent content has much less chance of exposure. On the more equal ground that the internet provides, however, you will find that most industry content is not as desirable as you may think.
You have provided no evidence for your claim and yet you expect it to be believed. Why? It is a most illogical assumption. What I have said is backed up by the many articles found here and which come from other stories elsewhere all around the world. Yours is not.
Whether you like it or not, the age of mass-produced subpar content is rapidly coming to a close, to be followed by an age of quality independent content unfettered by the rules and desires of a legacy industry too frightened to survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are once again making an error. I think you were trying to say "what most intelligent members of the public who agree with me want". They are intelligent because they want the same thing as you, is that right?
Everyone else is stupid?
What evidence do I have to provide? How many sales for Corey Smith or Amanda Marshall, versus how many sales for Lady Gaga? How many sales for Avatar versus sales for Sita Sings The Blues? How many torrents can you find for those artists or movies even today?
I can only go with what I can see. Do you have some sort of proof that (a) people who agree with you are intelligent, and (b) that they are a majority of some sort?
I doubt you can.
Please if you have " many articles found here and which come from other stories elsewhere all around the world", please point us to a few of them. Help us out here, your "logical" claims seem more than slightly wild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please... Stop...
That is not, by any stretch, the *only* things that people want. What you're saying is that people advocate only **AA stuff with no regards to other content.
And that, by no means is the only case. It's as if the successes of Jamendo, Kickstarter, or even the Youtube stars is severely undermined.
What about the people that "pirate" authorized content?
This is the problem with the argument as I see it and what I'm criticizing. There is no absolute argument here. It's not "oh, people only want RIAA content, and this is proven by how many people have downloaded it versus Jamendo numbers". The RIAA numbers are a part of the music industry. The MPAA makes a few movies that are a part of a whole. Same as the people of Sun Dance or the consumers that pirate material, buy it for $1 on a website, pay for access through Netflix, or make new communities through the "rogue sites" which happen to show the same content and gather around certain movies and games being shared.
People are making content and finding ways to monetize it. Some are giving it away for free. Others are building platforms such as Machinima.com for videogames. Still others have success with working with new authors to market wares. The digital universe is very complex. It can't be simplified to just **AA or nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I am saying is that, when I look at what is out there, what is in demand, what is being talked about, what is getting press coverage, what is popular on the torrent sites... I see hollywood movies, I see RIAA music, and so on. It's not all of it, but it is an incredibly large part of it (that and pr0n, to be fair).
There are segments of the market place that also visit kickstart or other music sites, but the vast majority of people still seem to want the RIAA stuff.
It isn't **AA or nothing, but you would have to be fairly blind not to see that they still have both a dominant market position and an equally dominant public mindspace position.
People aren't trying to pirate streams of Corey Smith live - they are streaming the premiere league, UFC, and things like that. It isn't because there is no market for corey smith live, just that there isn't any great public demand for it.
Again, you have to look at what people as a whole, in general, and as a group are doing, and not what individual people are doing on a given day. There is a desired product, and they are doing whatever they can to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's Corey Smith from 2006
as of 9/11 - Status 75 seeds | 8 peers
Kendra Springer on Bittorrent vs her Jamendo page, has had less success.
People fileshare for various reasons and the growth of filesharing means alternative methods of finding content.
Somehow, we're saying the same thing about products, but I just don't share the idea that the end product is the final say. I've seen arguments that some people prefer the BT method to streaming. Others have little access to the products in tangible forms. Sometimes the price is too expensive. There's a number of reasons that people want content from the **AA. But the fact that there's larger demand doesn't discount anything else from being produced despite that demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course they are, and there is an incredible number of live torrents for an small old animation movie, most other flicks just disappear.
So one can take it that you are blind to real data and just pull things out of your ass right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strange that you've never heard of this thing called 'marketting'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are they going to do? sue? didn't work, pass laws? nope that isn't working either? more enforcement? oh puleeze do so, I want to see another sharp drop in the tens of billions of dollars again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try using this statement as the crux of the IP war:
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
If you fail to understand the market then you will fail in that marketplace. The statement above is a clear cut explanation of what the customers want and if you took the time to fully understand that you would see how the infringement issues, piracy, unauthorized file sharing and all the other boogeymen could be taken care of in short order by the content creators themselves if they would just provide their content in such a way that "the public is able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price."
See what I did there? The solution is actually within their capabilities, yet they are unwilling to accept such an easy road to resolution because the concept of satisfying the customer is not something they understand.
Case in point: I bought an album X from the music group Y in the year 19XX. The musicians got paid, the music execs got paid, the distributors got paid. So why the hell does it matter to any of them if I convert MY album to a different format because I now own different hardware? Furthermore, why is it any of their business at all - it's MINE! I ALREADY PAID FOR IT! The music company and I are only connected by this transaction, which was completed years ago. Leave me ALONE so I can enjoy the music I PAID for!
If I wanted the content creation company in my life more I'd invite them over for dinner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The latest poster boy for the greed model is the movie Hurt Locker. One could say there are a good number of people who are not interested at all in this movie, and yet they have a good chance of receiving threat letters accusing them of theft. How is this giving the public what they want? I realize some folks out there are into that sort of thing and maybe they like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hello! people don't respect copyrights you already lost the control of your own "product" LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- Share with friends and relatives.
- backup what they bought.
- be able to watch it anywhere.
- pay only once but twice.
- be able to skip ads.
- be able to have a fair trial if accused of anything.
Only and idiot would call that pro-consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
- giving copies away to strangers online
- replicate it and give those away too
- never paying
- skipping what pays for the content
- hide behind and ISP if accused of anything.
(as for "watch it anywhere", you should take that up with the device companies who are unable to agree on standards for format).
Pro-consumer doesn't mean "pro-piracy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Being told how they should share something they paid for.
- Being threatened for things they paid for.
- Having their children arrested and harassed by law enforcement.
- Having to deal with copyright trolls that don't even bother to assert the guiltiness of someone.
- Having to endure ads on things they bought without the option to strip those ads from the product. Fuck will I have to watch the same old ads from the 90's in 2020?
- Loosing the ability to resell.
- Not being able to enjoy culture or even spread it, after all it is today against the law isn't it?
Yah! Only you idiot believe that is pro consumer.
That is why I don't buy plastic disks not even a T-Shirt from you creepy people. I wouldn't pay you even if you blow me, heck I wouldn't let you near my stick baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh That's funny.
Sad thing is, they expect it from you whilst they take your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lawyers and patent trolls (non-practicing entities) acquiring patents for the sake of suing those who do R&D and those who actually produce is not in the public interest.
Middlemen acquiring copy protections on the works of artists and musicians by using our broken legal system to otherwise lock them out of recognition and lock their content out of distribution through the abuse of their wrongful government established monopolies that they benefit from over cableco infrastructure and broadcasting spectra is not in the public interest.
Collection agencies deterring restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers without paying them unowed fees under the pretext that someone might infringe is not in the public interest.
IP is about letting IP holders benefit from the work of others without actually doing any work themselves. ABOLISH IP!!!! Abolish ALL government established monopolies, from taxi cab monopolies to cableco monopolies to broadcasting spectra monopolies. These laws are oppressive in nature and are designed to allow monopolists to get paid more for doing less work.
Your argument is little different than saying, "if taxi cab monopolists were not in the public interest, why do they provide the taxi cab services that people want".
The answer, these services will be provided perfectly well without such monopolies, and in greater abundance. Likewise, content and technological advancement will occur, and has occurred, perfectly fine without IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You missed including jihadists and martians in your post to get the full points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/2100 057953.shtml
"The tin foil hat brigade is powerful this weekend."
I'm not the one with a faith based opinion based on zero evidence.
Maybe if you put on your thinking cap you might be able to say something substantive, based on actual evidence, instead of simply making faith based sentences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The body, as a whole, would feel a lot better after taking the medicine.
The tongue, however, is spending a lot of energy to make the brain keep the mouth firmly shut as long as possible.
Lets hope the disease is not of the lethal variety, because the tongue is in a very influential position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IP is in the monopolists short term desire, they are in the public's short and long term detriment.
These laws exist at the efforts of lobbyists and big corporations, not at the efforts of the public.
Who are these special, private, interests to determine what's in the public interest better than the public?
The public did not choose to have century long copy protection lengths, that decision was made by selfish private entities that have way too much influence over our corrupt government. and their efforts are the same reason IP even exists to begin with. They do not exist because the public wants them, and the public is better able to determine its own best interests than lobbyists who lobby for the corporations that provide for the biggest campaign contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, IP doesn't seem to work that way. Politicians implement insanely strict IP laws with absolutely zero evidence that they do the public any good whatsoever.
Imagine if our medicine was based on such a lack of evidence. Medicine doesn't get away with faith based claims, why does IP?
and the argument that "Oh, the benefits are long term" can be said about many quack medicines that are sold at health food stores that really do you no good. In the absence of evidence, such a claim is most likely a cop out to cover the fact that there is no evidence that said medicine does any good.
"but ... but ... but ... the long term benefits!!!" Without evidence, this statement is meaningless. There is a ton of faith based quack medicine out there, and IP is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The anti-copyright people never, ever, ever want to talk about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
i mean, how can someone sit and ignore the heaps of evidence pointing to how patents/copyrights stifle innovation and creativity besides deliberately ignoring it?
you say it has been growing faster than ever, well imagine how fast it would be without these friggin' ball&chains attached to our legs, cause that's all they are, useless speedbumps and gates kept in place to control the flow of innovation
the copyright-worshipper people never, ever, ever want to talk about that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit, feels like..... SOUNDS... like shit... but it is not shit... ignore the fact that it is shit, eat it, you will like it...
about sums up the copyright/patent supporter's motto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question is "does a patent get you something faster than you would have otherwise?". Basically, patents allow for companies to invest in research, and invest in actually developing products from their patents without fear of having another company come in and swoop up their deal. It makes it so companies don't hide developments for years before releasing them, because they can't risk it.
If a patent is 20 years, and you get a whole bunch of new products 10 years sooner than you should have, is there or is there not more innovation?
You may get some blockage in the "middle ages" of a patent - but you got there so much sooner that whatever you have in short term loss is made up for the fact that you got a whole bunch of things so much sooner.
The problem is that what you see as a ball and chain is actually also a liberating device - it allows the flow of capital, the investments, and the efforts to be made with the belief in a reward at the end. Without it, would the companies be working so hard to move things forward? Would they spend million to make thousands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Patents don't allow anyone to invest in research, companies are perfectly able to invest in research without them.
"and invest in actually developing products from their patents without fear of having another company come in and swoop up their deal."
Patents have no R&D value because a company that wants to invest in a product will get a patent before investing in fear of getting sued for patent infringement after. This makes that which is patented effectively an idea that anyone can come up with, under current circumstances and with current knowledge, something that anyone else can just as well come up with. Getting a patent after conducting R&D is too risky because, by then, someone else may have gotten the patent or the patent could be rejected on grounds that someone else already has a similar patent.
People will, and have, invested in R&D without patents and will continue to do so. Patents are not the only way to fund R&D and they don't really serve to provide funding that won't occur without them. Being a first mover is advantageous without patents and there is little to no evidence, beyond hypothetical speculation and wishful thinking from patent trolls that wish to make money for doing nothing, to support the conclusion that they do. Your claims are unevidenced at best.
"It makes it so companies don't hide developments for years before releasing them, because they can't risk it."
Yet we still have trade secrets protected by law. Pepsi and Coca cola still keep their formula secretive. Microsoft has patents yet their operating system is still closed source.
A law that tells people that they can not do something doesn't do anyone any favors. It's not a form of technological transparency, it's a form of tyrannical dictatorship. Telling me that I can't build a product does me no favors, you can keep your ideas to yourself and let me and others independently come up with our own ideas.
"If a patent is 20 years, and you get a whole bunch of new products 10 years sooner than you should have, is there or is there not more innovation?"
So the most your 'refutation' amounts to is a bunch of 'if's'. The heck with evidence, the best you can do is speculate.
If innovation occurs better without patents than with them (as supported by the evidence) then we are better off without patents.
"You may get some blockage in the "middle ages" of a patent - but you got there so much sooner that whatever you have in short term loss is made up for the fact that you got a whole bunch of things so much sooner."
A faith based statement. You talk about medicine, yet medicine generally requires actual evidence, something you lack.
"'The problem is that what you see as a ball and chain is actually also a liberating device - it allows the flow of capital, the investments, and the efforts to be made with the belief in a reward at the end. "
Innovation is rewarding because it serves a need. Necessity spurs innovation, not patents. The reward is the solution to a problem that humans previously had difficulty with.
"Without it, would the companies be working so hard to move things forward? Would they spend million to make thousands?"
Again, you assume that patents help spur innovation (based on faith) and that they are the only means to spur innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, it's generally very easy to speculate wild theories based on zero evidence. I can do that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What retarded company would not launch something that would give them an age over the competition fearing that others may copy them?
It didn't happen in the industrial US revolution that mainly was all about copying others, it didn't happen until very recently in internet history, where everybody could copy anything from another website the "copy & paste" cliche didn't appear from nothing you know.
China has zero IP enforcement and somehow they grow faster than any mature market in the world, Brazil is growing, India is growing and Russia that tries to control things is not growing that fast.
Where are your facts please I want history data that shows IP benefits society as a whole because all I see is you talking out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And usually, the answer is "No." Look at the history of steam locomotives, for example. Or, look at the patent thicket that surrounds the smart phone industry today. Or compare database innovations in the U.S. (which does not have "database rights") with Europe (which does).
What you're talking about is the theory of how patents are supposed to work. But theory is not evidence, and there is a huge amount of evidence that patents hinder innovation far more than they help it.
Even aside from all that - the main question that must be asked is even if patents worked as expected, is "getting something faster than otherwise" worth the other things the public must give up in order to get it? (Admittedly, that is a bigger question when discussing copyrights rather than patents, but it still bears repeating.)
And finally, if patents do work as you've theorized, then the suggestions in this paper would make patents achieve their goals better than they do now. If you really believed what you say, then you would agree with this paper 100%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no evidence backing that statement up, and most of the evidence contradicts it. See, for instance
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
The founding fathers were very skeptical of intellectual property laws and their skepticism helped minimize IP laws in America. This helped spur technological advancement.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
Much of the tech that we take for granted occurred without IP. Tech companies have had a history of ignoring IP laws and cross licensing their patents for the sake of avoiding suing each other, or not even filing for patents, and that's largely what helped promote much of our technological advancements. Much of the tech we take for granted (ie: even simple things like copy and paste, among a lot more) were created without patents and would have been hindered if patents were allowed to interfere. The video patent absurdity talks more about that.
On the other hand, U.S. pharma hasn't advanced very much at all in the last century or so (and what advancement there is occurs in other countries and gets copied by the U.S. or it occurs from tax funded universities) and that's largely because patents have gotten in the way.
Advancement has mostly occurred in sectors where patents are lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where are most of our technological advancements now occurring? Places like China and Japan, among other places, and the U.S. later adopts those technologies. Places that aren't as strict on patents than the U.S. When I read slashdot and I read about all the newest advancements, the Slashdot articles mention the place of origin, and let me give you a hint. They're not originating from the U.S. (or if they are, it's from some tax funded university).
and tech and other advancements used to happen in the U.S. back before the U.S. was so strict on patents, thanks to the skepticism that the founding fathers held against patents and the fact that they wanted to limit their scope.
It is IP maximists that are hindering our medical and other advancements, it's openness and free sharing of data that advances technology.
You can't hide your motives. You're a lawyer. You do nothing to contribute to society. You want to make money off of the hard work of others without doing any work yourself, and that's exactly why you want IP to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/09/1627227/DoT-Grants-15M-To-Test-Car-To-Car-Communi cation
Who's funding this research? Taxpayers of course. Most U.S. based innovation occurs at taxpayer expense. Reading through articles, the U.S. private sector hardly innovates anything at all, unless it's based on innovation that was already created either at taxpayer expense or in another country.
An exception is Google, they made cars able to drive themselves everywhere practically flawlessly (with the only accidents occurring at the fault of the person that hit the automated car), no thanks to patents of course (Google doesn't have a history of initiating patent lawsuits, only perhaps counter-suing those that sue it).
http://mashable.com/2011/03/03/google-self-driving-car-video/
Where is this U.S. based innovation? It used to be in tech, back when tech patents weren't as commonly enforced, but now that U.S. patents are starting to take over tech more and more, even U.S. tech innovation is dwindling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Using but one example, I know of no member of the private sector that holds off performing R&D until a patent is in hand or an application for a patent (dometically and internationally) has been filed. This would be exactly backwards, simply because there is nothing to patent until R&D has been conducted, results are in hand, and aspects of the research examined to determine if a filing is even warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is because our system is backwards. Most patents don't even make it to product, and patent trolls get patents on ideas that they have never conducted any R&D on all the time. The fact that patent trolls do it evidences the fact that patents without R&D is warranted.
Google now regrets not having any patents not because it wants to initiate any patent infringement lawsuits against others, but because it's advantageous to have a large patent portfolio to deter others from suing you either because if you produce a product, you want to hopefully be the one with the patent on it, or because you want to find a patent to counter sue anyone who sues you.
It's too risky to conduct R&D and develop a product without first having the associated patent, because that opens the door to the possibility that you won't get the patent because someone else has the patent and they may sue you after you've invested all this time and money into R&D. Patents hardly ever have any R&D value and they usually only cover vague and general concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the definition of what comprises an invention and what types of inventions are eligible for protection under our patent law, you should take the time to read Sections 100 and 101 of Title 35.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what I've been saying, patents are obtained before R&D is conducted. They are often obtained (ie: in the case of patent trolls) without the conduction of any R&D whatsoever.
"How one can file and claim an invention that has not yet been invented eludes me entirely."
I can sit around and come up with ideas all day long, and so can anyone else. None of those ideas have any R&D value whatsoever, and obtaining patents on those ideas benefits no one.
"For the definition of what comprises an invention and what types of inventions are eligible for protection under our patent law, you should take the time to read Sections 100 and 101 of Title 35."
For an example of a bad patent, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat
http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/a rticle.aspx?id=24552&deptid=4
Lets play a game. I can come up with more examples of bad patents than you can of good patents. and please demonstrate, with evidence, that your examples of good patents have actually spurred invention and innovation and that we would be worse off without said patents.
and the argument "but it's difficult to define a good patent and to evaluate their innovative potential" is merely a criticism of the patent system. No one is entitled to a monopoly on anything and if you want a monopoly, the burden is on you to justify said monopolies. Government established monopolies cause known economic harm (ie: a loss in aggregate output). Plenty of innovation has occurred without patents and will continue to occur without them, patents should only be granted on that which will not otherwise exist. Assuming that everything deserves a patent is not an answer. If we can't evaluate their quality then we can't determine their benefit and so the alleged justification for their existence is unevidenced. Abolished them!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/08383113960/details-apples-lawsuit -against-samsung-revealed-its-even-more-ridiculous.shtml
Apple suing Samsung over the look and feel of the IPad.
It's rectangular with round edges. Rectangles have been known to man ... since man was around. And round edges, wow, what an innovation!!!
I can do this all day long. Can you come up with examples of good patents all day long (and demonstrate, with evidence, that those patents were needed for the advancement of said technologies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This points to how difficult it is to make IP an issue the average person cares about. Look at how revered Apple and Steve Jobs are, even in the tech community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Patent trolls do it.
and non-patent trolls have large patent portfolios, many of their patents are on products that never make it to market and they're on products that they have never conducted R&D on whatsoever. Having a large patent portfolio gives you settlement negotiation leverage (in case someone wants to sue you for infringement, you can find something to sue them for), and it protects you against lawsuits in hopes that you have the associated patent on whatever it is you produce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442
The results and conclusions drawn by author will likely surprise you, as they did the author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and patent trolls are ... lawyers.
So who does patent trolls benefit? Lawyers. It's no surprise that lawyers would come to conclusions that are beneficial to them.
"as they did the author."
A more likely scenario is that the author preconcluded that which is in his own best interest.
While his resume is impressive, he does seem to have a conflict of interest here as well
"was a partner at intellectual property boutique Russo & Hale LLP in Palo Alto, California."
http://www.law.villanova.edu/Our%20Faculty/Faculty%20Profiles/Michael%20Risch.aspx
Reading through the article, the article doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever that patents promote the progress.
Here is an example of what it does say, things that we mostly already know.
"NPE's create patent markets, and that those markets enhance investment in star-up companies by providing additional liquidity options"
The purpose of patents isn't to create patent markets, it's to promote technological advancement. That resources are being wasted on patent markets, especially on non-practicing entities that provide for absolutely no innovation, diverts resources away from actual innovation.
"NPE's help businesses crushed by larger competitors who infringe valid patents with impunity"
Which says nothing about how much patents promote the progress. A patent is 'valid' because the USPTO grants it, which says nothing about the actual quality of the patent in terms of its effect on promoting the progress.
Chances are the big business didn't even see the patent, why would they willfully infringe on a patent when they know the consequences are high? They probably independently came up with their products without the help of patent troll owned patents (patents that the troll isn't even creating a product for).
"NPE's allow individual inventors to monetize their inventions"
Which is not the purpose of patents, the purpose is to promote technological advancement. No one is entitled to a patent, and chances are that others will not willfully infringe on a patent (knowing the consequences of infringement) and have likely independently come up with similar ideas. IOW, the patents have zero R&D value, these 'inventors' that get patents aren't special, they are coming up with ideas that others are likely able to independently invent. Why should we reward those that do nothing (beyond thinking up things that they can restrict others from doing) and punish those that actually innovate and bring products to market?
Again, telling me that I can't do something (without paying you) doesn't do me any favors and it does no one any favors. It only helps the dictator telling others what to do. In order to tell others what to do, you must disclose to them your wishes. That's not a form of transparency, and I'm not fooled into thinking it is, it's a form of authority.
"Fifth, very few of the companies supplying patents to NPE's are out of business; instead, most came from productive companies (and most of those continue to operate)."
So why are productive companies wasting resources on obtaining and selling patents when those patents are supposed to be about using patents to help the company produce products.
"any startup holding a patent is much more likely to receive funding than a company without patents, and the increased probability is at least possible that NPE's contribute to that difference."
"at least possible" translation "this is unevidenced, unsubstantiated speculation."
and no one doubts the monetary value of patents. Otherwise, patent trolls wouldn't have them. Having a government established monopoly is monetarily valuable. But that's not the question here, the question here is, do they spur innovation and where is the evidence? The article doesn't seem to address this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your post you assert:
Which says nothing about how much patents promote the progress.
Perhaps you can explain to me in some level of detail what you mean by "promote the progress", i.e., what does "promote" mean, what does "progress" mean, and what does their juxtaposition as a phrase mean? Such definitions would be a good start to a useful discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the constitution, it's right there. To promote the progress of the sciences and the arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The phrase is thrown around this site quite often, but those who use it have not provided a clear definition of what it means to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The phrase has been on the receiving end of much scholarly debate, virtually all of which is likely unknown to the public at large. I have read many of these over the years, and from this I have come to realize that the phrase does not admit to an answer limited to "understand[ing] basic English".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only by IP maximists who wish it to mean something that it doesn't really mean.
"virtually all of which is likely unknown to the public at large."
Because the public at large simply interprets it for what it means.
"I have read many of these over the years, and from this I have come to realize that the phrase does not admit to an answer limited to "understand[ing] basic English"."
It may not mean what you want it to mean, but its meaning is easy to understand by anyone who speaks basic English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any examples of good patents that you would like to discuss, and to provide for evidence that said patents were needed?
If patents are so beneficial to technological advancement, it should be easy for you to bring forth examples.
When it comes down to it, what you have is nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have been visiting (and posting on) techdirt (and other blogs/forums) for many years now, and I have yet to see any reasonable, evidenced based, pro-IP defense or any reasonable refutation of IP criticisms. If one existed, surely it would have been presented by now. It is reasonable for me to conclude that one hasn't been presented because none exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are many who wax poetic about the benefits of patents, and proclaim that patents are the driver of our "economic engine".
Experience informs me that both extremes are plainly wrong. The answer lies between these extreme positions, and whether or not a patent may confer a meaningful benefit requires a case-by-case analysis that is fact dependent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110824/14531015667/justice-department-to-protect-pharma-pr ofits-well-just-take-money-google.shtml
They punish the successful and innovative (Google) to help out the least innovative failures (big pharma).
This is why the U.S. is failing. We punish innovation and success to reward failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
- And to finish your twisted thought process ... correlation equals causation, we all know that is what you were implying.
"More discoveries, more advancements, more true innovation."
- And this golden age of prosperity is solely due to the existence of extended copyright and patents, excuse me whilst I go barf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wouldn't be the only evidence you need because it assumes that correlation equals causation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Use of the law against piracy provokes severe losses to the music industry, that is the only proof we need to see that piracy is good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As an aside, a lot of verbage is spent on the short-sidedness of corporate officers and their appointed officers. They only consider the next quarter's results. We haven't found a solution for that either.
Same problem, different social groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lockheed stole the ideas from physicist Pyotr Ufimtsev in 1962 titled Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, Soviet Radio, Moscow, 1962. and used to create the first ever stealth bomber in the world.
What is that again about IP being the cornerstone of technological advancement?
If that was true countries wouldn't spend billions of dollars spying on each other now would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if the US falls
The depression to follow will make the great depression look like a kid thats been told to go bedtime.
Now that the US is in debt for more than the entire value of the planet and just continues to pump out dollars endlessly the problem will not just go away.
Currently short of ending the entire system and starting over with something else (something those in power absolutely oppose with every fibre of their being) there is no way to avoid the fall.
You can't buy your way out of the end (democrats) and you can't downsize your way out of it (republicans) and you sure as hell can't batshit-crazy your way out of it (Tea Party).)
The inescapable fact is the US within a very short period of time is about to see the most cataclysmic and catastrophic upheavals it has ever seen.
Something to dwarf the War of Independence AND the civil war in scale as every single financial facet of life is obliterated overnight.
After all, who's gonna want to buy a bigger TV or DVD or album when its a day to day struggle just to get something to eat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if the US falls
Totally agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if the US falls
Steven Leavitt claims otherwise (and I think your claim just drastically fails the smell test):
http://moderndragons.blogspot.com/2008/06/our-national-debt-1200th-of-everything.html
D o you have any reference for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then nobody's going care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a suggestion
IP laws are not a priority to me. But world economic conditions and sustainability are. I'm hoping some of you guys who want to eliminate IP laws will take that passion into the political and economic realms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a suggestion
If you want to change the laws dictating how campaigns can be financed or politicians elected, but don't have a lot of money to hand over to politicians, then either change the laws that... hang on, I see a problem with this plan...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore the Politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignore the Politicians
Agreed, but only to a certain point. For example, it is rather difficult to ignore the Intellectual Police busting down your door, confiscating your belongings, etc. This is all done without a warrant or even any credible evidence of wrong doing. It is all based upon an accusation.
What a future we have to look forward to, huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
"patent reform"
Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is.
The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??
Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. The bill will make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help fight this bill should contact us as below.
Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors. Congress tinkering with patent law while gagging inventors is like a surgeon operating before examining the patient.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America."
Yet I'm the one with the tin foil hat, right?
Do you honestly believe half of the nonsense that you claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: another biased article
He's paid to believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not unless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]