As I wrote to Masur a while back, "I'm a patent attorney, and also a libertarian opponent of patents and copyright in general. As I noted in my post, I thought of a parallel to how the FDA tends to be risk-averse in their drug approval decisions. Not sure if it's exactly the same but I see some parallels."
This is nonsense. Why not commit to stop using DMCA and the copyright system to censor your competition? So you will only use copyright and state censorship sometimes? How generous and noble of you.
Great post, and only one quibble: you say that this is an example of how copyright is abused. But it's not abuse. This is a natural result of having state grants of monopoly privilege over ideas, and administered by various bureaucratic state agencies/procedures. It's not abuse at all. This is like SOPA: the problem is that that it goes "too far" in protecting copyright. The problem is copyright itself. SOPA, and DMCA takedowns, are just a symptom. Copyright is the disease.
Mike, you write: "Keep the rates as they are, and they're violating antitrust rules by charging too much. Cut the prices or free up some of the patents, and it's an antitrust issue for leveraging their position and "dumping" in the market."
As others have pointed out, under antitrust law, if you charge a low price, you can be charged with monopolization by predatory price cutting. If you charge the same as others, you can be charged with collusion. If you charge a high price, it's a monopoly price that you can only charge because you have achieved a monopoly position. Damned no matter what you do.
I have no obligation to add to the injury your statist system does to me, by refraining from using roads etc. If anything you statists ought to refrain from using them, as it's your fault they exist. It's sad that you are so upset by someone like me just b/c I am unwilling to commit or condone aggression against you and your family. Sad.
And Sean Gabb, a friend of mine in England is head of the Libertarian Alliance, and is quite as mad as I am, I assure you.
We don't need an FDA (federal death administrtation) at all. The reason we have patents is the people are so confused about the nature of the federal governemtn and legislation. Get rid of the FDA AND patents.
I wonder if Google's officers and managers have any choice in this matter. If you are sitting on a pool of patents that, if used offensively, could garner google billions of dollars, don't the directors and officers have a fidiciary responsibility to the shareholders to pursue it? I would imagine they could risk a lawsuit if they left some money on the table. Unless they adopt an explicit corporate policy about this and justify it on some kind of PR grounds?
"The re is a fascinating paper published in 1884 by James C. Carter, The Proposed Codification of Our Common Law: A Paper Prepared at the Request of The Committee of the Bar Association of the City of New York, Appointed to Oppose the Measure. This paper was an attack on David Dudley Field’s attempt to (legislatively) codify New York’s common law. Carter opposed replacing case law with centralized legislation. Carter notes that caselaw precedents are flexible and allow the judge to do justice (see also John Hasnas’s classic The Myth of the Rule of Law), while statutes are applied literally, even where injustice is done or the legislator did not contemplate this result. Thus, Carter argues, one of the worst effects of legislatively codifying law–replacing organically developed law with artificial statutes–is that it changes the role of courts and judges from one in which the judge searches for justice into mere squabbles over definitions of words found in statutes. As he said at pp. 86-86:
" At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle!
You are the one oppressing me, and getting your way. You and your kind steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from me every year. You are my biggest enemy. At least a robber or mafia does not pretend not to be my enemy. they have more honor. As Lysander Spooner observed.
"Then you are left with oligarchies, monarchies, and the like."
We have oligarchies now due to IP law and your beloved criminal state, and the modern democratic state is worse than monarchy was.
I didn't reject it, yet you and your statist ilk tax and regulate me. So you can kindly go to hell. I'll "get over it" when you leave me the eff alone. In the meantime, as long as you and your ilk allow me to bitch about it, I'll bitch about it, while funding your effing cruise missiles, son.
Re: Maybe we should enforce the laws we already have
"Maybe we should enforce the laws we already have". No, we should not. MOst state laws are artificial and unjust. It is better that they not be enforced, e.g. tax law, IP, drug law, minimum wage, and so on.
" That means there is a genuine case for legislation that helps protect consumers against such health and safety dangers."
No legislation protects consumers; it is all statist and socialist and immoral. Legislation is not the way to make law.
No, you are wrong: "Except, the 19th & 20th century proved, already, that not all forces should be left au naturale. " -- facts do not imply any shoulds at all. Check out Hume's explanation of the is-ought gap. To come up with a should, you have to rest it on some other value that is being introduced into the discussion. And you are simply wrong. The state is always the problem.
Instead of raising software costs on the third world, another approach would be to get rid of copyright here. That would also level the playing field. The same is true of every other regulation mentioned, such as minimum wage and safety etc. Let the market handle it. The state only destroys. It's never here to help us.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
Yes, because I have principles and believe in property rights and talk about things realistically and coherently. You act faux-shocked that some people are actually anti-state and libertarians and have principles. Shirley, you have encountered such people before.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
"Oh, I don't know. How about I raise some cows, milk them, and sell the milk, but to get a little better price I add a little melamine, to make the milk test like it has higher protein content? The state has no right to stop me from doing it? I'm not violating people's rights? Take it or leave it?"
As long as you disclose it it's not a violation of rights. If you fail to it could be fraud or some other tort.
"Okay, that example is a little over the top, but I think it very clearly establishes that the state certainly does have a right to tell you to stop doing certain things."
No it does not. In fact the state is criminal and the only thing it has a right to do is disband. In any case, at most, the state ought to enforce only laws that prohibit action that actually violates individual property rights.
" There are numerous safety-related regulation about what you must do or must not do in making your product."
They are all illegitimate.
"There are implied warranty and fitness for purpose laws, that tell you what you must do or must not do when making your product."
Yes, and slavery was also legal at one point. What the law is does not prove what it should be.
"DRM prohibition would be related to the laws about products being fit for purpose. DRM prevents things like making backup copies, moving files from one device to another -- things which a reasonable person would expect to be able to do with the products. In hardware it prevents some kinds of customizations or repurposing that ought to be routinely possible. So the state has a good reason to protect individual buyers' rights by prohibiting DRM. If you don't want to produce a DRM-free product, that's not violating your rights. Take it or leave it. (How does it feel to be on the other side of that?)"
It is violating your rights. State force is being aimed at someone to threaten then to refrain from peaceful conduct that does not violate anyone's rights. It's pure aggression.
Bob, if i release a DRM encoded file, the state has no right to stop me from doing it. I do not violate people's rights by releasing it. Take it or leave it, right? What am I not making clear.
On the post: How The Patent System Is Rigged To Only Expand What's Patentable
FDA parallels
On the post: How The Patent System Is Rigged To Only Expand What's Patentable
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re: Re: Re: Apology
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re: Re: Apology
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
But it's not "abuse"
On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents
Antitrust law needs to go
As others have pointed out, under antitrust law, if you charge a low price, you can be charged with monopolization by predatory price cutting. If you charge the same as others, you can be charged with collusion. If you charge a high price, it's a monopoly price that you can only charge because you have achieved a monopoly position. Damned no matter what you do.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: Re: Piracy
And Sean Gabb, a friend of mine in England is head of the Libertarian Alliance, and is quite as mad as I am, I assure you.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Piracy
On the post: If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash
Does Google have any choice?
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: Re: Maybe we should enforce the laws we already have
Or: http://blog.mises.org/10838/another-problem-with-legislation-james-carter-v-the-field-codes/
"The re is a fascinating paper published in 1884 by James C. Carter, The Proposed Codification of Our Common Law: A Paper Prepared at the Request of The Committee of the Bar Association of the City of New York, Appointed to Oppose the Measure. This paper was an attack on David Dudley Field’s attempt to (legislatively) codify New York’s common law. Carter opposed replacing case law with centralized legislation. Carter notes that caselaw precedents are flexible and allow the judge to do justice (see also John Hasnas’s classic The Myth of the Rule of Law), while statutes are applied literally, even where injustice is done or the legislator did not contemplate this result. Thus, Carter argues, one of the worst effects of legislatively codifying law–replacing organically developed law with artificial statutes–is that it changes the role of courts and judges from one in which the judge searches for justice into mere squabbles over definitions of words found in statutes. As he said at pp. 86-86:
" At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle!
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: confused approach
"Then you are left with oligarchies, monarchies, and the like."
We have oligarchies now due to IP law and your beloved criminal state, and the modern democratic state is worse than monarchy was.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Real piracy is bad, but file sharing and copying is not
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: Re: Re: confused approach
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Maybe we should enforce the laws we already have
" That means there is a genuine case for legislation that helps protect consumers against such health and safety dangers."
No legislation protects consumers; it is all statist and socialist and immoral. Legislation is not the way to make law.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: confused approach
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
confused approach
On the post: More Details About Paramount's Offer To Law Schools To Teach Them About The Evils Of 'Content Theft'
Sickening arrogance
On the post: OK, So SOPA And PIPA Are Both On Hold: Where Do We Go From Here?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
On the post: OK, So SOPA And PIPA Are Both On Hold: Where Do We Go From Here?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
As long as you disclose it it's not a violation of rights. If you fail to it could be fraud or some other tort.
"Okay, that example is a little over the top, but I think it very clearly establishes that the state certainly does have a right to tell you to stop doing certain things."
No it does not. In fact the state is criminal and the only thing it has a right to do is disband. In any case, at most, the state ought to enforce only laws that prohibit action that actually violates individual property rights.
" There are numerous safety-related regulation about what you must do or must not do in making your product."
They are all illegitimate.
"There are implied warranty and fitness for purpose laws, that tell you what you must do or must not do when making your product."
Yes, and slavery was also legal at one point. What the law is does not prove what it should be.
"DRM prohibition would be related to the laws about products being fit for purpose. DRM prevents things like making backup copies, moving files from one device to another -- things which a reasonable person would expect to be able to do with the products. In hardware it prevents some kinds of customizations or repurposing that ought to be routinely possible. So the state has a good reason to protect individual buyers' rights by prohibiting DRM. If you don't want to produce a DRM-free product, that's not violating your rights. Take it or leave it. (How does it feel to be on the other side of that?)"
It is violating your rights. State force is being aimed at someone to threaten then to refrain from peaceful conduct that does not violate anyone's rights. It's pure aggression.
On the post: OK, So SOPA And PIPA Are Both On Hold: Where Do We Go From Here?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
Next >>