Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Attorney On Why We Need To Rethink Intellectual Property

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the undermining-from-the-inside dept.

Techdirt called our attention to an interesting video of patent attorney Stephan Kinsella's presentation on 'Rethinking Intellectual Property Completely.' It's a long presentation, but well worth the time to watch. There is also an ongoing series of posts discussing intellectual property rights on Techdirt for additional reading.

8 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. For those of you looking for it ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Informative

    article & bigger video can be found here

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  2. Old concept in a new world by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intellectual property is a very egoist concept nowadays, in a time in which technological innovation can help so many people. It depends on the way it is used; if you just sit on your invention for 20 years and prevent others from doing something similar, or if you sell it at an outrageous cost (see: drugs) it's really detrimental to humanity as a whole.

    --
    Eureka Science News - automatically updated
    1. Re:Old concept in a new world by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Drug companies love to talk about the cost of developing their drugs, but they easily spend more money Marketing their drugs than they do developing them. If there drugs are so good and wonderfull, shouldn't they sell themselves?

      This gives much more information.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Old concept in a new world by frosty_tsm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably not.

      But if there is not a perceived investment opportunity, many drugs sold for high prices today (and lower prices tomorrow) would never have been developed.

    3. Re:Old concept in a new world by reebmmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is the money you gain from prohibiting others from using the same idea in a generic drug worth the lives lost by those who are unable to afford your prices?

      You've phrased this exactly backwards: is giving up a short term of exclusivity worth all the lives SAVED because someone took the time to invest the money in getting that drug from discovery through clinical trials.

      Without patent protection, you'd have a free rider problem.
  3. A better way of saying this... by tgatliff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How big businesses, attorneys, and the court system have hijacked our us patent system to squelch new entrepreneur innovation in the US...

    Let me summarize the conclusion as well... Good ideas on IP change do not matter at this point because nothing meaningful will happen until we can somehow get congress to stop their continuous feeding at the trough of corporate lobbyists...

  4. Intellectual Property Tax by apenzott · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This could be a wonderful revenue opportunity for cash-strapped state and local governments.

    When such a court claim is made on infringement of this intellectual property by a business located within the tax jurisdiction, just take the claimed infringement value and multiply it by the prevailing property tax rate and invoice said property holder. (Be sure to tack on interest and penalties for back taxes.)

    If property holder doesn't pay in 90 days, start lien and foreclosure proceedings.

    To recover the costs of this collection, auction off this IP. If there is no starting bid (1% of value), property becomes public domain.

    --
    The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
  5. Re:IP will never go away. by Zigurd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To say that copyright protection for recorded performances is permanent is like saying gasoline engines are forever going to power cars. There was a time before gas engines, and copyright recorded performances, and there will be a time that comes after.

    As with gas engines and global warming, if we find that copyright protection for recorded performance amounts to pollution of the law and of the public domain, there is every reason to do away with that aspect of copyright protection.

    Copyright is not a fundamental human right. Copyright is a deal: "I'll publish, if the governments protects publications." Unlike natural rights, copyright is a created right, a bargain between governments and publishers, and the bargain can be partially or fully revoked, or the term shortened. There is nothing immoral about revoking or curtailing copyright protection, especially for a relative novelty like recorded performances. It is a decision based on utility.

    --
    I wrote parts of this stuff