Slashdot Mirror
In Defense Of Patents and Copyright
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.'"
...why post it? I can find similar trolls with little or no effort too, but usually I'm here for a honest discussion. It is not like this article would be news in itself.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Newsflash: corporate media execs will say anything to protect their monopolies on intellectual products. As a last resort they might produce an intellectually satisfying argument, but only once they've exhausted all the easy ways to keep their fat status quo.
(C) Doc Ruby. All Rights Reserved.
--
make install -not war
...it IS a troll. NOBODY who works for C-Net can possibly be ignorant of the rest of this story, or of the tempest in a teapot that a biased editorial is sure to stir up. Therefore, it is purposeful, intended to drive up traffic and replies.
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".
Actually, I thought it was too lengthy of a summary. Doubt it was "fair use", and we all know paraphrasing is stealing, too. Sue the bastard!
Here come the "it's not stealing" crowd.
"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.
Yes, it is a crime, but that crime is NOT THEFT.
There is a distinction for a reason. I suggest you might study the history of copyright, you fucking dumb ass.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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?
Historically, what happened when the publishing monopoly of the Stationers was killed, 300 years ago (decreasing the monopoly duration from infinity to 14 years)? Did people stop writing books?
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.
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 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.
You don't even have any choice as to whether or not to ignore software patents. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Then there are several thousand new applications a day. I'll give you a hint. It's impossible.
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.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
On one hand, the current legal environment around intellectual property is broken. Everytime you read something by RMS and think "this guy is a crack pot", 6 months later something happens that is uncomfortably moving us toward some of his dystopian predictions (i.e. "Freedom to Read").
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?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
It might also have something to do with the large government subsidies that they use to fund their research.
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?
we should also bear in mind the consequences of going too far in the opposite direction.There is no chance of that happening, so why should people bear this in mind?
Too few discussions of patent reform have an intelligent, informed and balanced basis in the purpose and benefits of the current patent systemMaybe because the current patent system is anything but balanced, but rather tilted to the extreme in favor of the patent holders (especially big companies).
The argument "used all the time around here" is not: Drug companies don't deserve patents/as-lengthy-patents because they spend more on advertising than research." Instead it is a lot more like: Drug companies claim they need lengthy patent protection because their R&D is so expensive. Except it turns out that the they spend substantially more on advertising than they do on R&D, so their claim deserves no sympathy.
It's helpful to keep in mind that some people consider physical property ownership as a natural right. You say that the ability to keep people off your private land is a government-granted monopoly. But without some form of government you'd still be able to keep people off your land - to some degree, anyway - by threat of physical force. I'd bet that for as long as man has walked the earth, he has been aware of the notion of physical property - my cave, my spear, etc etc. The essence of property ownership is that ability to deny others access to something, even if it was in the past limited to what you could physically defend.
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.
--Gareth
That's really not an argument for why we, the people, should be willing to enact copyright laws and obey them.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.