Slashdot Mirror
When Good Patents Go Bad
will writes "The Washington Post has a good
review of patents in the information age. The insanity of the US
patent system has been chronicled on this site numerous times in the
past (for example, an
FTC report on patent policy, some patents for obvious applications
such as Microsoft
patenting local weather, and Amazon patenting inside
book searching). The Washington Post article does a good job
of overviewing IP issues today, why the current US patent systems
fails in the information age, and gives an example of patent
extortion. Excuse me while I patent
my DNA."
One aspect seems central to many of the patents which are generally accepted to be absurd or insane: they are patents on processes for selling goods or services rather than on the goods and services themselves or their means of production. There doesn't seem to be enough awareness of this discrepancy between these types of patents and ones which we consider to be reasonable. Online retailers such as Amazon, for example, may claim that they have two customer bases, book-buyers and advertisers, and that the website itself is a product for the advertisers, but in truth their real customers would seem to be the former....
Tim Berners-Lee must be kicking himself for not patenting the WWW. Or are there actually some decent altruistic people out there who want to make the world a better place?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some ingenious ideas , need to be patented so that the inventor can reap the benefits of his hardwork. But inventions which leave us saying "f@#king DUH!", should seriously be quentioned.
What USofA needs is a better patent challanging system. and by challanging a patent I don't mean claim ownership of that patent, I mean demonstrate the use of that idea so commonly in public domain, that no one actually deserves the patent.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Seriously, that's a good example of the proper use of a patent - for ingenious hardware widgets. IP patents, on the other hand, are downright evil.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
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 rights, and the information age.
Surely anyone who claimed that there is no incentive go grow cotton without "niggers" on the plantation would be considered a barbaric. But if someone claims that there is no incentive to create intellectual and knowledge works without copyrights and 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 information age 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 copyrights and 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 copyrights 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 copyrights and patents you must be communist. How about - you are a thief if you free slaves from the plantation, you are a thief when you copy someones "Intellectual Property".
So why are we spoon-feed these poor logical explanations over and over again? Because, like the rapist who drugs his victim and gently penetrates her, rather than beat her and tear into her where all the scars, blood, and bruises can be seen. 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. Copyrights and patents are the pinnacle of quiet violence. So seemingly innocent, so seemingly civilized and friendly, so hard to see and identify any direct evil, any direct consequence. After all, what could be less harmless then providing an incentive to artists and inventors, right? But do they really promote art - or just promote works that have the most hype rather than the most meaning and educational value? 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 diabetes medication is too expensive to afford anymore. Who can the workers blame when the proprietary technology they bet their career on becomes obsolete and it becomes ever harder to relearn from scratch as they get older. 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 there individual research for fear that their peers will get one up on them, get a key patent, and lock them out! Who do our nations students blame when tabloids are pennies on the dollar, but textbooks dollars on the page! Who do we blame for Hollywood culture being such a failure, and so strongly influencing society in their own failed image.
As people die because patented medicines are too costly and alternatives too sparse, and the needy go without, not because of genuine shortage, but because artificial human made restrictions. Our government who is the enemy of overt violence, has become the friend of quiet violence. Our government who has organized world wars to protect our freedoms, now promotes a world order that will take them away. The democracy that has allowed us to fight for our rights with votes and politics rather than violence and bloodshed has now become
It was a very clever strategy on the part of Acacia - first go after the porn folks (nobody would come to their defense), then the university and online education folks (no money to fight), then the broadcasters (already under siege by the trade associations), then the toolmakers. They probably could have been nipped in the bud if people had paid attention early on.
At this point, it's important to drag the big players into the fight - folks who are being sued by Acacia need to subsequently sue the tool vendors (Microsoft, Real, Apple, Macromedia) for selling them allegedly unlicensed patented technology.
I find your analogy between there being no incentive without slaves and no incentive without copyright to be poorly thought out (or perhapse just poorly articulated).
:)
A more apt analogy for cotton with regards to copyright would be:
"There would be no incentive to grow cotton if no one would _buy_ cotton, because they could get it for free. "
I know that it isnt possible to get cotton for free, but you have to understand that it IS possible with regards to most copyrighted works.
Your slavery argument when applied to copyright is more accurately:
"If the _cost_ of creating copyrighted material went up significantly, there would be no incentive to create copyrighted material."
As you can see, both these statements are clearly incorrect, and I would say that your analogy bends the truth to make a point that isnt there. Your peice is clearly well written, but you should work on your analogies.