Slashdot Mirror
Copyright and Patent Laws Hurt the Economy
Norsefire writes "Two economists at Washington University in St. Louis are claiming that copyright and patent laws are 'killing innovation' and 'hurting [the] economy.' Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine state they would like to see copyright law abolished completely as there are other protections available to the creators of 'intellectual property' (a term they describe as 'propaganda,' and of recent origin). They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
www.againstmonopoly.org
They put their mouths where their money is, or something like that (too late in the day to be properly witty). Read it online for free.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Which it shouldn't.
The US constitution did not specify that author's should be granted a reproduction monopoly, but that their exclusive right to their writings should be secured.
See An Author's Exclusive Right for more detail.
Point being, the concept of IP (perhaps using other words) is hardly of "recent origin". However, we have the right to work through our elected representatives to pass the kind of "IP" legislation that will best "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", not just the posterity of inventors and artists.
Below is a fitting quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Isaac McPherson ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html )
You obviously have _ZERO_ idea how academic publishing works. Scientists usually have to pay hefty fees to submit their work to a journal. After that the papers are peer reviewed by other scientists. You might think the scientists who do the reviewing get paid. In fact they do not, it is typical to do this for free. Scientists want their work to be out there and be used by other people, who will then cite their work. When their work gets cited they gain standing and can get better jobs. Making it impossible for other people to get their hands on their research is definitely not in the author's interest. Furthermore, a good deal of research is paid for by tax or phianthropically funded grants. Yet another reason the results ought to be freely available.
Below is a fitting quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Isaac McPherson ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html )
Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyrights and patents but his beliefs evolved. In correspondence on 1790 June 27 to Benjamin Vaughan he wrote:
"An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'd push more for 15 to 30 years. Not every idea can be rolled out at Web 3.0 speeds. Anything that requires physical manufacturing, quality control, and any kind of regulatory oversight can't hope to go from concept to consumer within less than 2 years.
This is close to the original copyright and patent terms. Using an actuarial table of life spans Thomas Jefferson calculated that they should last 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The other side is that many companies refuse to pursue innovations unless they see parts that can be patented to lock in the monopoly returns. Lesser profits just aren't worth the trouble of pursing innovation as they see it these days.
You've got that completely wrong. Due to the fucked up nature of the US patent system, patents are valuable to a company. Either for blackmailing companies that produce actual value, or for preventing blackmail from competitors. There is no innovation behind them.
My company tries to get patents exactly for the reason to prevent blackmail from competitors, who have patents in the same area. That works quite fine, as long as our competitors are doing well because when they are doing well, they can't afford mutual destruction by patent lawyers. Where it goes wrong is in a case like RIMM, where they totally beat their competitor in the market place, so their competitor had no reason anymore to be afraid from RIMM's patent, and could use their own patents in an offensive way.
The reason why my company innovates is not because of patents, it is because we want to offer our customers competitive products, so that they buy ours and not our competitors, and that way we make money. We do _not_ innovate to get patents. We do, however, like everyone else, turn our innovation and also our failed innovations into legalese to get patent.
The founding fathers would never stand for it.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson said THIS about copyright:
"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."
I dare say this Thomas Jefferson would beat the RIAA, MPAA and the congress which allowed those copyright-extensions to bloody pulp.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse