In Defense Of Patents and Copyright

Romer!can writes "C|Net Editor Michael Kanellos offers a potentially contentious opinion piece about patents and copyright on the CNet site. Highlights of the fairly biased piece include: a cheap shot dismissing open source projects as existing only to act as a foil for Microsoft, blatantly equating copyright infringement with stealing, and an embarrassing failure to even casually mention the current term lengths of patents and copyrights as a driving factor behind popular dissatisfaction. Instead, he wades through obscure humor and emotional appeals characterizing patent trolls as the guy next door. 'Nearly every so-called [patent] troll turned out to have a somewhat persuasive story. Intellectual Ventures, a patent firm started by former Microsoft chief scientist Nathan Myhrvold, was staffed with fairly renowned scientists who didn't fit the profile of people trying to make a quick buck in court. Another man, criticized as one of the most litigious people in the U.S., had a great explanation for his behavior. He had only sued people who had signed--and then violated--nondisclosure agreements.'"

Re:Treat it as a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't read it

Isn't that a good reason to post it on Slashdot?

Re:So if it is a biased piece...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot needs a +1 Pwnage moderation.

Re:Oh boy

[Lithdren]

It may not require tens of millions of dollars to produce gobs and gobs of high quality video entertainment with mass appeal, but it does take more then a couple dudes with a camcorder and six bucks.

Clearly, you dont watch much p0rn.

"...go ahead and reprint this for free."

[thehossman]

But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and reprint this for free.

Copyright [cnet.com] ©1995-2007 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Uh, okay ... wait a minute...

All editorial content and graphics on our sites are protected by U.S. copyright, international treaties, and other applicable copyright laws and may not be copied without the express permission of CNET Networks, Inc., which reserves all rights. Reuse of any of CNET Networks editorial content and graphics for any purpose without CNET Networks' permission is strictly prohibited.

Permission to use CNET Networks content is granted on a case-by-case basis. CNET Networks welcomes requests. Please visit our Permissions and Reprints page to submit a request.

Hmmm, so should we believe the last line of the page, or the second to last line of the page?

Fuck it...

Why I love patents and copyrights

By Michael Kanellos
http://news.com.com/Why+I+love+patents+and+copyrig hts/2010-1008_3-6182429.html [com.com]

Story last modified Thu May 10 04:00:02 PDT 2007


Keith Richards in a near-death experience. Does TV get any better?

Ocean Tomo [oceantomo.com], a Chicago-based company that holds auctions for patents, copyrights and other intellectual property [slashdot.org], will put a gem on the block in its next auction taking place in London on June 1: film footage of the Rolling Stones guitarist getting electrocuted during a U.S. concert in 1965.

"The Stones do not currently have this footage themselves; this particular piece of film lasts 10 minutes, with the electrocution scene occurring at the close, and lasting approximately a full minute," the catalog for the auction states.

The footage is part of a collection of film that is owned by Mark and Colleen Hayward and is being sold as a single lot. Other footage in the lot includes an early film of The Beatles playing in Blackpool, England, and some shots of Paul McCartney in 1966 yukking it up on a Learjet owned by Frank Sinatra.

TV stations pay around $3,000 to broadcast about 30 seconds of footage from the Hayward collection.

The Haywards will also auction off a collection of photos of rock stars over the decades: The Clash, AC/DC and The Moody Blues. You'd have to go to the Konocti Boat Harbor to see some of those acts today.

It won't be all celebrity memorabilia at the intellectual property auction. Most of the lots involve chemicals (a formula for flexographic printing from Meat/Westvaco), wireless communications, medical devices (customized bone implants--a patent with a $200,000-plus value), green technologies (an efficient way to incinerate waste from our pals at KusuKusu Industry), or electronics (anyone care for a gas composition sensor from Accentus?).

Despite early skepticism, the open auction concept for intellectual property is clearly gaining steam. In the company's April auction in Chicago, $11.4 million worth of intellectual property was sold, including two lots that went for $3 million and $2.8 million each.

Although it's not a really popular sentiment these days, I think patents, trademarks and copyrights are simply fantastic and a primary, necessary driver of the world economy. Without them, the rapid pace of technological innovation around the world would slow to a crawl. And frankly, without them, most open-source projects would rapidly wither away: without an intellectual property behemoth like Microsoft to fight, what would be the point?

Why all the frothy sentiment? Intellectual property provides one of the most dependable means toward wea

Re:Comparing 95 year Copyright with Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 2000 resets in 2035, not 2095, because of the 32-bit clock timer.