Slashdot Mirror
FTC and JD Holding Hearings on IP
hondo77 writes "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department are holding hearings on intellectual property laws over the next few weeks (the first one was Feb 6). They're looking at the balance between IP rights and the free market."
- abolish all business process patents
- repeal the DMCA
- make using copy protection a Federal felony
- publish the DeCSS code on a scrolling marquee in Times Square
- ban the RIAA and MPAA
- have Jack Valenti made U.S. Ambassador to Somalia
- have Sonny Bono, uh, never mind
That ought to be a good start to a "balance."
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I suspect that the possibility of any outcome between Justice and the FTC is going to be a blatant corporate lovefest. Let's face it, Ashcroft is firmly in the pocket of big business, and the FTC, while trying to get a grip on reality, fails to do so much of the time. The big IP corps are goning to simply take the ball here and write their own rules. Is there any way to get in front of this bus and stop it? YES. Get off your dead ass and send snailmail to your congress critters. Write to the head of the FTC. I'm not even going to include links, your mostly smart people out there, you know how to use Google. Get after it!
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
~~~
Sure. I'm all for IP. I think being able to own ideas is a *good* thing. I think that people against it are primarily doing so because they themselves don't know how to make money. I think the capitalist society we live in today (along with IP) led to the technological growth that allows me to post my voice on this board, this very second. I think most "free" people on Slashdot are quacks, because if it really came down to it, they couldn't use their free software argument for everything else they purchase... and sell... in life. Thus, they are hypocrits.
I doubt this is what the editor had in mind when he put up the dept. heading, but hey.
I'm constantly amazed at the idealism shown on Slashdot. Politicians are about one thing, and one thing only: How can I get re-elected? The easiest way to get re-elected is to have lots of money to campaign with. The easiest way to get lots of money to campaign with is to get it from corporations. The easiest way to get lots of money from corporations is to use the "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" mentality.
They're going to uphold the current IP laws because it lets people make patents out of a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich.
Free your mind. It should be all about how well you implement the different ideas, and which ones are the good ones.
Stop the brainwash
I'd tend to agree on abolishing many of the copyrights, IP, etc... on the internet, but the fact still remains that someone somewhere must be paid for something to be developed or innovated and that particular person/company will want people to know and maybe even pay for something that has taken them so much time to develop. Think about the music industry, if someone said, OK you can copy the music as much as you like then the recording industry would simply stop releasing music, then there would be nothing to copy! maybe im on completely the wrong track here, but the way id understand this particular article is that everything should be free, I just dont know if that could be, as i said, someone somewhere has to foot the bill to pay someones wages to develop whatever is being trade marked.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
It may be too early, but I did not see if this thing is open to the public. Anyone know? I actually would be interested in going to this thing. The hearing on the 20th looks pretty interesting.
Try this.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I just discovered gravity. Since no patent or prior art exists, I'm going to patent it and license it to people who pay me enough. The only currency I accept is gnus. Seriously, this is a prime example to see exactly when democracy can fail. That's right, it's not perfect! If the majority believe one thing and you don't you are wrong!
Ah, well, it has happened in history before and it will probably happen again. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, right? Just remember, you can't enjoy fame if you are dead.
Before you go to a flamewar about the newest draconian laws the US has passed, fix democracy. How do you fix it, by educating people!
Ok so some of the patents out there are absolutely ridiculous. Maybe the should hire some people who aren't brain dead governement employees to look through the patent applications and reject the applications that are blatantly stupid. I mean come one. Who needs to be able to patent a sandwhich that the crust was cut off of and sealed in a ziploc bag?
It's good to see someone/thing be glad it/(s)he isn't a file pointer.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
This is like the balance between boxing and not-getting-punched-in-the-face.
If you want a free market, don't sponsor monopolies that wouldn't exist without government-approved idea ownership.
Why do I feel like these meetings are going to go over like a Mike Tyson press conference?
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Another mindless Ashcroft bashing.
These simpletons bash him then merrily go to the polls and elect the people who pass the laws.
Thats like letting someone steal your posessions then suing the police for not catching them before they got away.
And you are talking about capitalism.
First we are a republic.
Second we are capitalist, absolute capitalist in fact. So capitalist that we hurt ourselves to make money, kill each other to make money, and kill innovation for a profit (microsoft for example)
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Total agreement here, even with the Enron fartcloud envolping Washington, after that "Axis of evil" comment by Bush, I'm convinced the cherry is off the "war on terrorism" victory and W. is back to halfwit status. Particularly with the extremely soft stance with regard to Microsoft and the DoJ and M$ wanting to get the whole thing wrapped up fast so they can get back into the bedroom and continue screwing people. The current administration is a bunch of coldwarriors, corporate whores and dingbats, Colin Powell the notable exception, but tainted by association, nonetheless. If anything comes out of this it's probably the FTC and DoJ looking for any wrangling room left over Intellectual Property that they can lock up in favor of the GOP's big campaign donors.
While you're writing to your reps, tell them to vote for the campaign finance reform act to bring an end to the charade of people you've never heard of having $70 million before a presidential campaign even gets started.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Lobbyists and lawyers are involved every day and every step of the way in shaping the opinion of the politicians involved in all patent related legislation.
Where are the suits for those who think we need to loosen the IP chokehold? They do not exist, because frankly there is no money in it.
I don't have a clue how to change any of this. I feel like I'm sitting in the back seat of a bus driven by a drunk driver.
What makes you say that? I don't see him mentioned in the article. I don't see anything that indicates that the Justice department is on the wrong side of the issue. They are at least holding hearings which indicates that they understand there is cause for concern!
1996: 211K applications, 121K accepted ~~ 57%
2000: 315K applications, 175K accepted ~~ 55%
So what does this mean? I'm not exactly sure (not a stats major) but I think it isn't unreasonable to say that the people in the patent offices aren't going nuts letting everything get through--the same percentage is holding over the period in question. Rather, the sheer number of applications (+ 50% in 5 years) and holding at the same %% means that yes, there will be more accepted.
The question I ask then is, does anyone know of application 'quotas' or anything similar going on? Is it their policy to let a certain %% through, give or take, or is it just the fact that like it or not, and stupid and BAD ideas or not, the same percentage which meet the necessary patent requirements hasn't changed in 5 years.
Like I said, I'm not a stats guy...maybe someone who is and understands what's going on better can explain the %%'s
sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
And whilst you're at it read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html.
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Millions of people in third world countries dying because of patents on drugs.
Kids and adults lacking intelligence due to patents on information which could enlighten the world.
Innovation controlled by big corperations using patents, and all for a profit, milk the old technology for 40 years or more until profits force you to change.
Government controlled by companies like Enron who take advantage of the flaws in the system.
Criminals and organized crime taking advantage of capitalism, people being killed for a buck, and wars being faught over money issues.
Whens it going to end? Capitalism is fine, but too much of anything is bad. When will people figure out, too much capitalism, too much competition, and not enough sharing is bad? Yes moderate competition fuels innovation, too much competition however makes the enviornment so competitive that no one can innovate.
Imagine the innovation and the new technologies we'd have, if third world countries had access to all the information in the world, and any kid rich or poor could be the next einstien or bill gates, any living person, any of the 6 billion people could come out with an idea, which changes the world and shares the idea for free.
Money needs to be made people say, just because you share an idea doesnt mean you'll turn that idea into a product. The product is what people buy, the service is what people pay for, not the idea or the information.
My opinion is, more focus should be on sharing information, less focus on competiton, more focus on ways to earn money from hard work and not from information, ideas, or earning money from having money.
We also need to fix the problems in our government, the current administration is just a joke, they got into office in a suspicious manner, and now we here stuff about Eron, corruption within the government should be removed, it will be difficult but its possible.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The "JD" in this story's title is properly referred to as "DOJ"
IMHO IP belongs to a distinct intellect and not generally to a corporation. Also, unlike the soul, intellect cannot be sold.
You elaborate!
Just my $0.10 on the subject.
...that IP rights are supposed to be balanced with "free market" (what I consider to be a political doctrine on the border of being a religious belief) and not consumer protection, freedom of expression, advance of technology, science and human thought, or other real things that are threatened by overbroad patents and other kinds IP abuse.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The problem is, this isnt a free market.
Since rich people control the information, the rich get richer by exploiting the information which they have.
Hows it free? I'll believe in capitalism with IP when i start seeing poor people from third world countries starting companies and beating our companies.
Afterall we are outnumbered, its kinda funny we are the ones benifiting from capitalism and no one else.
Maybe thats because we have the unfair advantage of already being rich, already controlling most of the information in the world, having all the patents and having enough monopolies to maintain the unfair advantage.
Thats why the global economy idea will never work, good on paper, bad in practice.
Poor people do not have information to educate themselves to our level giving us the unfair advantage, a kid who cant afford books to the quality of ours, who cant even afford medicine to stay healthy enough is too busy trying to survive to think about innovative stuff.
It will always be like that as long as we control information.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
can keep backing our policical campaigns?
If there was any doubt about this, it should have been firmly removed when House Speaker, Dennis Hastert came out against campaign finance reform, because it would cost the GOP seats and possibly the house.
Well, dang, maybe we should make George King and Dennis and Trent dukes, that should allay their fears. What gets me, and probably more than a few others is that the corruption has become necessary because it's more about winning than doing the right thing. As each party ups the ante, the other sees and raises, until the public gets hurt enough to slap them back into place, but professional weasels always give themselves a way out and look for it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What have you got agaisnt Darth Vader? At least he returned to the good side of the force. I just don't see that happening with Ashcroft, he's more like Palpatine.
James Rogan, director of the U.S. patent office:
> "The entry of patent law into these areas was
> greeted with predictions of disaster,"
> said "Yet the United States is the
> international leader in [software] and other
> technological areas."
The U.S. is the richest nation in the world. It was the international leader in software and other technological areas long before software patents reared their ugly head. But Mr. Rogan sounds surprised...
"How can this be? The U.S. has passed laws that allow us to arrest foreign programmers whose code we dislike and throw them in jail! We put export restrictions on encryption software! We grant patents on algorithms that are then included in ISO standards! We allow corporations to rip off huge quantities of code and call it "the Windows (R) network stack", and give them laws to allow the prosecution of anyone who makes unauthorised copies of it! How come we're the world leader?"
> "A return by competition regulators to viewing
> IP rights with a 1970s-era suspicion would risk
> interfering with these market-based incentives
> to innovate."
Market-based incentives to innovate are only incentives to the people involved in the marketing. You can't persuade an inventor to "invent more" by offering cash. You can only persuade firms to invest more in R&D, which isn't quite the same. Just as musical people would write and perform music whether or not they ever had a chance of becoming millionaires, so creative people would continue to create and invent. This is particularly true of software, where the cost of distribution is virtually nil. The deal is - money is (or should be) the means of exchange, not an end in itself.
The crunch comes with patents on drugs, where the initial investment is so large. There will never be (if you like to think in these terms) a medical-research Linus Torvalds to play the role of nemesis to the evil Glaxo-Smithkline, because you need more than a couple of PCs and some skill to cure cancer. I think this is a much more interesting and important area, and one that's a lot less easy to solve in the long run.
I dunno.
These sigs are more interesting tha
It is not scarce? So you're telling me that everyone thinks and creates on the same level of intelligence.
You're using the wrong definition of scarce. Each "new" IP created by someone is just that, a new property. This is much like a new model of car, a new type of CPU, or green orange-juice.
"Scarce," in economics terminology, means limited. If some X number of people have this, then the X+1'th person is going to get stiffed. This applies quite well to physical properties, because there are only so many, and that number is usually quite small compared to the number of people on the planet.
Oxygen, however, is not scarce. Nitrogen is not scarce. (Both if these come with caevats that it's breathable, but not pure.) Intellectual property is not scarce. I can breathe as much as I want and not affect the breating of anyone else on the planet. Likewise, I can copy the Linux Kernel (insert favorite rev. here) as many times as I want, and everybody else on the planet will still be able to get theirs.
Your argument (which seems to be that the market created/allowed by IP laws encourages the development of new IP) is possibly a valid one, but it is not based on the principle of scarcity. Don't get me wrong here -- I'm not an "abolish copyright/patents" type of guy: I think that you should be allowed to release your software on whatever terms you want, although any protections in excess of copyright law should be signed before purchase. I also happen to think that copyright is too long-term and the patent office is quickly becoming incompetent, but both of these are largely irrelevant to the fundamental discussion of Intellectual Property.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
Information control leads to thought control.
When we have the ability to communicate via thoughts, will there be a law saying "That thought is patented"
I'm sure we will see patented thoughts, and some thoughts will be illegal, you'll have police arresting you for thinking bad thoughts, you'll get sued for thinking of thoughts which have owners, and you'll pay a fine for thinking of thoughts which are deemed as dangerous.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Software should not be able to patent. Its far to easy to solve a problem and take patent on the problem rather than the way to solve it. One-click from Amazon is an excellent example of patenting the problem (buying with a click). I wouldnt have opposed if it had been a patent on HOW to make one-klick working. Software is to fluid to be mesured up by a patent office because of the extremaly many ways to solve a specific task. Many of those ways fall under patent that hasnt anything with the patent at all, they just solve a problem in one of many ways possible.
I say, if they still want software patents then narrow them down so specific that they only patent real code and no just air like BTs patent on hyperlinks (or what you can call it).
HTTP/1.1 400
Look, it's not the Intelluctual Property I have a problem with. Come up with a new idea? Great! If it's something worthy of it, than that person by all means deserves a Patent for the concept.
What I have a problem with, is people being awarded common-sense patents. OOoo! I had this great idea, that if instead of making a user click "Check-Out", then go through all the horrible tedious screens to do so, I'll make a one-click idea!!
Even better are the people who claim years after the fact that something becomes popular that they had the idea in the first place. Nothing explemifies this better than British Telecoms claims over the Hyperlink. If you had such a great idea in the first place, maybe you should have implemented it somehow. Or at the very least, at least keep posted on what's happening in the Real World with it. You mean to tell me that you had this patent since 198x/199x (not positive of the right date and too lazy to look it up) and you are just noticing now that it is being used massively on the Internet? Cut me an f-ing break.
Again, you come up with a great idea/new invention, than hey--I think you should be rewarded; but an onus falls upon those people as well to protect themselves if it's really that innovative.
Seriously, the patent office needs massive reforms. They need to start taking a serious look at what they are awarding patents for and really how innovative of an idea this is. How about going out on a limb and hiring some knowledgeable tech people that can check technology patents over before we award them?
As far as the MPAA and RIAA go, I hate them with a passion. Yeah, that's flamebait right there. I think they have far too much lobbying power (how else could we have gotten the DMCA out there). I do however think it is important for Artists to have some of protection (ie. a Union, which they have). The RIAA and MPAA are just the representation of more Big Business Interests who really care nothing about what happens to their artits. Intelluctual Property? Bah, as long as they can milk more money out of us, they're happy.
Honestly as optimistic as I'd like to be, I just can't see anyting really positive happening from this. Bush's Cabinet is just too far in the pocket of big business to really care about Fair-Use or any of those worrysome consumer ideas.
But Bush has an 85%+ approval rating. Boy do I hate the knowledge and ideals of the majority of voters in the US. (I talked to someone yesterday who was angry that he missed the last election. 2001? Huh? No, that one with Gore and Bush--that about sums it up for me.)
IP leads to mind control. In about 20 maybe 30 years when we can communicate via thoughts through a brain to computer interface. (I know less intelligent people will consider this sci fi but its going to happen)
WHEN it happens, what will happen to IP?
How will it be enforced?
NDA will that include it being illegal to share your thoughts?
People refuse to look ahead into the futre, the future if it continues will cause us to lose our freedom of thought in the same way we have lost our freedom of information. If thought to thought communication is the next internet, and if information on the internet isnt even 100 percent free with people like the RIAA and MPAA trying to remove freedom. Imagine the MPAA and RIAA in the future, if you listen to your favorite song and try to memorize it and repeat it in your head, nope, that will be illegal and you'll be fined by the RIAA.
You see in a world where every peice of information is under IP, and in a world of high technology, and superior communication to what we have now, without absolute freedom, it will be living hell.
The internet is about giving freedom not taking it away, the internet is about expressing our thoughts, telling a person what they cant do with their thoughts should not be legal, saying "you cant make software which breaks DMCA" should be illegal because you are preventing a person from expressing their thoughts.
What next? Making it illegal for men to cry because its deemed illegal, oh yeah crying is patented and you'll be fined by the RIAA for having such an emotion. You see how stupid IP laws are? The idea of owning an emotion sounds stupid, the idea of owning a thought sounds stupid, how is owning an idea any diffrent?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Stupid patent examiners are a problem.
There are certainly some ideas which are sufficiently new and non-obvious that they deserve patent protection. I think the Fast Fourier Transform would have been one of them. But right now there's a huge number of patents being issued for stuff which is neither new nor non-obvious... and that is where the problem lies.
Let's take an example... searching for patents which include the phrase "hash table" in their title reveals ten patents.
The first patent (Dec 2001) is on a hash table which uses key mod N as an index and stores key div N inside the hash bucket (instead of storing the complete key). Hello set-associative content addressable memory. Every major cpu manufacturer has prior art on this one.
I can't make any sense out of the second patent.
The third patent is on using a hash table inside a switch to speed up finding a MAC address/port combination. Obvious to anyone with a background in algorithms: If you want to find something quickly, stick it in a hash table.
The fourth patent is on using two hash tables, and placing records into the second if they encounter a collision in the first. Prior art: Any 1st year data structures & algorithms textbook.
I can't make any sense out of the fifth patent.
The sixth patent is on inserting data into a hash table by writing the data first and the key last, in order to maintain thread safeness. Obvious to anyone who has written multi-threaded code.
The seventh patent is on growing and shrinking a hash table when it gets too full (or empty). Prior art: Any 1st year data structures & algorithms textbook.
The eighth patent actually looks like something intelligent; the ninth patent seems to be a duplicate.
I can't make any sense out of the tenth patent.
Ok, so out of nine distinct patents, we have five which should clearly have never been granted based on prior art or obviousness; three which I can't understand; and one which looks to be worthy of patent protection.
Here's an idea: If the USPTO grants a patent, and someone later demonstrates prior art or obviousness, the person who invalidates the patent should get to claim all the fees paid by the patent filer. I have a feeling that if this happened, we'd see a very rapid deflation in the number of dumb patents on the books.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
There's times when someone creates something so big, it influences a whole culture and for other people not to be able to ride the wave is wrong.
Since corporate waves are so big they crush the little guy's ability to enter a market, little guy's should be able to sell addons and such to an already established product given it isn't the same product repackaged, and "Unofficial" is in the title.
Says a bit for software too, not alot, but some.
God spoke to me
Problem: Gene bank closed, no funding by governments. Why: Countries can't afford to fund something of mutal interest when they have their own problems.
What if governments made a percentaged budget based on country's income. Then this budget is voted on and spent on public works for the world?
Then eventually if this went on long enough, public goods could be vaulued.
Maybe.
God spoke to me
They make some pretty interesting arguments in there. Click here for a PDF version.
Imagine a world, where you can take the source code from any program ever written and add it to your own.
This would improve innovation because less time would be spent reinventing the wheel. You'd have better higher quality programs, you'd have more programs.
It will be proven via the success of linux, that patents on software is bad for progress.
Ever wonder why Linux in a few years caught up to Windows in every area except maybe 1 or 2? Its because in linux everyone shared software. Because its open source, people didnt have to reinvent the wheel even though they still do, people dont have to.
Now imagine a world where billions of people are programmers all writing solutions to problems, programming would turn into "Insert solution here for search algorithm" "Insert solution here for distributed networking" "Insert and combine solution here to create new solution"
It would make programming more like science or chemistry, it would be mixing and matching, combining and building, and less design issues and problem solving. Programs would be less buggy, would run faster, the quality level would increase and because people dont have to reinvest the wheel the innovation would increase. There would be more programmers because programming would be easier, and last but not lease a program would run in all Os's because all Os's are open source and compatible with each other.
This is the world we'd have without IP.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Right now patents in the software industry represent a security threat to the US economic interests long term. Countries who do not recognize software patents (or for that matter EULA's) will arguably have a faster rate of innovation than the US.
I can name a few that already are on thier way to killing our home grown software industries:
Linux
Linux wasn't invented in the US, and it is fast becomming a economic boost to those countries that can't afford to pay patents to Microsoft or the licensing fees. Linux does not recognize patents as a viable way to obtain money for software. No one in thier right mind would invest the kind of money required to obtain a better OS than Microsoft's in the US market with the current monopoly.
Which is my point, innovation has basically stopped in the OS market for the past 8 years in the United States.
Is this healthy for the market with 1 or two competitors?
Is this healthy long term for the US goverment that relies on economic activity to fund its Armed forces?
No I don't think it is.
Linux is based on an entirely new economic concept of "writing software is more important than the software itself." Therefore, people are at the center of this new economic model, not the software end product.
My concern, is that we defeated the USSR through economic means, as they represented a view of the world we didn't like. The US and such nations as up and comming China and India, who do not recognize patents or licensing, and who do not enforce it, could easily defeat the US eventually with a free market in those countries that do not have our limitations of doing business.
Long term monopolies represent stagnation both in invester stock evaluations and a very dangerous threat if something is introduced from the outside into a monopoly market that we have no control over and changes the rules to that market.
I suppose we could resort to bombing 1/3rd of the worlds population (India and China) if they don't accept our ways of doing business, but I do not think that would be wise if the US wants to stay an economic power.
In the end, patents and licensing are not in themselves bad, as long as they don't put up walls in the market place, and as long as the laws of the country in which they reside recognize this fact and enforce them to the ends of creating a competitive market.
This is where AntiTrust laws come into play over monopolies and this is no longer the case in the United States. These laws have failed in the past decade with respect to the US software industry. As a result we have a very unhealthy market, where value is low, and prices are very very high.
Why have these laws failed?
In the US, increasing business buyouts of government elected officials and thier cohesion with the wheels of business, are proving to be a real long term business threat to the US economy. Patent laws are not being used to the ends in which they were designed and AntiTrust laws are being blatently ignored.
The Enron scandal in the US is the tip of the Iceberg, in my opinion. Our government's unwilling recognition of the "Microsoft problem" and what to do about is are far more telling about how money and the US government are intertwined now days with business.
Patents are now a tool that:
1) Is designed to stamp out any startup capital that creates or designs new innovative solutions that would invalidate an existing patent.
Legally, most startups fold immediately. The tax revenue and the job's lost are incalcuable to the United States long term tax base.
I read about it all the time. X number of employees leave Y company and Z company is gone in 14 months because Y company killed Z in court.
2) It is very difficult to invest in such a patent world because you don't know if your money is going to be safe in a company attempting to break into an existing market. (Beyond what you think is a good idea of a product or not. You essentially have to have a lawyer to be an investor. Investing shouldn't be that hard.)
Patents do not encourage investment in a monopoly market. Worse, it would be better not to invest in the US, I think I will put my money over in China or India. (etc...)
3) Prices are cheaper in a monopoly market? Of course not. Long term, the interests of consumers are affected.
It is increasingly becomming clear that the US is heading for a collapse of Titanic proportions in my mind. Increasinging stagnation in a variety of industries from software to hardware business is increasingly becomming entangled in politics.
Influencing government to keep markets static, keeping conditions poor for long term growth.
(i.e. Compaq and HP merger is just another example of real BAD ideas...being endorsed on a wide scale from Washington.)
Long term the Giant will awaken and squash the US high tech software industry like a bug if we don't start waking up ourselves and realize that our long term safety as a country is at stake.
The US government always has exceptions to rules of its "Hands Off" policies with regards to business. But in the end, when monopolies drive up prices, and squash long term new technologies in the name of keep the market "business as usual", one must realize exceptions to these rules need to be enforced for the betterment and health of the market place.
The government exists to level the playing field in business, to make it fair, to insure everyone plays by the rules and opportunity abounds.
Not too close markets too a few individuals in business.
In the end IP rights I believe are an archaic view of the world of technology. They will be increasingly hard to enforce as nations shuch as China and India grow up and learn that they can change the rules very quickly, without our help.
IP rights focus the importance of doing business and what is of value on the end product instead of the company or people creating the IP. I don't believe this way of doing business will survive long term, given the fast maturity rates of China and India in the free trade block, high tech sector.
Once you had a taste of Linux as they say, you never go back.
[:-)]
-hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Because both the patent office and the courts have forgotten why patents exist.
In every case of IP assertion (whether it's a patent or a copyright or whatever), you have to ask, "How does this fit with the purpose of IP?" Do that, and everything is just fine and dandy. Copyrights for stuff written in the 1960s or earlier, predatory patents that "surround" other patents to make them impossible to use, patents on "obvious" things, etc. all go flying right out the window. And IP will exist and inventors and creators will still have incentive.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A few years ago, McDonalds (I believe they were the first - if not, it still works) introduced the "Extra Value Meal". The idea is instead ordering a sandwich, maybe fries, maybe a drink, they tie all three together so it is a better deal than if you bought each seperatly. This way you WILL get fries and a drink. So they sell you three items for a quarter or two more than the two items you would have bought before. Because profit margins on fries and drinks are so high, it's not like they lose money.
So, next thing you know every fast food place from Dairy Queen to Burger King to Wendys has various meal deals by various names.
Did they all pay McDonalds a royalty for bundeling items together? I seriously doubt it. They looked at a business model and implemented it themselves.
Now...Amazon comes along and someone has the bright idea of "lets store the customer info so when they want something they don't need to fill that info out again". A wonderful new idea? Probably not...I'm sure tons of places have regular customers who the owners know and can have everything taken care of just by the customer calling up and saying "Hey Bob, I need another x number of y's". Bob knows his customer and ships them to the usual place with the usual billing. Probably been going on for years on end.
All Amazon did was to expand this system to all of their customers and cut down on the human part - which is what computers do well anyway.
So why shouldn't b&n, and every other company out there be able to do the same thing? Hey...look at that business idea...does it work - well hell, lets do it as well...just the same way as we take the old crap and mark it way down as clearance to move it so we don't take a loss---just like every other store.
I could see if B&N stole amazon's code, did a s/amazon/b&n/g on it and put it into place, but why should amazon be able to patent an idea they had. A segway, I can see where there would be a patent on that - they guy came up with an idea and actually implemented it, and patented that. I don't believe the patent is for "platform on wheels that moves".
Not! It's doing more harm than good.
Abolish all IP protection
It is no longer protection when all you need are big budgets and compliant Judges.
For heaven's sake, people, I beg of you: the Department of Justice is abbreviated DOJ (or DoJ, for the truly edgy). J.D. is what pompous types put after their names.
Lionel Hutts, J.D.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
As I understand it, IP is protected by patent from the submission date, not the grant date, so noone risks losing IP because of public disclosure.
I'm sure the folks over at OpenIP.org or OpenPatents.org would be willing to discuss this...
The Great Rogerborgio will use his mysterious powers of prediction to determine what will happen in this debate:
Flame away, but far better if you get over to WIPOUT and actually write it down where someone other than the /. regulars might read it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Um, i belive the proper acronym is DOJ not JD.
...which is why we've heard absolutely nothing about the collapse of Enron, the possible illegalities committed by Microsoft, the likely concealment of failure of battery components that go into our guided munitions, and other related elements. Right.
What planet are you from, exactly?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Congressman: Is that a letter about the IP and copyright hearings?
Staffer: Yes it is,. We've received quite a few today.
Congressman: Wait a minute, is that some white stuff on the envelope.
Staffer: No, I don't see anything. Are you sure?
Congressman: Yes I think it is, quick throw it out.
Staffer: Uh, are you sure? We've gotten quite a few letters about the hearings
Congressman: Yes, quick throw out all the mail. We can't take any chances.
A few days later...
AP Wire: pparently slashdot.org is reporting that it's readers have sent over one million letters to their congressman, but none ever received a reply.
FTC and JD Holding Hearings on IP
Maybe the FTC finally realized that they were *drinking* JD when they came up with some of the current IP restrictions that are in place...
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
How in the hell does your comment rebutt anything he said? You sure you didn't accidentally respond to the wrong post??
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yes I know. My point was this person's ignorance on the fact that he was unaware that there were elections in 2001 and his ignorance toward the fact that your say in local elections ultimately has a much greater impact on your life than national ones do.
Money is to legislation what software is to an operating system.
If speech (as software) does not qualify for full First Amendment protection (we are seeing this in the various DeCSS cases), why should speech (as money) qualify?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
If bad examiners are no good at spotting prior-art, why not use the web.
My suggestion.
With this plan, there should be little need for a large army of (poorly) qualified examiners.
Any thoughts?
Even when votes are properly recorded the voting record itself is attached to the bill as a static text document. There are many votes and votes on similar bills. It is impossible for the average person to sift through all the bills and find out the voting record of their elected officials. The only sane way to get this information is to look at congressional watchdog groups that will tally votes and keep a proper database of voting records, but even this account may not be accurate as usually these groups have a bias or only focus on one type of legislation.
Last year there was a bill that would have created an online database of congressional voting. This bill failed, good luck finding out what the bill number was or who voted against it.
We have the best government that money can buy.
Always go directly to the source. This case may finally be used to break the gravy train that is corporate contributions to politicians. The case challenged a Missouri statute imposing limits ranging from $275 to $1,075 on contributions to candidates for state office. The Supreme Court upheld the limitations, saying that limiting contributions left communication significantly unimpaired. Of course, no limits may be imposed on how much they spend, since that is speech.
But, read Stevens' concurring opinion in which he explicitly says that political contributions are property, not speech, and should be regulated tightly.
Thalia
Why should people be paid for doing what they'll do for free?
People share ideas when theres no incentive to sell them.
Linux is a perfect example, theres many others.
Competition does not equal innovation, in some situations it can help it and in some situations it can harm it.
Patents do not help people in third worlds at all, they cant get venture capital at all, they lack the information needed.
To the guy who mentioned they are ignortance, ignorance is lack of knowledge, when knowledge has a price often people cannot afford to not be ignorant.
Some kid who cant afford a book wont learn to read, wont learn math, i mean afterall college isnt free, and neither are books, when information has a price, people with money can buy thier way out of ignorance, people without it, are out of luck.
Its not a fair playing ground.
Last but not least, big companies arent needed to form ideas, and if you have an idea and want to make a product, you keep the idea, you make a prototype, then there could be a law which allows you to sign an NDA with the company, the two of you can then turn your idea into a product and it would be illegal for them to reveal your idea however once the product is made, your idea is released to the world and your product must be the best to continue selling.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If I had some karma to burn. You saved me having to write all that :)
unfinished: (adj.)
This is what Gerald Mossinghoff had to say. I started off thinking that this guy might not be too bad. By the time I got to the end though, I realized that the way this guy thinks is the source of many of the problems with the patent system. Check out his report here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/mossinghoffgeraldj.pdf
He seems to think that the current system is good enough and should not be challenged because it could cause confusion. Furthermore, he think that such a challenge would probably be unsuccessful due to the combined power of the high-tech industry, Patent Bar, and various inventors groups. He seems to think that it's a great thing that we've cemented IP laws in place through legislation and treaties. So much so that it would cause chaos if we were to try to roll any of it back or even simply subject patent applications to a higher standard than we currently do. I'm depressed now. Thanks Gerald.
Then we have economics professor, Richard Gilbert. He has a formula that will tell us whether we should pursue anti-trust suits against holders of blocking patents (collections of patents that bar competition). I can't really tell whether it makes sense or not since I don't have any handy way of applying it to a real world case. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is saying, or who will benefit the most from it? His presentation is done in Powerpoint, so you'll need access to MS Office or something else that can read Powerpoint documents. http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/guide1.ppt
Finally, we come to someone who is making sense to me. Yale president, Richard C. Levin. He makes several good points, some that cover the same topics as Mr. Gilbert, and others that cover areas of concern to many of us who have had our eye on the IP system. Read his presentation here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/levinrichardc.htm
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
IP is there to promote innovation. But it has a hidden cost. There will come a time when the DoJ IP patents db will have say 4000000000000000000000 entries. Everyone of them may be fair, but even the tiniest project would demand a legal reseach of 4000000000000000000000 patents, to see if they infringe any of those. Innovation: stoped Start-ups: killed So the current IP law doesn't scale. We'll have a problem and we are already having it. Big , because their always have something to sue back. Like the Nvidia vs. 3Dfx sues, AOL vs. Netscape, etc. In the end, money goes to the Lawers and the effect on innovation is nil. Of course innovation still happens, but despite IP and not because of IP.
unfinished: (adj.)
Yes, but who is concerned? My vote is it's not for the public. We'll see.
Do you really believe that? How many bands are there that over the times, before they got their record contracts and whatever released music *free*? Personally I know quite a few people that were making
I'd wouldn't worry too much about the movies marked either, because they can usually recover costs and more by running it in the cinemas first. Most of us would rather spend 10 every once in a while than shelling out 10000 for a projector and big screen, sourround system, DVD player (which still wouldn't be as good as the theater) and all, and we still get to see it earlier in the cinemas than on DVD.
There's the software marked and other things where you have some *serious* costs making and developing them, and no real way of recovering them that needs protection. Those will be hurt, and that will hurt consumers back. The music and movie business would be hurt too, but I don't see it as hurting the consumers back all that much.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
All a brain does is create ideas.
Basically its what we were designed to do.
Money wont make you create any more or less than you'd naturally create, it would just perhaps give you incentive to create a product based on it.
Creating the idea and sharing it allows others to create the product when they need to. Ideas will always be created, its a natural ability.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Sorry sweetie, I worked in Crystal City (home of the USPTO) for over 15 years and I never met a patent examiner who could be classed as stupid.
Overworked, stressed out, hemmed in by antiquated methods and underpaid with little or no access to seminars to keep abreast of the latest information - yes. Stupid? Not by a long shot.
Besides, there is a system of public disclosure already in place concerning patents.
Every Tuesday, the USPTO publishes the "Official Gazette", one for patents and one for trademarks. The OG is the first place to find out about up and coming patents - and it's available to the public for a fee from your local US Government Printing Office. If you're near a Patent Depository Library, you should be able to go check out the OG at no cost to you.
The USPTO clung to its' antiquated methods up to about 1990 - and they worked well for about 200 years. There is no magic wand that'll convert well over five million patents and all other pertinent information to the 21st century overnight. As we used to say (misquoting Asimov), the USPTO, vaster than empires and more slow.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. - anon.
False. Untrue. Incorrect.
I want Linux games, not Windows games in Linux.
Transgaming merely sends the message to game makers "Go ahead and write your game for Windows. I, a Linux user, will buy it anyway, and I can easily cope with any bugs in Direct X or the emulation layer that I might happen to encounter."
I will not sign up for transgaming, and I will work on completing my purchase of the games that Loki released before they went under, as well as any other good games I may find that are released for Linux natively, thereby hopefully sending the message "If you write a game worth buying, I will buy it just as soon as you release a version of it built to run on my computer."
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.