There was a law from 1801 -- when Switzerland did not exist, and the region was annexed by Napoléon. After the Fall of Napoleon, two Cantons, Tessin and Solothurn, kept the patent law, and they were ditched 1848 as Switzerland became a Nation.
And another one, a "real" patent law, came 1888. There was quite a big discussion about it, if you read german, here's some sources:
This is NOT about property. Patents are NOT property. Patents are not even a license do do something, but a license to KEEP SOMEBODY ELSE FROM DOING IT.
Translated to property, it gets totally absurd. It's not like owning a house, but having the right to throw out anyone wanting to live in it. And since there are hundreds of other patents, held by other people, each and every one of those have the same right to throw out anyone wanting to live in that house.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with property, instead it's nothing more than an acquirable RIGHT OF SPITE.
Market is market. And book prices are totally out of the roof, with no basis in reality.
The only market where prices seem to reflect some reality is actually computer games. Take a look at steam or gog.com, and you'll see how much the market is working. And the prices are NOT what every publisher think they should be. But so is the amount of goods sold -- higher than anyone would expect.
And I'm a typical "victim" of that market -- I've got more games than I ever might play. Still, they were cheap... The same could be true for the book or movie market IF they would price them right. I simply would buy more than I could ever read or watch.
I'm completely baffled why _law enforcement agencies_ are backing these hare-brained schemes.
Any forensic technician can tell you, that with such malware on a computer, you've got a broken chain of evidence. You cannot prove anymore that the user of that computer was actually committing a crime. It could just as well been perpetrated by the agent controlling the malware.
So any government installed malware is completely, utterly, unusable for law enforcement purposes.
Of course, intelligence agencies give a damn about any chains of evidence; so they might like it.
s/should/can/ It's impossible to copyright facts.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
there is no category "information" there. And as long as you don't enact any stupid "Leistungsschutzrecht", there is no way that there CAN be any rights on it.
I wouldn't say Obama; he's certainly one of the bigger enemies of the people of the United States; but there's a whole lot of bureaucrats, policy-makers and people in the government (and people formerly in the government) that qualify just as much. Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger come to mind..
Of course none of these countries have any right to finger-wagging. But neither has the USA and its president Obama Bush (you know, new Bush, same as old Bush).
But there are people that have every right to criticize the USA, and foremost are its own citizens. And people from wherever else they are -- its not that they don't realise their own government is up to no good, and they criticise this as well, but having a government on your own that just produces fascist shite doesn't change the fact that the US-government does fascist shite as well, and even tries to export it all over the world.
Freedom DEPENDS on Security. YOUR Security from interference by rogue actors. And in this case your state is taking away your security and your freedom and has become the biggest rogue actor itself.
Yes, just about every measure goes into the right direction. However, the real problems aren't tackled at all.
a) Patents on mathematics. It's still possible to patent mathematical algorithms, called "software" to muddle the case. These are completely illegal already BUT the patent office and patent lawyers have defined pi=3 to justify them. In other words: The mathematical (and computer science) definition of algorithm is totally different than that of lawyers, courts and the patent office. And the lawyers, courts and patent office just don't get it that their definition is wrong unscientific bogus. Somebody would need to fix that, even if it would mean to insert a definition that "software is mathematics" into law. *sigh*
b) patents on things were prior art is provided by nature, or by somebody else who didn't patent it. This includes a lot of patents on gene-sequences. While it may take a lot of work to re-create bacterial DNA sequences, these very same sequences already exist in the bacteria, and are therefore in no way novel. Patent offices neither check whether something already exists in nature, nor whether something was used or published long time ago, but not subject to any patent. This leads to (apart from being an illegal patent on mathematics anyway) absurd things like "slide to unlock", which happens to be invented in the bronze age (are maybe even the stone age): http://seegras.ch/patents-on-bronze-age-technology/ This issue is rather more difficult to fix than the mathematics one.
There's some more issues, like the lumping of trademarks, copyrights and patents together, and ending up with bans on imports of technology which /might/ violate patents, but which were meant to be used against counterfeit (=violating trademarks) goods.
And of course this is also not conclusive, looming in the back is the big question itself: Is it worth all the effort and wasted energy only to grant _monopolies_?
Because, as the Economist already noted in 1851: "the granting patents “inflames cupidity,” excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits, bestows rewards on the wrong persons, makes men ruin themselves for the sake of getting the privileges of a patent. Patents are like lotteries, in which there are a few prizes and a great many blanks. Comprehensive patents are taken out by some parties, for the purpose of stopping inventions, or appropriating the fruits of the inventions of others, &c. Such Consequences, more resembling the smuggling and fraud caused by an ill-advised tax than anything else, cause a strong suspicion. that the principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just."
And actually, that is the final word about the patent system. That abomination needs to be abolished, as it should have been in 1851 already.
I presume you wanted to say "Fuck Washington and fuck Jefferson" as well. And especially "Fuck Benjamin Franklin", because he was the one publishing all those stories about the British abusing their power?
In a Democracy, "We the People" are the topmost ruler. And somebody leaking government secrets to the People can not be a traitor.
Yes, some adversaries of the People now know the secrets too, but that still does not mean the whistleblower is a traitor.
On the post: Discussions On The Abolition Of Patents In The UK, France, Germany And The Netherlands, From 1869
Re: "Alternate History" ????
And another one, a "real" patent law, came 1888. There was quite a big discussion about it, if you read german, here's some sources:
http://dlib-pr.mpier.mpg.de/m/kleioc/0010/exec/books/%22160510%22 -- The president of the Swiss industrial union (that's not a labourers union, but a union of industry giants) argues AGAINST Patents.
http://dlib-pr.mpier.mpg.de/m/kleioc/0010/exec/books/%22102203%22 -- official report, arguing against.
http://dlib-pr.mpier.mpg.de/m/kleioc/0010/exec/books/%22171854%22 -- A Professor on history and the new law. Rather level and not taking a position.
On the post: Do You Trust The Government Or Journalists More To Determine If Snowden's Docs Are Safe To Publish?
We can't trust the government, obviously
It's quite clear that the government (= the executive branch) needs to be held in check, and if parliaments can't do it, the public must.
Bureaucracy isn't just an organizational structure, it can be a form of government too, and it's one that's NOT compatible with democracy.
On the post: US Ambassador To The UN Says WIPO Too Biased Against IP Holders
Re:
Translated to property, it gets totally absurd. It's not like owning a house, but having the right to throw out anyone wanting to live in it. And since there are hundreds of other patents, held by other people, each and every one of those have the same right to throw out anyone wanting to live in that house.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with property, instead it's nothing more than an acquirable RIGHT OF SPITE.
On the post: There Is No 'True' Price For Anything
Amazon is a Monster. But..
The only market where prices seem to reflect some reality is actually computer games. Take a look at steam or gog.com, and you'll see how much the market is working. And the prices are NOT what every publisher think they should be. But so is the amount of goods sold -- higher than anyone would expect.
And I'm a typical "victim" of that market -- I've got more games than I ever might play. Still, they were cheap... The same could be true for the book or movie market IF they would price them right. I simply would buy more than I could ever read or watch.
On the post: Leaked EU Policy Papers Show TAFTA/TTIP's Huge Challenges -- And Some Subtle Signals
Re: Wow
The situation in the USA seems to be about the same, in that respect...
On the post: Leaked EU Policy Papers Show TAFTA/TTIP's Huge Challenges -- And Some Subtle Signals
Re: Re: who the fuck runs the eu?
But the EU is not run by any experts with any scientific background.
On the post: Clueless Spanish Politicians Want To Join The Government Malware Club
Broken chain of evidence
Any forensic technician can tell you, that with such malware on a computer, you've got a broken chain of evidence. You cannot prove anymore that the user of that computer was actually committing a crime. It could just as well been perpetrated by the agent controlling the malware.
So any government installed malware is completely, utterly, unusable for law enforcement purposes.
Of course, intelligence agencies give a damn about any chains of evidence; so they might like it.
On the post: American Bankers' Association Claims Routing Numbers Are Copyrighted
Re:
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
there is no category "information" there. And as long as you don't enact any stupid "Leistungsschutzrecht", there is no way that there CAN be any rights on it.
On the post: Patent Court Stands By Its Claim That Adding 'On The Internet' Can Make An Abstract Idea Patentable
Ah, the good old Moby Dick Support Device
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/the-moby-dick-support-device/
On the post: Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage By US Government
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage By US Government
Re:
On the post: Senators Introduce Bill To End Secret Law That Enabled NSA Surveillance
There are no secret laws
On the post: NSA Spying Revelations Start To Cause Outrage In Europe; China Next?
Re: Not worth it.
Of course none of these countries have any right to finger-wagging. But neither has the USA and its president Obama Bush (you know, new Bush, same as old Bush).
But there are people that have every right to criticize the USA, and foremost are its own citizens. And people from wherever else they are -- its not that they don't realise their own government is up to no good, and they criticise this as well, but having a government on your own that just produces fascist shite doesn't change the fact that the US-government does fascist shite as well, and even tries to export it all over the world.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Maps Aren't Just An App On Your Phone
Game Rules
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
On the post: Help Explain Why Phone Unlocking Is Important To You And Why It Should Be Legal
I unlocked my phone
On the post: Leaked Document Shows The NSA Is Harvesting Call Data On Millions Of Verizon Subscribers
Re: Re: Ay yay yay
On the post: Leaked Document Shows The NSA Is Harvesting Call Data On Millions Of Verizon Subscribers
Re:
Freedom DEPENDS on Security. YOUR Security from interference by rogue actors. And in this case your state is taking away your security and your freedom and has become the biggest rogue actor itself.
On the post: President Obama Comes Out Strongly Against Patent Trolls; Here Are The Details
Patch Politics
a) Patents on mathematics. It's still possible to patent mathematical algorithms, called "software" to muddle the case. These are completely illegal already BUT the patent office and patent lawyers have defined pi=3 to justify them. In other words: The mathematical (and computer science) definition of algorithm is totally different than that of lawyers, courts and the patent office. And the lawyers, courts and patent office just don't get it that their definition is wrong unscientific bogus. Somebody would need to fix that, even if it would mean to insert a definition that "software is mathematics" into law. *sigh*
b) patents on things were prior art is provided by nature, or by somebody else who didn't patent it. This includes a lot of patents on gene-sequences. While it may take a lot of work to re-create bacterial DNA sequences, these very same sequences already exist in the bacteria, and are therefore in no way novel. Patent offices neither check whether something already exists in nature, nor whether something was used or published long time ago, but not subject to any patent. This leads to (apart from being an illegal patent on mathematics anyway) absurd things like "slide to unlock", which happens to be invented in the bronze age (are maybe even the stone age): http://seegras.ch/patents-on-bronze-age-technology/ This issue is rather more difficult to fix than the mathematics one.
There's some more issues, like the lumping of trademarks, copyrights and patents together, and ending up with bans on imports of technology which /might/ violate patents, but which were meant to be used against counterfeit (=violating trademarks) goods.
And of course this is also not conclusive, looming in the back is the big question itself: Is it worth all the effort and wasted energy only to grant _monopolies_?
Because, as the Economist already noted in 1851: "the granting patents “inflames cupidity,” excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits, bestows rewards on the wrong persons, makes men ruin themselves for the sake of getting the privileges of a patent. Patents are like lotteries, in which there are a few prizes and a great many blanks. Comprehensive patents are taken out by some parties, for the purpose of stopping inventions, or appropriating the fruits of the inventions of others, &c. Such Consequences, more resembling the smuggling and fraud caused by an ill-advised tax than anything else, cause a strong suspicion. that the principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just."
And actually, that is the final word about the patent system. That abomination needs to be abolished, as it should have been in 1851 already.
On the post: Crowdfunded Stenographer Denied Press Pass To Cover Transcriptless Bradley Manning Trial
Re: Re: Assange statement
In a Democracy, "We the People" are the topmost ruler. And somebody leaking government secrets to the People can not be a traitor.
Yes, some adversaries of the People now know the secrets too, but that still does not mean the whistleblower is a traitor.
On the post: IP Commission: Cut Off WHO Funding If It Doesn't Make IP Protection Priority One
Re:
Next >>