In Defense Of Patents and Copyright 283
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrighted Editorial (Score:1, Insightful)
(C) Doc Ruby. All Rights Reserved.
Treat it as a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, ok, maybe not really, but it sure does seem to keep people busily coming back for more...
Re:Article summary +5 flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is the mantra I have been hearing for a while. Free Speach for all who beleave in the same values as me. To the moderation dungion if you disagree. We only want stories telling how Patents and Copyrights are bad and evil. Explaining how they can be good makes the story bad.
Oh boy (Score:1, Insightful)
"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:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not trolling:
This is:
That is NOT IT (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a distinction for a reason. I suggest you might study the history of copyright, you fucking dumb ass.
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amusing progression... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Old Media monopoly again (Score:3, Insightful)
Perspective and individual details are important (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh boy (Score:1, Insightful)
Can you provide any evidence based on legal facts to refute that statement? Nope. Because no matter what you want to believe, it's *still* not theft. It just isn't.
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, which are you?
There is no defense. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Treat it as a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Oh boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Well DUH! Its not theft.
They made a 'digital copy of it': that means:
its not assault
its not loitering
its not shoplifting
its not election fraud
its not running a red light
its not coveting your neighbors ox
oh and its NOT THEFT.
It is however... "copyright infringement".
So how about we just call it THAT, mkay? Call it what it is.
Calling it theft is inaccurate and just confuses the issue.
Help me with my conflict (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Make them available now at a reasonable price.
- Allow certain fair-use rights to everyone.
- 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... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is not a news site. Slashdot doesn't report the news, it reports that someone else has reported the news. Slashdot is a discussion site. It provides a place for the nerd elite and nerd wannabes to come together and discuss the stories which interest them most (firehose++, even if it does have many shortcomings and annoyances.)
In addition, you must ALWAYS check ALL news from ALL sources to see if it is a bunch of bullshit. Slashdot is not unique in this regard! Nor at least in the time I have been here has the quality of fact-checking declined noticeably. If anything has gone downhill since Slashdot was younger it's the SnR, which I would suggest is simply due to the staggering number of users. (Not that there's a million actives, as it sometimes appears.)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why isn't it persuasive? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:That is NOT IT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patent benefits (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? If the government weakens the rights of patent holders, it will probably be because the system has flaws. Why should they be compensated when the government corrects those flaws?
There is no chance of that happening, so why should people bear this in mind?
Maybe because the current patent system is anything but balanced, but rather tilted to the extreme in favor of the patent holders (especially big companies).
Re:Why isn't it persuasive? (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument "used all the time around here" is not:
Re:It's easy to win an argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright, on the other hand, is a very recent invention. Throughout history man has had no notion of limiting the dissemination of information that he creates. Copyright is an invented 'right' - a government-granted monopoly that simply would not exist without said government's intervention. That is why some people look on it as a purely artificial construction.
If you create something then indeed you should have the right to control what you create, and indeed you can. By all means do - keep it to yourself, don't distribute it, nobody will come and prize it from you. But if you do decide to give out (or sell) copies of your creation, your expectation to have a say in what is done with those copies once they have left your control is considered unreasonable by some. Suppose Bob buys a book off you. He then lends me the book to read. That you could turn around and say "hey, you can't do that! I didn't give you permission to share that with anybody" to Bob would seem quite outrageous to most reasonable people. After all, why should you be telling Bob what he can and can't do? Of course it isn't optimal for you, because you would prefer to have sold me a copy of your book too - but what right do you have to dictate how Bob should behave?
So, what say instead of lending me the physical copy, Bob makes a small optimization, which is good for both Bob and me, but not for you - he photocopies the book and gives me a copy. Now at this point Bob is guilty of copyright infringement. He is in breach of laws that our society has put in place, not for your benefit, as you may like to imagine, but because they are designed to benefit society as a whole, by encouraging production of books such as yours. That's fair enough - it's a compromise, sure, but I can see the logic in it. But at the end of the day it's an artificial construction designed to benefit society.
Please don't confuse it with a right.
Re:How can you be for any copyrights? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure a lot of surfers would like there to be a tax which enables them to surf all day and have us flip the bill, but just them expressing their desire is not a reason for us to pay for it.