This presupposes that all R&D must be underwritten by a big company. Unless I miss the point of most of the "open source" movement, they throw this premise right into the dumpster. I am not an economist or a lawyer, so I cannot as artfully reproduce the arguments that have been made by others, but I do recognize that R&D can exist without economic motive. I am not sure that we could maintain our rate of advancement in a pure gift culture; however, I gather that one of the biggest reasons for the backlash is that IP law has swung so far into protecting corporate interests, it has served to restrict the rate of creative advancement. I think there is a reformist middle ground on IP law somewhere, but I recognize that I need the help from others to advance the argument.
I think you nailed a big problem that exists with or without copyright law, and that is where people get trusted information. Just b/c somebody puts a term in a contract it doesn't necessarily make it binding. If its against public policy or declared invalid due to adverse bargaining position (which can happen with consumer goods contracts), it can be thrown out. Additionally, big companies are found of revising binding contracts, and making consumers believe that they are bound to the new conditions. The problem would still be the well armed media and legal machines of industrial giants. There are a ton of people that think Linux is buggy b/c their sources for information tell them its buggy. We may be able to remove a legal remedy under copyright law, but between misinformation, and clever crafting of product definitions, the evil empires will still find some safe harbor. I definitely agree with the premise, and copyright law should be reformed. It currently frustrates its essential purpose of stimulating innovation by commoditizing information. The total elimination of copyright law could have its drawbacks b/c it could further reduce the power of the creative mind. I personally think that we are better off for having a William Faulkner write full time, instead of doing in the sparse hours after he came home from a day at the office. If we do not give the creative engineers/authors/etc. some type of economic leverage, almost no one could ever devote their full attention toward a creative career. I do not think we can totally rely on the good will of others. I don't foresee the evil empires paying for what they could get for free. I do not think that gov't grants would be the answer. We would always be restricted based upon what a majority found to be utilitarian or morally suitable (re. Jesse Helms and Mapplethorpe0
Within American Legal Jurisprudence, a state has general jurisdiction over a corporation, if its incorpororated in the state or maintains substantial contacts with a state. While the latter condition is fuzzy, it ususally is satisfied by it having an office in the state, or targeting a state for a substantial amount of business. If its the American govt. your worried about, you can bet they would use any and every mechanism to say its U.S. (i.e. nationality of developers, location of equipment used in production etc.) to get it over the 10% bar. Judging from the original post, I am betting its the Austrian govt that would be the major concern. I do not think the Iranian govt. would care about a deal that furthered its citizens interests (unless the citizen was anti-govt.) If I were Austrian, I wouldn't give a rat's a#$% about what the US courts would hold unless it is one of the munitions talked about in the previous posts. Not only would the US courts not have any type or personal or subject matter jurisdiction, I doubt they would flex any muscle in trying to enforce a US statute on a foreign national.
btw - I do agree with your premise. Its rather infantile to take an international cooperative effort and brand it for your own political agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
This presupposes that all R&D must be underwritten by a big company. Unless I miss the point of most of the "open source" movement, they throw this premise right into the dumpster.
I am not an economist or a lawyer, so I cannot as artfully reproduce the arguments that have been made by others, but I do recognize that R&D can exist without economic motive. I am not sure that we could maintain our rate of advancement in a pure gift culture; however, I gather that one of the biggest reasons for the backlash is that IP law has swung so far into protecting corporate interests, it has served to restrict the rate of creative advancement.
I think there is a reformist middle ground on IP law somewhere, but I recognize that I need the help from others to advance the argument.
I think you nailed a big problem that exists with or without copyright law, and that is where people get trusted information. Just b/c somebody puts a term in a contract it doesn't necessarily make it binding. If its against public policy or declared invalid due to adverse bargaining position (which can happen with consumer goods contracts), it can be thrown out. Additionally, big companies are found of revising binding contracts, and making consumers believe that they are bound to the new conditions.
The problem would still be the well armed media and legal machines of industrial giants. There are a ton of people that think Linux is buggy b/c their sources for information tell them its buggy. We may be able to remove a legal remedy under copyright law, but between misinformation, and clever crafting of product definitions, the evil empires will still find some safe harbor.
I definitely agree with the premise, and copyright law should be reformed. It currently frustrates its essential purpose of stimulating innovation by commoditizing information.
The total elimination of copyright law could have its drawbacks b/c it could further reduce the power of the creative mind. I personally think that we are better off for having a William Faulkner write full time, instead of doing in the sparse hours after he came home from a day at the office. If we do not give the creative engineers/authors/etc. some type of economic leverage, almost no one could ever devote their full attention toward a creative career.
I do not think we can totally rely on the good will of others. I don't foresee the evil empires paying for what they could get for free. I do not think that gov't grants would be the answer. We would always be restricted based upon what a majority found to be utilitarian or morally suitable (re. Jesse Helms and Mapplethorpe0
Within American Legal Jurisprudence, a state has general jurisdiction over a corporation, if its incorpororated in the state or maintains substantial contacts with a state. While the latter condition is fuzzy, it ususally is satisfied by it having an office in the state, or targeting a state for a substantial amount of business.
If its the American govt. your worried about, you can bet they would use any and every mechanism to say its U.S. (i.e. nationality of developers, location of equipment used in production etc.) to get it over the 10% bar.
Judging from the original post, I am betting its the Austrian govt that would be the major concern. I do not think the Iranian govt. would care about a deal that furthered its citizens interests (unless the citizen was anti-govt.) If I were Austrian, I wouldn't give a rat's a#$% about what the US courts would hold unless it is one of the munitions talked about in the previous posts. Not only would the US courts not have any type or personal or subject matter jurisdiction, I doubt they would flex any muscle in trying to enforce a US statute on a foreign national.
btw - I do agree with your premise. Its rather infantile to take an international cooperative effort and brand it for your own political agenda.