Shirky on Spectrum Ownership

scubacuda writes "When engineering assumptions change, shouldn't the laws that govern technology reflect those changing assumptions? Perhaps Clay Shirky puts it best: 'Things like shoes, cars, and houses are all property. Property is excludable -- it is easy to prevent others from using it -- and rival -- meaning that one person's use of it will interfere with another person's use of it. Spectrum has neither characteristic. Spectrum is purely descriptive -- a frequency is just a particular number of waves a second -- so no one can own a particular frequency of spectrum in the same way no one can own a particular color of light. Instead, when an organization 'owns' spectrum, what they really have is a contract guaranteeing Federal prosecution if someone else broadcasts on their frequency in their area. The regulatory costs of forcing spectrum to emulate property are enormous, but worthwhile so long as it leads to better use of spectrum than other methods can. That used to be true. No longer.'"

Comments

No More ugly colors

[ASayre8]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/14/203723 7

Same story, better colors.

Ownership of Light

[FFFish]

no one can own a particular frequency of spectrum in the same way no one can own a particular color of light

You can "own" colors, no problem.

See this short article explaining how the courts have favoured/denied color trademarking.

I believe Coke owns their colour of red, IBM blue, KPN (Dutch Telco) green, etc.

As long as the color is not indicative of "function" (ie. isn't associated with a particular "message", ie. blue is cold, red is hot, green is environmental, etc), you have a shot at getting it trademarked.

When trademarked, competitors in your marketspace/mindshare can't use that same colour.

Which means you effectively "own" the wavelength of light that is that colour!