Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses

The Guardian On Intellectual Property 240

Posted by Zonk from the ins-and-outs dept.
mykdavies writes "The Guardian has an excellent article giving lay readers an overview of some of the problems being caused by the concept of 'intellectual property', including references to stories familiar to Slashdot readers, such as DVD Jon, the Sony rootkit, Amazon and Google business patents." From the article: "Even facts about the world can, in some cases, become the property of commercial companies. It was the promise of gaining patents on the human genome that lured investors into the private consortium that attempted to sequence it in competition with the public effort. Laboratory animals have already been patented, starting with the OncoMouse, an animal whose genome has been manipulated to ensure that it develops cancer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Guardian On Intellectual Property More

The Guardian On Intellectual Property

Comments Filter:

  • IP is evil (Score:4, Funny)

    by martinultima ( 832468 ) <martinultima@gmail.com> on Saturday November 19, 2005 @05:30PM (#14072211) Homepage Journal
    Intellectual property stuff is purely evil. Don't quote me on this or I'll sue.

  • Patenting animals? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19, 2005 @05:30PM (#14072213)
    Something is very wrong with the patent system when living creatures can ba patented.

    • Re:Patenting animals? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by agraupe ( 769778 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @07:40PM (#14072716) Journal
      It sounds weird at first, but they haven't patented "the mouse" (the small furry creature), but they have patented a specific, lab-created, genetic variation thereof. This doesn't occur naturally, and it certainly required a lot of research. The knowledge of how to complete this procedure, or even a list of the exact genetic changes should be patentable. Relax; they can't patent a naturally-occuring animal or plant quite yet.
      • What do you mean, "this doesn't occur naturally?!" I guess your parents never gave you "The Talk." You know, the one that starts off "when a boy genetically-engineered-to-have-cancer mouse really really loves a girl genetically-engineered-to-have-cancer mouse...?"

      • Re:Patenting animals? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <plugwash.p10link@net> on Saturday November 19, 2005 @10:40PM (#14073321) Homepage
        no it doesn't but if those mice escape and start breeding and someone collects breeds and sells them should that person be liable for patent infringement?

        applying patents to something that can self replicate and interbreed with a natural variation of itsself leads to a nightmare scenario in which you can be sued because a customer of the patent holder contaminated your stock!

      • Re:Patenting animals? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sark666 ( 756464 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @11:12PM (#14073445)
        Relax? Being able to patent any living thing (or the process in which a living this is modified) is a huge deal. And a scary one. You should really see the documentary 'the corporation' if you haven't already. One section of it deals with genetically modified foods/animals.

        Just googling a little I found a bit from that's covered in the docu:

        This monopolisation extends to effect the lives of us all, especially peasant farmers in the developing world. Monsanto planned to introduce its genetically modified seeds accompanied by its patented "technology protection system" which makes the seeds from this year's crop sterile. Critics call Monsanto's seed sterilising technology "terminator" and "suicide seeds". Wherever suicide seed technology is adopted, farmers will have to go back to Monsanto year after year too buy new ration of genetically modified seeds.

        "By peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world's poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom", says Emma Must of the World Development Movement. "Currently 80 per cent of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-saved seed. Being unable to save seeds from sterile crops could mean the difference between surviving and going under", she says. "More precisely", says Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer, "it would speed the consolidation of small farms into the hands of those with the money to engage in industrialised agribusiness - which generally means higher profits but less employment and lower yields.
        http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/genetic_engi neering.html [marxist.com]

        Also these 'terminator seeds' have been found in other crops by plants naturally crossbreeding and they've wanted to sue these farmers when the last thing they ever wanted were these terminator seeds.

        • Monsanto vs Schmeiser (Score:3, Informative)

          by TakaIta ( 791097 )
          There have indeed been cases of farmers being sued by Monsanto because their crops were contaminated bij pollen from nearby Monsanto crops. The most famous case is Monsanto vs Schmeiser [wikipedia.org].
  • So now we have fearless, regenerating, and immortal mice with cancer! When will the madness end?

  • How to use the Christian Right to fix IP (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19, 2005 @05:36PM (#14072241)
    Explain to them that someone else is trying to patent God's work (and/or derivatives of), and set them loose.

  • Omissions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by llamaguy ( 773335 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @05:37PM (#14072250)
    I read the article shortly before it appeared on /., and was irritated to find that it makes no mention of the FSF or Richard Stallman at all, despite making the point that software patents are bad and are stifling creativity. How to take action against such a great threat must surely be an important part of any critical article, yet the author makes no effort to do any such thing.

    Other than that, though, it was a good read, covering more than just software patents, and is a good attention-raiser for this important topic. Maybe the mainstream media will finally wake up to the very real threat IP poses...

    • Re:Omissions (Score:4, Funny)

      by Soko ( 17987 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @05:44PM (#14072274) Homepage
      Maybe it was that RMS was hiding his RFID tag in 'tin foil' [sourcelabs.com], and so they just couldn't find him...

      Soko

    • Re:Omissions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wo1verin3 ( 473094 )
      Perhaps this is a good thing...

      When one person complains, you can ignore it.

      But when seperate parties not linked to the first start to complain you begin to have a little more power or at least are able to make a bit more noise.

    • Re:Omissions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bralkein ( 685733 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:09PM (#14072365)
      Yeah, I thought the same thing when I read it this morning. However, I did actually read it in the newspaper, and it's the Saturday one at that, which I think a lot of people get when they might not get it normally (because it has lots of extra stuff), so hopefully enough people will read it that a few of them will really take exception and Google about it, in which case they will doubtless stumble upon the people fighting this stuff. It may not be perfect, but it's good that the issue is working its way out there. This intellectual property bullshit has gone on long enough; just ask any man on the street if they think you should be able to patent a mouse, website or film plot and they will tell you it's madness.

      I think the article makes a very good point when it talks about how the companies who are so vigourously in favour of IP would shy away immediately if it worked both ways. A typical example I often see posted here on /. is: If by purchasing a CD I am only buying the right to listen to that music, then why can't I snap my CD in half, take it back to the shop and ask for a new one for £0.50 or however much the materials and manufacturing actually costs?

    • Stallman doesn't own the idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by robla ( 4860 ) * on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:49PM (#14072509) Homepage Journal
      I would much rather see them make the point in a clear, concise and conspicuous fashion than have an article resembling an Oscar speech. It's rather ironic that you are asking them to acknowledge Stallman's ownership of the ideas they are presenting. Most people don't understand that this is a problem yet; let the fact that they have a problem sink in before evangelizing the solution.
    • How to take action against such a great threat must surely be an important part of any critical article

      No. That would make the article lose all impartiality, and look like a fund drive. Arguably there is a place for these, but not every journal article or discussion has to be a telethon...

  • At least... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Skiron ( 735617 )
    ...OncoMouse will get a free trip to Disney world, new push bikes, RC helipcopter and the like for Xmas...
  • It was the promise of gaining patents on the human genome that lured investors into the private consortium that attempted to sequence it in competition with the public effort.
    In an attempt to hide the government's failure on the Genome Project, Clinton shared the podium with Celera. [capmag.com]

  • It argues against "IP" in a pro-business way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @05:51PM (#14072296) Journal
    This makes it likely for other those so inclined to understand our point. They even note the paradoxical effect that manditory enforcement of copyright would have on Microsoft and other monopolist companies relying on licensed products.

    However, I notice that there is very little variety in the links at the end of the document. Maybe they should point to a few different places---the FFII website might be a good start, as they seem to come out as being friendly to (small- and medium-sized) business IMO, and they're European.

  • IP Can't be protected (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dwandy ( 907337 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:00PM (#14072345) Homepage Journal
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... if western society thinks it can stop other countries from using existing ideas to build new ideas, we're crazy.
    China, as an example, has shown a complete lack of respect for the copyrights on software, and I see nothing to convince me that they are going to pay any attention to north american IP laws when push-comes-to-shove...
    At some point the 'powers' are going to have to realise that ideas are not the same as physical property, and can not be treated the same.
    All new knowedge is built on the work of those that came before. The rate of increase of new ideas is directly related to how quickly the new idea can be passed on to. So why is it that now when the dissemination of information is essentially instantaneous and free we are working hard at creating artificial barriers to impede progress?
    • I'm constantly amazed that the American and European global media companies are so obsessed with China copying movies and pop music CDs. Because I can't understand why anyone in China would be that interested in American movies and rock'n'roll.

      Sure there are always going to be a few people in the coastal cities, the oxymoronic Chinese super-hip people of Shanghai and Hong Kong who follow the latest western trends, but the average person? I don't get it.

      Why would a factory wor
      • You must be kidding me.

        The Americans and the Europeans are obsessed with it because of copious the pirated Chinese CD-s (and other merchandise) making its way to Europe and America.

    • It may not be protectable, but since you see it as such a problem I invite you to create other methods by which the creator can be compensated.

      Certainly many people contribute without expecting anything in return, but such attitudes can only reach so far, especially when creation of an "idea" requires the involvement of material goods that aren't cheap.

      Never mind the time aspect, and that people need to eat.
      • It may not be protectable, but since you see it as such a problem I invite you to create other methods by which the creator can be compensated.

        Certainly many people contribute without expecting anything in return, but such attitudes can only reach so far, especially when creation of an "idea" requires the involvement of material goods that aren't cheap.

        Never mind the time aspect, and that people need to eat.

        Hey Microlith, long time no see. This is not to defend the GP for not offering alternatives :) I'll b

    • Re:IP Can't be protected (Score:3, Interesting)

      by deblau ( 68023 )
      So why is it that now when the dissemination of information is essentially instantaneous and free we are working hard at creating artificial barriers to impede progress?

      I've been saying this for awhile. IP doesn't mesh with capitalism. The latter is a system to regulate the distribution of scarce goods. Ideas are not scarce. All IP schemes attempt to introduce artificial scarcity into ideaspace, but the truth is that these are artificial measures only. Any community that decides not to impose these measur

      • the reason people use IP is because they don't know what else to do with ideas

        That's perhaps the most insightful point I've ever heard on the issue.

        The reason people use IP is because they don't know what else to do with ideas. That is so true. Some moron sitting around has an idea and the concept that their brain actually functions is so astounding to them that they make it their life work to guard and protect that idea--like they have nothing better to do with their life.

        That is so much the IP trump

    • So why is it that now when the dissemination of information is essentially instantaneous and free we are working hard at creating artificial barriers to impede progress?

      Because certain information actually take a lot of work to produce, and if the costs can't be recovered they won't happen? It is always cheaper to reproduce without paying anything for the original, and that has been the case since the first printing presses and the first notions of copyright began in the 1700s. I'm not talking about the lat
    • Indeed, and therefore those pushing for the concept of IP and laws to protect and enforce it are enemies of human civilization. I hope one day more people see this, and such organizations and people are seen for what they really are: they belong to the group of worst criminals and enemies of mankind and should be punished for that. I feel that only direct fear and threat can stop them.

      Their crimes are even worsened IMHO by the way they corrupt western democracies: bribing politicians and buying laws for the

  • IP in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kryten_nl ( 863119 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:14PM (#14072381)
    I just know the US will weaken its IP laws somewhere in the near future. The US has developed a nice system for correcting draconian laws, it goes something like this:

    Government: Look here, we have some nice (new) laws to make you feel better.
    People: *yawn* Who gives a fuck?!?
    Government: Ok then, lets up the ante...
    Small group: Hey, that's not right.
    People: *yawn* Who gives a fuck?!?
    Government: The "small group" didn't elect me *rinses* *repeats*
    Small group: Ok, now I'm mad, I'm calling shenanigans...
    People: *yawn* Who gives a fuck?!?
    Government: Just one more tweak, then we can retire...
    People: Huh what's happening?.... Get out the guns, it's time for a revolution

  • DVD jon? (Score:2, Funny)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
    Is that the guy on the corner with the bin full of $2 DVDs?

    Tom

  • Well reasoned, clear-headed. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by delire ( 809063 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:19PM (#14072402)

    Excellent read. The first article I've read that actually covers the investor-patent relation as a trade market independent of the 'inventor'.

    It also makes a clear distinction between the right to copy and concepts of ownership without overt use of analogy and metaphor.

    The final point, that Intellectual Property is itself an idea that can be manipulated, distributed and copied, also offers fresh perspectives on what is often accepted as an ancient and unnegotiable moral framework; one in fact enforced by laws that are invented to make allow for the idea of IP in the first instance.

  • do patents promote progress? (Score:4, Informative)

    by max born ( 739948 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:21PM (#14072413)
    The purpose of copyrights and patents is to promote the progress of science and useful arts USC Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 [house.gov]. It's purpose is not to make inventors rich.

    When you look at the great inventions, people mostly didn't do it for the money. I talking not about things like the light bulb but the fundamental research that went into most of the break through discoveries in science. Take just about anything, the vacuum tube, the transistor, integrated ciruit, the Internet, etc. and you'll find the incentive came, not from being able to get rich from it, but by the desire to create and discover. That people can make a living from their discoveries and inventions is great but it's not essential for progress.
    • When you look at the great inventions, people mostly didn't do it for the money.

      But when you count the inventions, I'm sure you will find that most of them were paid for by a company. Your avarage hired reasearcher far outnumbers the genious inventor.

  • It's not property (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LainTouko ( 926420 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:36PM (#14072456)
    The property system was devised to solve a very simple and fundamental problem: many items, such as loaves of bread, or chairs, cannot be used by large numbers of people without problems, such as finding someone else has already eaten the bread or is sitting in the chair. Therefore there will arise times when more than one person wants to eat the bread or sit in the chair, and conflicts will arise.

    Hence we need a system for dealing with those conflicts, by deciding who gets to sit in the chair or eat the bread. And the system we use is the property system. We assign control over such things to individual people, and call those items "their property".

    With ideas, the sort of things which are covered by patents and copyright, these conflicts do not exist. When you have an idea, everyone can make use of it without limiting its functionality. Hence there is no such problem to solve. No reason for such notions of property to exist. The notion of "intellectual property" is therefore an absurdity.

    The purpose of copyrights and patents is completely different to the purpose of property. Deliberately implying otherwise is deception.

    And if anyone needs to make use of deception when putting their case forward, it's a good sign that their case isn't strong enough to stand on its own merits.

    (Also, copyrights and patents are a really stupid way of trying to get people to create ideas. Giving up your freedom is very seldom a good plan, and the limitations on freedom imposed by copyrights and patents have two obvious effects; they create more power, which by its nature centralises and then corrupts those who hold too much of it, thereby creating entities which hinder the growth of the very thing which we're supposed to be encouraging, and they cripple the end result, meaning for example that your new drugs are only of limited use, because only the relatively wealthy can use them. I can't immediately think of a field in which we wouldn't be better off in the final analysis if we used other non-freedom-removing means of paying the people who we need to pay to keep things moving, and in many fields we'd be better off with no such system at all over the current system.)

    • Re:It's not property (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dwandy ( 907337 )

      copyrights and patents are a really stupid way of trying to get people to create ideas.

      Perhaps it's because I'm an ardent capitalist that I find the current situation of economic incentives appealing. There are areas of expertise that require multi-million dollar installations, or highly specialised staff (read: well paid) in order to cause additional advancement. We are, fortunately, past the point where a guy can get hit on the head by an apple to have a revelation.
      My only real concern with these pro

      • Re:It's not property (Score:2, Insightful)

        by argoff ( 142580 )
        Perhaps it's because I'm an ardent capitalist that I find the current situation of economic incentives appealing...

        If the government granted personal monopolies on the supply of food for the sake of incentive, and then called shares of that monopoly a "property right" - any true capitalist could easially see:

        1)That it isn't really a property
        2)That it destroyes more opportunities than it creates
        3)That is is harmfull to free markets and society

        Well the same is true with patnet monopolies. While it is true th
      • My thoughts on solving the matter:

        1. Any non-tangible thing (i.e. ideas, art, music, computer programs) cannot be patented.

        Those are to be copyrighted which means that nobody can directly copy your work but create something that can compete in the market against the first person. That's capitalism. IP patents would lead to situations where there would only be one rock song, one love movie, and one spreadsheet program. That would be a monopoly, which are the dearth of capitalism.

        2. Copyrights need to expire

      • better ways (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bzipitidoo ( 647217 )
        I've tried to think of better ways. They aren't entirely satisfactory, but then I had a thought: they don't have to be perfect, just better than what we have now.

        1. Make everyone shareholders. I think this idea is no better than what we have now, and probably worse. Anyway, set a "release" price on new works (ideas, art). When enough people have collectively put up enough money to meet the price, release it to these people only. They are now shareholders. Whenever outsiders want in, they buy shares

  • A Violent Protest Against Patents (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @06:39PM (#14072468)

    There seems to be this attitude that the suffering of slaves prior to 1850 was something that only happened back then. That it has nothing to do with now, that we are more civilized, more modern, more mature, and more sophisticated. With it comes the arrogance that what happened then, means nothing now, that what happened there has no value here, that the great torment and suffering back then can safely be ignored now as we blow off history and all the values that go with it in terms of understanding, freedom, markets, property, technology, and the coming replication age.

    Surely anyone who claimed that there is no "incentive" go grow cotton without slaves on the plantation would be considered a barbaric. But if someone claims that there is no "incentive" to create intellectual and knowledge works without patents, then society calls them enlightened. If someone had said that the great wealth of America rested on slavery as a property right and the plantation system, they were a foolish idiot. But if someone says that the great wealth of societies in the coming replication ate rests on "Intellectual Property", then they are called wise. Anyone who says that slavery was about property rights and not control, is a liar. However, if they say that patents are not about control, but "Intellectual Property" then they are considered trustworthy. How about - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, and if you don't like patents no one forces you to buy those creations. How about - if you don't believe in slavery, you must be an anarchist, if you don't believe in patents you must be some kind of a communist. How about - you are a thief if you free slaves from the plantation, you are a thief when you copy "Intellectual Property".

    So why are we spoon-feed these poor logical explanations over and over again? Because, like the assassin who befriends and mis-places his victims heart medications, rather than pull out a rifle and pop a bullet in the head. Like the rapist who drugs his victim, rather than attack her overtly and violently where all the scars, blood, and bruises can be detected. Patents are the pinnacle of quiet violence, they seem so innocent, they seem so sincere, and it is so hard to see any direct evil. After all, what could be less harmless then providing an incentive to inventors, right? But do they really promote invention - or just lock out and tie up inventions and discoveries that were likely to happen anyhow? Do they really help inventors, or do they hinder collaboration and sharing in a way that would put a police state to shame?

    Perhaps the old lady has none to blame when her patented medication is too expensive to afford anymore. Who can the workers blame when the patented technology they bet their career on becomes useless as society migrates to less controlling technologies. Who can a child in Africa blame when they are dying of AIDS, and there are no generics to treat it! Who do we blame when researchers seeking a cure for cancer encounter massive obstacles to sharing individual research for fear that their peers will get one up on them, get a key patent, and lock them out! What do you do when a company buys up a patent on a safety device, but then decides not to use it nor let their competitors use it, other than watch people die who might not have otherwise. And all to often people just assume that every manufacturer having incompatible parts and appliances with every other manufacturer is a natural part of a free market, but is it? And does that really help our environment?

    As people die because patents are either too costly and alternatives too sparse, and the needy go without, not because of genuine shortage, but because artificial human made restrictions. We must ask what will our role be in the pages of history as society enters into the replication age? Will it be like the lost souls who thought that the slave states could peacefully get along with the free states who today think that patents can peacefully co-exist with freedoms. Or will we be like the plantat

    • Re:A Violent Protest Against Patents (Score:5, Informative)

      by general_re ( 8883 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @07:11PM (#14072594) Homepage
      Two years, and you still don't have anything new to say [slashdot.org]?
  • FTA:
    In the US, for instance, it is illegal to copy your own CDs on to your own iPod.

    Just wondering... isn't that covered under fair use (and perfectly legal as a result)? Can someone clarify this for me?
    Thanks.
    • I saw the same thing, and they are wrong. it is legal to copy to your own IPod. Granted, Sony and others are trying to fix that, but in the US, you still have a right to archive any digital media you want, even if you archive the original and listen to the copy.

      He is simply wrong on that point.
      • Got anything to back this?
        The way I read "fair-use" in the US, is that it is protection granted to comment on works. I don't see how copying the entire work onto a different media would be included in that definition.

        From stanford.edu [stanford.edu]:

        use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism

        ...kinda like the above quote. :)

        Fair use here in Canada though (not looking for a backing link, but I'm sure of this) does allow making of "backups" or alternate copies of something once you

        • Re:"illegal to copy your own CDs... to ipod"? WTF? (Score:4, Informative)

          by the argonaut ( 676260 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @08:17PM (#14072857) Homepage Journal
          Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

          (aka "the Betamax case")

          Essentially, the court found that home time-shifting is a fair use, which is not exactly the same as making "backups", it is extremely similar.

          More on point might be American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994). In that case, the court found that making unauthorized copies of journal articles was copyright infringement. The copying there was much more similar to P2P, where there was a library with a single (or a few) copies of the journals, and researchers from texaco were making hundreds of copies so that they could each have their own at their work areas. But the court did state that if the purpose of the copying had primarily been so that a researcher could take the photocopy into the lab and not accidentally damage the original, it probably would have been fair use.

          Section 107 of the Copyright Act outlines some specific instances of fair use (criticism, comment, news reporting, etc.), but does not limit fair use to only those purposes, instead codifying the judicial doctrine of fair use (the 4-part test somebody noted above).

          Usual disclaimer applies: IANAL, just a well-meaning law student studying hard for his Copyright final. :)
        • I had looked up the Sony case, but others have already covered that just fine. You can read a fairly comprehensive definition of Fair Use in the USA on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

          This is even part of the DeCSS case, where you have a right to archive your own DVDs, the copyright holder isn't obligated to give you a legal method to do so.

          Another "fine line" regarding Fair Use: Borrowing copyright material for parody is considered Fair Use, but satire is not. Look that one up for fun and profit.
        • The way I read "fair-use" in the US, is that it is protection granted to comment on works. I don't see how copying the entire work onto a different media would be included in that definition.

          It's not even a protection really.

          What's so great about the current copyright law (in the U.S.) is that Fair Use is (just) a defense. Essentially, that means when it comes to copyright infringement you are guilty until proven innocent. :-D

          If I use a piece of TV in a film I've made (and have publicly displayed or distrib
        • Fair use here in Canada though (not looking for a backing link, but I'm sure of this) does allow making of "backups" or alternate copies of something once you own a single copy.

          "Fair use" is an American term. There's no such thing in most of the rest of the world, including Canada. The Copyright Act here gives you various specific rights to backup computer programs if you own the original and to make personal copies of audio recordings whether you own the original or not, but there's no general right to m
      • It is illegal in the UK though because "media shifting" is not explicitely listed as a fair use exception to copyright. As this is an article from a UK paper, I suspect the claim was just a typo.
    • Yeah, It would be covered under fair use. If, however, there is any DRM on that CD, it is illegal to circumvent it to make copies, even if it would be covered under fair use.
    • Just wondering... isn't that covered under fair use (and perfectly legal as a result)? Can someone clarify this for me?

      Yes, as long as it doesn't require you to circumvent an effective copy protection. Remember, fair use is only a defense against copyright violation, not circumvention.

  • Patent for $ (Score:2, Interesting)

    by transami ( 202700 )
    The real problem is Patents for $. Essentially corporations can buy almost any patent they wish for the right amount of green. The USPTO now operates at a *PROFIT* and are REQUIRED TO DO SO. Thus they cha-ching the lawmakers kitty. This practice is downright theft not to mention UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Get rid of this kind of CORPORATE COMMUNSIM and we could yet have fair but firm IP protections beneficial to inovation and the people.

    • Re:Patent for $ (Score:3, Informative)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 )
      CORPORATE COMMUNSIM
      The word you're looking for is fascism [wiktionary.org]:
      1. A movement which believes the state should consist of a dictatorship by the economic elites of the country being governed.

  • Riddled with errors and unsupported statements. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by torokun ( 148213 ) on Saturday November 19, 2005 @08:31PM (#14072909) Homepage
    I'm not a lawyer yet, just a law student. This is not legal advice...

    I must say, this is one of the worst articles on IP I've ever seen. Whoever thinks it's 'excellent' is just hankering for some anti-establishment echo-room action rather than reality. I don't think I have time to cover them all, but here are just a few.

    until recently it was entirely clear to the law. Things could have owners and ideas could not.

    This is baloney. It's been quite a while since the constitution was written, and right there in Article 1 section 8 clause 8 is the statement by the framers that is the basis for our patent system. Ideas could be owned in 1789, and long before that as well, as England also had a patent system.

    Not to mention the fact that money is an idea, equitable servitudes are ideas, usufructs are ideas, loans are ideas, contracts are ideas, and, now this will really blow your mind --

    options on options...

    well, you get the idea.

    Even facts about the world can, in some cases, become the property of commercial companies. It was the promise of gaining patents on the human genome...

    Facts about the world, laws of nature, or abstract mathematical statements or equations, cannot be patented.

    Gene sequences may seem to be getting close to that line, but you can only patent a gene sequence that you can extract and replicate; it's analogous to extracting and purifying a chemical compound from a naturally occurring mixture of substances, in effect making available a new substance that no one could put to practical use before.

    Laboratory animals have already been patented, starting with the OncoMouse, an animal whose genome has been manipulated to ensure that it develops cancer.

    An animal that's human-engineered is certainly not a 'fact of nature' -- it never existed before someone made it. It's a result of engineering just as much as an electric circuit or a toaster. It's just alive.

    It is certainly true that the governments, the peoples and the industries of poor countries have fewer drugs than they might otherwise have because of international patent law.

    This is one of those completely unsubstantiated statements. I tend to think that many of the drugs that the developing world uses were developed at least partially due to the patent system. At any rate, what's really clear is that they ALL come from the U.S. and Europe.

    In this world, size is no protection. It just makes you a more succulent target for enemy lawyers.

    I would just like to point out that both sides have lawyers -- this makes it sound like lawyers are the enemy. In fact, lawyers are just the guys that help their clients get what they deserve under the law.

    People with more money have always been able to hire better lawyers in our legal system, and that problem has nothing to do with intellectual property.

    Big pharmaceuticals must patent everything, if only to be certain the competition does not do it first.

    The system is supposed to work this way. It incentivizes companies to research and patent things as fast as they can, pushing the limits of technology, and then disclosing them to the public. Otherwise, they might do less research, and might keep their research secret, thereby keeping it from the rest of us much longer than the 20 year life of patents... Sometimes reverse engineering is possible, but sometimes it's not.

    when I make a copy of your program, you still have the original, which works just as well as it ever did. Equally, when you make a copy and sell it to me, it has cost you nothing, so why should you charge me for it as if it were a limited resource?

    How about so I can pay my programmers? How about so I can invest i

    • "In the US, for instance, it is illegal to copy your own CDs on to your own iPod. Obviously, this is a law that is broken all the time, or nobody there would ever buy an iPod."

      Most of you probably already know that this is not true.

      Only because a CD must (remotely) abide by the Red Book standard, which never included an "effective copy protection". But if you install crap like Sony's rootkit, I imagine circumventing that, or accessing the DRM'd PC versions of the music would be considered a crime. Using Hym
    • Alright, although I disagree with the vast majority of your post, there are two bits that are particularly wrong:

      ---------------

      This is baloney. It's been quite a while since the constitution was written, and right there in Article 1 section 8 clause 8 is the statement by the framers that is the basis for our patent system. Ideas could be owned in 1789, and long before that as well, as England also had a patent system.

      No, that's baloney. If that were the case -- if "Intellectual Property [sic]" was prope


      • Regarding takings of property, the expiration of a patent is not a taking because the right that is granted is limited to 20 years from inception. The government is taking nothing away when the patent expires, because no right was granted that extends beyond 20 years.
        • Exactly, that's my point -- the government isn't taking away property when a patent expires because there was never any property involved to begin with. (Note carefully that the converse is not true -- the ability to be taken away is not what causes ideas to not be property.) It's just an example that shows how property and "Intellectual Property [sic]" are completely different things.

    • until recently it was entirely clear to the law. Things could have owners and ideas could not.

      This is baloney. It's been quite a while since the constitution was written, and right there in Article 1 section 8 clause 8 is the statement by the framers that is the basis for our patent system. Ideas could be owned in 1789, and long before that as well, as England also had a patent system.

      Patents (originally) were/are not monopolies on ideas, but on inventions. Those are not quite the same [ffii.org]. And origin

  • The issue isn't "problems being caused by the concept of 'intellectual property'". That's tantamount to declaring the problem of theft is due to the concept of ownership.

    The problem is a lot of people are justifying abuse of property they do not own and the exercise of rights they do not have by pointing to legitimate concepts of openness that have been deliberately bastardized to serve their own selfish interests.

    All information is unfree at the moment of creation. Whatever degree of right and ownership th

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close