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.'"

So if it is a biased piece...

...why post it? I can find similar trolls with little or no effort too, but usually I'm here for a honest discussion. It is not like this article would be news in itself.

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

Well, ok, maybe not really, but it sure does seem to keep people busily coming back for more...

Sure but in the process has removed any credibility Slashdot may have had as a news site. Unless you have been reading Slashdot for a whileand can spot the immediate drivel many of the articles now appear to be nothing more than deliberately inaccurate headlines followed by leading questions followed by hysterical comments with most rational debate modded out by groupthink.

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

I have been here a long time, pre-karma anyway.

The place has always had drawbacks: spamming; crapflooding; Shoeboy; ACSII art; goatse links; Jon Katz; Michael Sims.

Most of the 'debate' is the same record being played over and over. This article so far is, and certianly will continue to be, no exception. No new ground will be broken and the comments will be nearly identical to what went up during the Napster debate. Despite the lameness filters and low karma post restrictions, Slashdot has far more actual trolling than it ever did when Adequacy crowd was here.

I am here now, subscribing, because there are a small minority of users who actually not only know their stuff but actively participate in fields that are relevant to many of the submissions that go up. There aren't many places one can go on the internet and have a discussion with an actual attorney who actually defends RIAA cases. Bruce Perens doesn't show up just anywhere and comment on FOSS issues. There was some article on here a few days ago about carbon nanotubes, and I don't know carbon nanotubes from cans of paint so I may have been getting hoodwinked, but there seemed to be people posting who actually had more than just cursory knowledge about the things.

Anyway, enough emo about Slashdot. I don't think it has or ever had much credibility as a serious news site but it certianly offers something unique. If you can sift through the massive amount of drivel it makes visiting worth the time.

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

Yea, seriously. If you want biased, you can just read the summary. To be honest, it's an opinion piece, and the purpose of an opinion piece is to be biased, and seriously, can anything that makes any sort of conclusion on such a complex/subjective topic as this NOT be biased?

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

Your ideas don't make you a troll. The way you express them does.

This is not trolling:

I think patents, trademarks and copyrights are simply fantastic and a primary, necessary driver of the world economy.

This is:

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?

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

Yes, indeed! Please, do not feed the trolls. Do not click on the C|Net link, and if this really bothers, you just file it away in the back of your mind as another in the long list of reasons to never visit C|Net's site.

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

I was surprised to find that anyone with even half a clue read C|Net to begin with. I literally can't remember the last time I read an article there.

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

I think it's more basic than that. Most of us (by which I mean myself, and everyone I project onto) is 'pro-fairness.' I am not against copyright. I use copyright on an almost daily basis to protect my own work. But I acknowledge that, when I use copyright, I am entering into a social contract. Society agrees to protect my temporary monopoly on my creations, in return for which I agree to:

1. Make them available now at a reasonable price.
2. Allow certain fair-use rights to everyone.
3. Let them fall into the public domain eventually.

The 'pro-copyright' lobby has not been playing fair recently, by blocking fair use with DRM and blocking the public domain with copyright term extensions. Similarly, the 'anti-copyright' lobby hasn't been playing fair either, by simply refusing to respect copyright at all.

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

Sadly, perception is reality nowadays, and the perception is that anyone that owns a copyright is doing whatever they can to fuck their customers over any way they can with Draconian EULAs, the death of the public domain, DRM, dragnet litigation, you name it. That perception makes people overreact, and that brings in the other extreme. Now, we have two groups who want everything, no compromise, no exceptions, engaged in this massive pissing contest, and the only ones needing an umbrella are the moderates like us in the middle.

Copyrighted Editorial

Newsflash: corporate media execs will say anything to protect their monopolies on intellectual products. As a last resort they might produce an intellectually satisfying argument, but only once they've exhausted all the easy ways to keep their fat status quo.

(C) Doc Ruby. All Rights Reserved.

Treat it as a troll

...it IS a troll. NOBODY who works for C-Net can possibly be ignorant of the rest of this story, or of the tempest in a teapot that a biased editorial is sure to stir up. Therefore, it is purposeful, intended to drive up traffic and replies.

If that's his goal, don't give him the satisfaction. Don't read it, don't comment, don't reply.

Which is not about "winning" some argument, it's just about not letting media people get paid for the almost mindlessly easy job of drumming up fake controversy. Same as ignoring all the cable TV and radio "shock jocks". Let them all work for a living, do some investigative reporting, find out some new facts (you know, "news"?) to fill up their sites with.

Not just, as Jon Stewart said about 'Crossfire', "theatre".

Re:Treat it as a troll

This really applies to a whole class of media - the "any publicity is good publicity" crowd.

Think about it. If you come across a guy on a soapbox on the street corner, raving about how he communicates with purple unicorns in the 4th dimension, do you spend a lot of time refuting his arguments in a public forum?

No. Just let it go. Don't legitimize nuttiness by addressing it.

The old saying: "Never get in a fight with a pig. You'll get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it."

Why isn't it persuasive?

Intellectual Ventures, a patent firm [and alleged patent troll] 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.

Why isn't that a persuasive argument? Isn't that kind of argument used all the time around here? Don't believe me? Have you ever heard:

"Drug companies don't deserve patents/as-lengthy-patents because they spend more on advertising than research."

They're both rank appeals to one's sympathy (or lack thereof) with the patent holder.

Re:Why isn't it persuasive?

You are setting up a strawman argument.

The argument "used all the time around here" is not:

Drug companies don't deserve patents/as-lengthy-patents because they spend more on advertising than research."

Instead it is a lot more like:

Drug companies claim they need lengthy patent protection because their R&D is so expensive. Except it turns out that the they spend substantially more on advertising than they do on R&D, so their claim deserves no sympathy.

Is there a tag for corporate shill?

Honestly, why is anyone even posting something from C/Net on Slashdot? They are just another lobbyist mouthpiece.

In other news

In other news, Romer!can submits a fairly biased article summary which includes: a cheap shot dismissing one critique of the open source community, blatantly pretending that there is popular dissatisfaction behind copyright and patent term lengths, and an embarrassing failure to even casually mention the serious legal status of copyright infringement. Instead, he wades through obscure humor and emotional appeals, mocking the comparison of infringement to theft and characterizing anyone who disagrees with him as a wanker.

Re:In other news

Well, on Slashdot (as well as much of CNet's target audiance) there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current copyright term length. I don't think there's so much dissatisfaction with patent term lenghts as there is just with bad patents. Most people, if asked about it and forced to think about it, would say that 95 years is far too long of a term for a copyright. Most people, on the other hand, don't think about it. They just accept it as the way it is. They also frequently engage in casual piracy of music, movies, and software.

Patents are a more complicated issue. For one thing, most people don't really have an opportunity to casually infringe patents. Current patent terms are not that far out of step with what might be considered a reasonable time frame. We see patented inventions pass into the public domain on a regular basis, whereas no copyrighted works have fallen into the public domain in my lifetime. The big problem with patents is that it is generally not obvious what is currently patented and what is not. Even after reading the abstract of a patent, I have no idea what it really covers. I have any number of suggestions for reforming patents, but they're really outside the scope of this post.

Comparing 95 year Copyright with Open Source

In 2095, Windows 2000 binaries enter the public domain. The source, was never published and died on some overwritten/corrupted backup media long before.

Would the binaries be useful at all?
If not, the the copyright duration is effectively infinite.

Now compare the Public domain Windows 2000 of 2095 with ReactOS or Linux in 2095. which is more useful?

But you don't need to wait 95 years to see this result.

How many years of development do you think it takes for ReactOS to surpass Windows2000?

How many years of development does it take for Linux to Surpass an abandoned UNIX, like IRIX?

If for some reason, you wanted to create a DOS system, would you use MSDOS 6, or FreeDOS?

Oh boy

Here come the "it's not stealing" crowd.

"Waah, you spent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on something and I want to see it, but I don't want you to get a dime for it! I need justification! Oh wait, here we go, IT'S NOT THEFT CAUSE I MADE A DIGITAL COPY OF IT!"

All you whiners who hate on "Old Media" and want everything completely free should hang out on YouTube and exclusively watch all the video blogs and clips of people running into each other with shopping carts. Because if you're successful in killing Old Media, that's all you'll have! Sorry guys. 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.

Re:Oh boy

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.

Amusing progression...

From TTA (the trolling article):

In the Dark Ages, one could obtain wealth by raising an army and burning someone else's kingdom to the ground. In the Gilded Age, those on the fast track had a secret weapon of success: they bribed state legislators to obtain canal and railroad contracts. Unfortunately, those career options just aren't as viable as they once were. Instead, we have to invent stuff, and thus people should get compensated for the effort.

It's positively hilarious that he structures the argument in this way. First he presents two methods that were historically used to obtain money. These methodologies are based upon using illicit means to gather power, and then turn this into a monopoly (in the first case, the power is military and the monopoly is the conquered land; in the second case the power is bribes and the monopoly is, well, a monopoly). The subtext is that these are "bad" ways to make a buck.

Then the author immediately describes current "intellectual property." However the current state of "intellectual property" is more of the same: one uses some means (money, lobbying, market domination, bribes, etc.) to persuade the government to create laws that protect your monopoly. Of course instead of concluding that this current incarnation of monopoly-power is just as bad as the previous ones, he goes on to defend it. The analogy with the previous examples is so close that it almost makes me think the entire article is a gigantic joke.

Does the author honestly not see the parallel? At one time, wars and railroad monopolies were certainly considered legitimate business. In 100 years, will our era be looked upon as a similarly barbaric time, where, ridiculously, the citizens were oppressed in the name of profits for a select few elite?

It's easy to win an argument

when you get to invent the position of your opponents. It gets easier if all you have to do is to dream up some anecdotes about people who were emotional about the issue (especially if you don't bother to recount any reasons they may have to feel that way).

Honestly, how many people think there should be no copyrights? Very, very few. I don't dismiss the opinions of those people just because they are a tiny minority, of course, but it is really dishonest to imply that everybody who has a problem with the current copyright system is against all copyrights.

Very few people are entirely against patents either, although quite a few people are against certain categories of patents, which implies at least some more nuanced thought than the emotional rejectionism painted by the author.

The broad consensus among people who create intellectual property for their daily bread is that the system is badly managed and is being extended beyond its reasonable and proper boundaries. The net result is that it is not a "sure path to wealth", but a threat that undermines their ability to earn a living.

That would make anybody "emotional".

Patent benefits

Make no mistake, the Chinese are famous for having invented many of the greatest inventions in history. Problem is, they often did it multiple times, independently. In the Western universe, I seem to recall that intellectual property was kept as trade secrets, to the exclusion of the public and similarly lost to antiquity.

The reason for the prior (retention) is often equated to their lack of proprietary interest in intellectual property, and the reason for the latter (publicity) is adjoined by the consequences of divulging your technological advantages. While the incentive exists to invent gunpowder (for its usefulness), the incentive and mechanism to publicly retain a collective body of knowledge for such inventions in Chinese society did not exist. Thus, I believe the secret to gunpowder was lost to the Chinese on more than one occasion, only to be re-invented later. (Or perhaps that wasn't gunpowder, but some other set of inventions).

Patents help alleviate this loss of intellectual achievements to both antiquity and secrecy. However, in our society they have gone to an extreme, whereby we can rightly complain that they stifle innovation, undermine competition, and they may even be unnecessary in light of modern mechanisms for keeping tabs on new IP, notably the internet, and public collaborative projects like open source.

Nonetheless, patents are predictable, and having arisen out of hundreds of years of jurisprudence over the need to retain and publicize useful inventions. They appear to be econommically over-bearing nowadays, and may even be superfluous in light of modern technology for retention and dissemination of intellectual property (i.e. the internet), but they are integrated into our economy in ways that make it superbly difficult (not to mention prohibitively expensive, as in the USA the government may have to compensate patent holders by weakening their rights) to completely do away with the system. They also still serve the purpose for which they were intended, publishing and retaining useful innovations, but they have side effects which now make us question their value.

While we can and should criticize the patent system for its failures, we should also bear in mind the consequences of going too far in the opposite direction. Too few discussions of patent reform have an intelligent, informed and balanced basis in the purpose and benefits of the current patent system, with suggestions for either balanced reform across all arenas where patent law is applied (drugs, software, hardware, automobiles, etc.), or any sound alternative that is not subject to the same criticisms that are inherent to what we have now.

(That being said, I think the idea of patenting software strikes me as wholly inappropriate, the problems of publicity and retention long having been solved by the internet and open source projects, and the value software patents provide to the public is virtually nil in almost every way.)

How open source survives

I think patents, trademarks and copyrights are simply fantastic [...] 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?

The point would remain, as it always has been, to create software that is useful to us. The idea has never been to "fight" Microsoft. The utility of software that is open to inspection and customization is simply higher than similar software that cannot be examined for security vulnerabilities, and is only as customizable as the original author thought to make it. Free is also a benefit. In the workplace, it is much easier to take a piece of software that is free in all respects and begin to use it than it is to fill out requisition forms, attend budget meetings, and finally have your request for that small proprietary tool approved. The only reason any open source software project continues is that the people involved find the software useful enough to contribute to.

Perspective and individual details are important

There is a lot of talk about getting rid of patent trolls, but little consensus as to what a patent troll is. Very few companies will say "yes: we're patent trolls." At best, they're willing to tolerate being called patent trolls [com.com].

What makes a patent troll? Does a company that develops a new technology but licenses it because it does not have the capital or market position to exploit the technology count as a patent troll? What about IBM? They produce products, but they license their patents [ibm.com] for use by others in products that don't compete with IBM's products. Does that make IBM a patent troll? Would they have to be making competing products to be on morally solid ground?

There are definitely companies out that abuse the patent system (e.g., by filing continuation applications or requests for reexamination during which the applicants try to stretch the claims of their patents to read on subsequent innovations). But this author has a point that distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys is not easy. Many companies out there see themselves as just legitimately trying to leverage their full rights. Is that significantly different from consumers trying to maximize their rights as consumers by engaging in activities that aren't clearly legal (e.g., using direct music and movie clips for new works without seeking permission, creating libraries of MP3s and copying them to multiple systems, etc.).

Activities that push the limits of the law create risk. Patent applicants pay significant fees and must spend a lot of time in their efforts, resulting in a guaranteed loss. Certain uses of a patent can raise anti-trust concerns or result in loss of the patent. Consumers pushing the boundaries of "fair use" often play a lottery in which the winner loses a nasty law suit. And there is always the risk that Congress or the courts may react by changing the law or interpretation of the law to minimize questionable activities.

But those who are engaged in those activities probably believe that all they are doing is playing by a valid interpretation of the rules.

so..

A completely biased summary trying to describe a biased article... makes for good reading... ???

After reading that "summary" I assumed it was a submitted blog. I can't believe garbage like that makes it on to the front page.

hey, he believes in hydrogen powered vehicles too

so it's obvious he's not really up on science very much and therefore, is more like a salesmen who writes articles.

LoB

Obviously NOT a creative brain type

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?

The point would be to get the nightmares out of my head, you idiot! Fighting Microsoft or even earning money is a distant motivator in comparison to actually fixing something that needs fixing and that I know how to do.

Copied, Not Stolen

I was thinking about copyrights the other day and how "stealing" is not the right word. When a car is stolen, it is not there anymore, when money is stolen is cannot be accessed anymore.

But when a file is "stolen" it is not taken away from the owner. It remains. How could a car be stolen if it's still in your driveway?

So I tried very hard to imagine a way that something could be stolen, while still leaving the original item intact and I realized that genes might be a good example.

For instance, let's imagine that someone copies your genetic pattern and clones another you. Sure, he's not you - has different memories and such - but still, isn't that YOUR dna?

What if he is used for medical experiments - wouldn't you feel more strongly about him than just a random person because he has "your" genes?

Just a thought experiment.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to DRM and in fact the current state of copyrights. Still, I find it useful to determine strong arguments for any opposing view.

After all, in my opinion any scientifically-minded and reasoning person's greatest joy should be derived from being proven wrong.

Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom.

There is no defense.

You don't even have any choice as to whether or not to ignore software patents. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Then there are several thousand new applications a day. I'll give you a hint. It's impossible.

That's why Microsoft ignores software patents. Even they, the richest company on the planet, have no alternative. And that's also why they're getting hit with a few 9-figure verdicts already. But they still play the game and pretend they're legitimate, because they somehow think they'll benefit, in the end, using them to crush current and potential competition with multi-million legal actions and the threat thereof.

It is impossible to tell if any piece of code infringes. By the way, have you read many of these things? Almost every line of code does infringe.

Every line written is a ticking patent timebomb. Every player has to ante up and make their own "patent portfolio" which they can then apply against whoever sues them. If that sounds like it excludes everyone but a few rich, dominant corporations... now you're getting the idea. Only minor fly in the ointment: those patent shell companies that actually don't do any work except suing people, therefore can't be hit with a retaliatory claim. Ooops. And yet even after getting whacked by a few, MS is still winking and continuing to play the game. Shows you how much they hate honest competition.

Software Patents are currently ignored by almost everyone. But to the extent they are enforced, they will categorically end the American software industry, and software will continue to be a business in Europe, Asia, and... well basically every other civilized nation, who have soundly rejected this silly game and are by the way laughing their asses off at us.

Hello?

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?

Maybe to produce truly good software, rather than just lie about doing so in your marketing, perhaps? The author seems not to understand that some people create things for the sheer beauty of it; more often than not, OS projects have nothing to do with Microsoft; in fact, if OS was out to "get Microsoft", it is doing a pretty poor job considering the level of skill which goes into most OS projects. If we wanted to "get Microsoft" we wouldn't be licensing our code with the GPL; instead, we'd use a restrictive license which would prevent someone from compiling the code on a Microsoft platform, or not supply the code at all.

While some open source contributors do have an anti-Microsoft bent, most open source projects go beyond mere competition with Microsoft. In fact, the roots of open source were growing before Microsoft was even a company; Richard Stallman was doing it in the sixties at the MIT AI lab. It wasn't called open source until someone needed a term to differentiate those who felt software should benefit everyone from those who believed only the priveledged few (i.e., rich) should be able to benefit.

I'm not against copyrights and patents, per se, though I do realize that the system has been, and continues to be abused by corporations. Those who create works should share in their successes and from their labor be able to earn a decent living. The problem is that while a reasonable person would overlook the occasional sharing of IP among friends, a corporation would not; nor would a corporation feel any pity for those who would use their software if they could afford it.

Perhaps things would be better if it were illegal for corporations to possess intellectual property. Or perhaps fair use should be extended to any purpose for which there is no commercial gain.

But creating and propping up an artificial property right is not the answer. It is just the closest thing we have at the moment.

Who cares about the patent angle?

Ocean Tomo, a Chicago-based company that holds auctions for patents, copyrights and other intellectual property, 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.

Keith Richards was executed back in 1965! This explains so much. He looks really good for someone who's been dead for over 40 years.

Foil

a cheap shot dismissing open source projects as existing only to act as a foil for Microsoft

If open source projects acting as a foil [wikipedia.org] for Microsoft causes them to emphasize the traits of Microsoft by contrast, that seems fine to me. Or maybe he meant a comic foil [wikipedia.org]; compared to open source projects, Microsoft certainly looks funny.

Help me with my conflict

On one hand, the current legal environment around intellectual property is broken. Everytime you read something by RMS and think "this guy is a crack pot", 6 months later something happens that is uncomfortably moving us toward some of his dystopian predictions (i.e. "Freedom to Read").

OTOH, the key innovation in the liberal western revolution (liberal in the Adam Smith sense of the word) has been the ability, due to lax legal and societal restrictions, of the individual to use their ingenuity to better their condition.

Said differently, absolutely all of the progress of society in the last 300 years comes not from the owners, or from the workers, or such strange Marxist notions, but from the ideas and ability to make good on them.

The progress of humanity western society is based in the ability of the individual to profit from their own intellectual labor - not their lower back strength.

So how does one resolve this apparent conflict? It is man's mind, not his back, which creates wealth, progress, and an easier life. Yet the current implementation of intellectual property laws is broken, causing many to question even the valididty of intellectual property as a concept?

I'm familiar with Jefferson's quote, but i don't think it can credibly used as an argument for dismissing the concept of intellectual property entirely.

So what does a world look like where people are still compensated for the labor of their mind but which has a rational / sane legal framework around that compensation?

You're expecting intellectual integrity from

a patent troll?

That's like expecting it from a Zionist - or a Republican - or a Democrat - or...well, just about any human.

You all can ignore this "article"

He was talking to me. But I won't dignify him with a response...maybe a raspberry, but I'll leave it that.

a meandering editorial

Kanellos' piece was not particularly well thought out, and frankly it's not worth getting too worked up over it. He begins by defending the very notion of patents and copyrights themselves. Fine. Almost everyone would agree that SOME kind of intellectual property protection is necessary and just. But then he suddenly launches into a defence of so-called "patent trolls", and claims that "almost every one" he talked to had a persuasive story, and then preceeds to cough up a few anecdotes in support of his defense.

First of all, "almost everyone" isn't "everyone". I'd like to hear about those that didn't have a persuasive story too. And there's no way we can tell from this piece if his sampling of the "trolls" is in any way characteristic of the group as a whole or if his selection was pre-sorted by political or economic bias. The article contributes nothing to the public debate on this issue and therefore deserves to be dismissed with dignified scorn.

Fairly biased...?

I for one would like to read an **unfairly** biased opinion piece...

Contentious eh?

"C|Net Editor Michael Kanellos offers a potentially contentious opinion piece about patents and copyright on the CNet site.

So we just had to post it on Slashdot in order to get an assload of new hits.

Private Property Wins Out

Flamebait like this the logical outcome of an ownership society. The media conglomerates own their media to do with what they want.

As much as I personally disagree with it, I certainly would not want to see it end if it were my property on the table. I'd employ every trick they have to modify consumer behavior such that it seems perfectly logical to check with the media conglomerate who owns the media each and every time before I consume it.

And then I'd maintain my dominance in entertainment distribution and lock out competitors by implementing trusted platform computing in any media capable device thereby taxing device manufacturers and making consumers pay me more than once. That way all media flows through my entertainment conglomerate. And that's okay because I own it.

You would want the same for yourself if it was your content wouldn't you?

The quote in question

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?

Someone needs to download firefox :)

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

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

IP DOES need defense.

Intellectual property indeed DOES need to be defended, but this article is a weak defense. The basis for IP is in fact based in Article 1 of the constitution:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

This is lumped in with trivialities like granting the government the power to coin money and maintain an army. Why? Because if we take IP away, then it removes the power for people to control and profit from the fruits of their labors. If we go too far down this road it will remove the incentive for innovation, even open source innovation. We all know this guy got it totally wrong:

"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?"

The REAL need for copyright for open source is that we need to actually be able to enforce the GPL license or whatever license a project is operating under. If there is no copyright then anyone can steal and use and close up anything they want.

The point of copyright after all, is not to prevent copying. It is to promote copying! It is simply there so the IP holder can profit from the work the way he wants, every time it IS copied. Even if that benefit is non-financial, the interest of the holding entity badly needs to be enforced.

On the other hand, we have a serious problem with overapplication of the copyright laws, as outlined in Lawrence Lessig's book The Future of Ideas. We are coming to a point when IP is held so closely on so many things that really aren't inventions or authored works that we can barely breathe or think. The solution, however, is NOT to do away with copyright. The solution is to rethink where we have taken it and reapply it for the benefit of the general society.

Which is obviously beyond the scope of a slashdot post!