Slashdot Mirror
Domain: movingtofreedom.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to movingtofreedom.org.
Comments · 11
-
Slater the Traitor
...the US DISREGARDED AND DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT about European patents or Copyrights.
Oh, we certainly regarded them: feel free to shut your mouth for a bit and learn a little.
feel free to shut your mouth for a bit and learn a little.
-
Re: More likely
...the US DISREGARDED AND DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT about European patents or Copyrights.
Oh, we certainly regarded them: feel free to shut your mouth for a bit and learn a little.
-
Re:Distinctions should be made
The patent system was used by the King of England to reward his friends with monopolies
And so the founders included it in the constitution, because they were total fans of the King of England and his was of doing things.
Powerful people helping powerful friends is of all times. And e.g. Thomas Jefferson wasn't exactly a big fan of the concept of patents initially. That changed somewhat later on, but even then he never saw it as "little vs big guy" but rather as "help the interest of society".
> I mean, just look at the arguments of patent system fans. Half the time they'll say
> > Patents are required, because otherwise everyone will keep everything secret and all knowledge will be lost.
> The other half of the time they say
> > Patents are required, because otherwise everyone will immediately duplicate every innovation without the original
> > inventor being able to get any money out of it.
> While both statements can't be right at the same time, they sure can be wrong at the same time.Sure, because everything written in absolutes is always intended as such.
And every statement can be qualified in a way that makes it potentially true. What people try or not is not the issue, it's what the actual situation is. It's simply not true in the digital economy that in general innovators cannot make money off of their innovation because other people immediately duplicate it. Just like they don't work in a vacuum, and should they have to pay a royalty to every single patent owner whose "innovations" they are "stealing" pretty much no one would be able to sell software at a profit except for the behemoths out there. There have been plenty of surveys and economic studies on these topics, a bunch of which I once summarised.
At the same time, given that pretty much no software developer ever looks at patents (and if they look at them, they're more likely to get a headache than inspiration), their disclosure value is not that great either. Let's not even talk about business method patents, many of which are disclosed by simply putting them into operation (it's hard to keep one click a secret). And then there's the point of network effects, where overall value and efficiency increases exponentially as more people/computers use the same standard to communicate and exchange information. Patents would have to offer really massive benefits to offset all of this overhead.
So by not writing these statement as absolute rules that somehow must govern behavior, but rather as expected strategies people will follow we can see not only how they can both be true, but how they are actually both accurate as they are already partially in play today (see trade secrets and GPL issues). The only difference is that we presently have an additional strategy of 'get a patent' which changes the game.
It adds red tape and leads to a tragedy of the anti-commons (because a patent does not guarantee that you, or anyone else for that matter, can make use of whatever you monopolised; it only allows you to forbid others from making use of that knowledge). Thereby it naturally leads to concentration of power, which in fact is readily acknowledged by and even seen as a positive evolution by certain people in charge of forming IP policy.
-
These bills aren't the problem
You need to show him how destructive copyright is... that enforced exclusivity is bad m'kay? Read him some of Jefferson's thoughts on the matter.
-
Re:It doesn't matter what you would like to see
The founding fathers understood this
Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest founders, disagreed:
http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/... generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
-
Re:It doesn't matter what you would like to see
You're conflating the purpose of one thing, and whether or not it's often mangled and abused. Patents do create incentive.
Bullshit. Patents are just a barrier to innovation, and even one of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, knew it:
http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/
...it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
The whole system needs to be abolished. It never was very useful in promoting innovation, and these days it's nothing but a giant hindrance.
-
Re:The car theft analogy
The thing is, IP theft really does deprive owners of that IP of money.
1) "IP theft"? Aren't you shortcutting this whole conversation by declaring infringement is theft?
2) Copyright infringement, for example, may deprive the owners money. It may not. For example, a person who would otherwise never buy a book might download it's text, burn it, and never look at it again. How does this result in loss of money to the author of that book?
3) A case can be made that derivative works might actually encourage people to purchase the original, supplementing the author's income.
And the Framers were aware of the tradeoffs with IP. Take a look here for example:
http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/ -
Re:Ubuntu To Do List
The only way to satisfy this is to have a bunch of API hooks that run when you move files around, which is truly ugly.
I believe operating systems are already doing this today for the "desktop search" engines. I don't see such a daemon to be that ugly, but then I don't know how these things are layered on Linux.
With regard to centralization, you're right, I was just thinking about the desktop. Anyway, I do think Linux approach with repositories can work well. Music repositories work very well, so it can also work for applications. I think however that distros package managers are very rough for the casual user -- descriptions are not very good, the interface is intimidating, it doesn't only list the graphical application but also libraries, and so on and on. But I was told Ubuntu has some small installer's tool for the new user. (link) -
Re:Interesting.
Our patent system is broken.
I've come to realize that this is a misconception. The patent system isn't broken, corrupt, or overwhelmed. Unfortunately, it is working exactly as it was designed.
From an early age we are taught idealist interpretations of patent law and how it is a wonderful tool to spur innovation, research, business, etc. and provide a level playing field for the little entrepreneur. However, when confronted with the reality of what patent law is, a forced impedement on human nature to invent and create which turns out to be contradictory to the idealistic intent, it is assumed it must be because it is broken.
http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/ In order of time, I should have mentioned before, that having, in 1742, invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who, having an iron-furnace, found the casting of the plates for these stoves a profitable thing, as they were growing in demand. To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated," etc. This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.
An ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighbouring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.
- Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography Ben knew from the beginning that the patent system was a farce and would have unintended consequences and from its inception there are accounts of its use to enrich those who do not create or to impede a competitive free market.
If Ben was around today I'm sure he would approve of the open source movement and he would likely be called a smelly long haired communist and have chairs thrown at him. -
Re:It's the bottom line, stupid!
A computer is a complex tool. You can use it easily like you can use a chainsaw easily. The chainsaw eliminating a couple of your fingers is enough deterrent that most people learn to use it properly before that happens.
Excellent. I like that. How dangerous then to have Chainbuntu, the Ubuntu-powered Chainsaw.
I'd like to see some education, but I think we're really going to have to work on dummy-proof computing. (While realizing that the problem is that the fools are so darned ingenious.) The danger is too abstract for the average fool.
-
Re:Moral correctness is not enough
Maybe you shouldn't, if you're concerned about not getting monopoly protection. No loss to the rest of us. Someone else will do it in your place. Patents are supposed to promote innovation for the benefit of society. Software patents just stifle people who are already working on making better algorithms with no interest in idea monopolies.
----
Freedom is on the March!
http://www.movingtofreedom.org
