But you have to be aware that most innovation today builds upon innovation made only a few years ago. So even a 20 year monopoly is way too long, if we want to ensure that the patent system does not stiffle innovation. And when we take into account both the time to get a patent and the cost of the patent system, it is getting really hard to argue that patents are helping innovation or our economy today.
This is certainly reason to review and update the patent system. I agree that 20 years is likely too long considering the pace and nature of a lot of current innovations. I still disagree, however, with the people who believe that the answer to to abolish the system altogether.
And if you look at patent infringement cases, you will see that most cases are used to shut down new and innovative competitors in the market.
So the current state of patents today is that they stiffle both the free market and new innovation.
If there is any one type of IP law that I would not want abolished, it is patents. Far from stifling innovation, they actually require it. Because the patent system requires that all patents are fully documented, and since the patents themselves expire relatively quickly (compared to other IP), it requires companies to be constantly innovating. Yes, they get a government monopoly in the short term, but by the time the patent expires they need to either create something better, or they will be undercut by new companies who didn't have any of the R&D costs that the original company had.
Certainly, this is better than other IP. Copyrights, for example, are vastly longer than patents. Even without the constant extensions, we are still talking about the life of the creator plus some. Surely you can see how this extreme length could easily lock up innovation worse than patents do. Trademarks, while not really applying to this situation, are far less helpful for innovation. Heck, the basic concept of trademarks requires that you sit on an idea rather than doing anything really new with it.
Without any of these, companies are forced to rely on trade secrets to protect their ideas. If you want to talk about the stifling of ideas, you can't get much worse than this. Since there is no protection, there is no reason to have any flow of ideas in public. We can see this happen again and again in pre-patent societies where techniques would become lost when the people who kept them hidden died before passing them on.
Of course, we can argue about the exact details of patents, such as the 20 year period. I agree that this is too long, but if anything it is a sign that the system works. Innovation has become so rapid that many things have become totally obsolete within the 20 year period. Personally, I would say that it seems clear that innovation is hardly being stifled.
Sure, but the key here is that if something isn't going to be practical within a decade, it's probably not a great idea to base your entire company around it.
Sounds great for people who buy singles, but why in the heck would the companies ever want to do that? It's not like it helps them the established companies in any way. Half of the problem with these new regulations is that they try to force all music to obey one set of guidelines, regardless the people who make the music.
On the other hand, this might be a good way for up and coming labels to establish themselves and encourage wider distribution. But either way, this sort of thing certainly shouldn't be forced on companies.
I know that was just a joke, but I would like to point out that Moore's law is still continuing just fine at the moment. Most consumer processor designers have decided that instead of using the extra transistor density to increase speed, to use it for all these multi core chips that have been produced the past couple years.
Honestly, I think that you missed out on a lot then. Starcraft, especially, had some good cutscenes, in my opinion. I've always felt that they added a lot to the story, and were in general a great example of how to get it right.
How often do you take your family to the circus, or major concerts, or sports events? I don't know about you, but my family is unlikely to do any of those more often than once a year, and generally less. If that's the frequency that movie studios want us to see their films, then more power to them. However, given the way they cry and complain any time that attendance drops by even a little,I suspect that they would rather have us going more often. And to get that, they need more reasonable ticket prices.
I have seen GPL supporters whine and pretend that somehow BSD code in proprietary systems is suddenly no longer free. There was quite a bit of FUD by the FSF regarding FreeBSD, claiming that the FreeBSD Foundation could go private and leave companies locked in. This was of course when FreeBSD was seen as more mature than Linux, and we had the SVLUG making quite a number of outlandish stunts trying to get Linux publicity. So many GPL supporters are pretty well known for publically stating their beliefs are better and all others are simply wrong.
Yeah, I know that there are definitely some misguided people who support the GPL and the FSF in general. I don't really have any excuses for some of them, but still, if every position was judged by its most misguided advocates we would have to dismiss pretty much any popular idea.
claiming that the FreeBSD Foundation could go private and leave companies locked in.
This is an especially stupid idea, since absolutely any project with complete copyright over the project is capable of this. The only protection that the GPL can provide for this is to force projects to replace any GPL libraries if they intend to go closed, and in the case of an OS, I'm not sure how much protection this really would be.
Please remember, leaching to you is a compliment to others. Some of us enjoy doing good work and simply want to be appreciated for it (aka the Beer license).
Like I said in my first post, if you think this, then it's all ok. I only take issue when people do have a problem with leaching and still decide not to use a license that prevents it.
Yeah, the author was pretty unclear on this. Certainly, using the GPL or something similar will prevent companies from legally leaching too much off of the project. At any rate, it insures that any changes the company makes should be able to find their way back to the project itself. Of course, this can still be violated, at which point it becomes a legal question. Honestly, this is one of the big reasons that I disagree with many people who favor BSD style licenses. If that's what you want for your code, then it's all well and good, but don't ever complain about leaching, since the license gives complete permission to go ahead and do that.
The difference : the EU is ELECTED. MS is not, so : yes, the EU should be able to do anything to MS.
I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that this really follows from your premise. Just because a group is elected does not mean that we can't turn a critical eye towards what they are doing.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is right here. I just think that we ought to be a little skeptical when a government starts trying to decide how much a company is allowed to charge for their product.
Whatever point you pick, I'll bet Microsoft has overstepped it!
Hmm... I say that Microsoft has crossed the line when they spontaneously decide to give me a billion dollars. /checks bank account
darn, looks like they haven't crossed that line yet
Sure, but I don't agree that a totally free market is the ultimate end goal that we should judge things by. Honestly, I'm not really sure what criteria would be best used as a measure, but I do believe that free markets are merely a generally good way to get there, not the end goal itself.
As far as patents are concerned, I disagree that they are a bad thing. Besides the standard argument of protecting innovation, they also serve the important role of exposing most innovations to public record. Sure, the companies get a temporary monopoly, but once that time has expired we are left with all records of the innovations as a matter of public record. To my mind, that is a lot better than having to deal with a bunch of companies that hoard their trade secrets so that they never see the light of day.
Hence the business has a duty to follow the legal rules.
No one here is arguing that. We're arguing that these rules (if they actually give the EU the power it is claiming) seem to have some serious issues. Just because something is a law does not automatically make it right.
Like many, I started out with GPL, moved up to LGPL, and finally realized that the BSD license was really the fairest.
I'm not sure how exactly you arrived at this conclusion. I see nothing that is inherently unfair about wanting the code you write to be used only for the benefit of the free software community.
They are different licenses with different benefits to them. I see no way in which either is less "fair" than the other.
Public Domain is defined as the complete lack of an official license!
That's not really true. The article does a good job explaining this. Going without a license means that people have essentially no permissions regarding their use of your code. Public domain, while not exactly a license, still requires that you actually perform the act of placing the code into public domain (which is as simple as a short statement to that effect). Still, code without a license is not public domain by default.
It seems to me that venue shopping is the thing that needs to go here. The idea that it is possible to pick and choose who gets to decide on the lawsuit based upon how easy it will be to win simply boggles the mind.
True, but then again, pretty much all "American" food is just a variation on the cuisine of other countries due to the comparably short amount of time that the country has been in existance. That said, this is true of pretty much every culture's food if you go back far enough. It's just a matter of regional variations changing enough that they can actually be considered distinct from the cultures that originally spawned them.
The thing that bugs me is that a lot of people look at the worst of American food and then decide outright that all food in America is just a crap version of someone else's cooking. When you really take a look at it, American cooking isn't that bad at all. Besides the pizza example, I'd also point out things like the various clam chowders (New England being the best variation, IMO), and other popular regional dishes. Although things are still a bit derivative, there have been plenty of great foods that have been created in America.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is any one type of IP law that I would not want abolished, it is patents. Far from stifling innovation, they actually require it. Because the patent system requires that all patents are fully documented, and since the patents themselves expire relatively quickly (compared to other IP), it requires companies to be constantly innovating. Yes, they get a government monopoly in the short term, but by the time the patent expires they need to either create something better, or they will be undercut by new companies who didn't have any of the R&D costs that the original company had.
Certainly, this is better than other IP. Copyrights, for example, are vastly longer than patents. Even without the constant extensions, we are still talking about the life of the creator plus some. Surely you can see how this extreme length could easily lock up innovation worse than patents do. Trademarks, while not really applying to this situation, are far less helpful for innovation. Heck, the basic concept of trademarks requires that you sit on an idea rather than doing anything really new with it.
Without any of these, companies are forced to rely on trade secrets to protect their ideas. If you want to talk about the stifling of ideas, you can't get much worse than this. Since there is no protection, there is no reason to have any flow of ideas in public. We can see this happen again and again in pre-patent societies where techniques would become lost when the people who kept them hidden died before passing them on.
Of course, we can argue about the exact details of patents, such as the 20 year period. I agree that this is too long, but if anything it is a sign that the system works. Innovation has become so rapid that many things have become totally obsolete within the 20 year period. Personally, I would say that it seems clear that innovation is hardly being stifled.
Fortunately, the options people have are a slight bit more subtle than that. There is a middle ground between apathy and packing up and moving out.
Sure, but the key here is that if something isn't going to be practical within a decade, it's probably not a great idea to base your entire company around it.
Agreed. GPL may be more restrictive than the BSD license, but it certainly is more conducive to creating a community of free software.
Sorry, but there's a difference between "stylized" and "looks like an in engine cutscene from five years ago".
Sounds great for people who buy singles, but why in the heck would the companies ever want to do that? It's not like it helps them the established companies in any way. Half of the problem with these new regulations is that they try to force all music to obey one set of guidelines, regardless the people who make the music. On the other hand, this might be a good way for up and coming labels to establish themselves and encourage wider distribution. But either way, this sort of thing certainly shouldn't be forced on companies.
I know that wikipedia isn't exactly the world's most reliable source, but why in the heck hasn't that article been deleted yet.
Look at the guy's posts. Just another troll. Nothing to see here.
Depends on which timeline you are living in. I guess we'll find out tonight.
I know that was just a joke, but I would like to point out that Moore's law is still continuing just fine at the moment. Most consumer processor designers have decided that instead of using the extra transistor density to increase speed, to use it for all these multi core chips that have been produced the past couple years.
I'm going to second the "why is this a troll". If I hadn't finished off my mod points earlier today, I'd definitely give it a boost.
Honestly, I think that you missed out on a lot then. Starcraft, especially, had some good cutscenes, in my opinion. I've always felt that they added a lot to the story, and were in general a great example of how to get it right.
How often do you take your family to the circus, or major concerts, or sports events? I don't know about you, but my family is unlikely to do any of those more often than once a year, and generally less. If that's the frequency that movie studios want us to see their films, then more power to them. However, given the way they cry and complain any time that attendance drops by even a little,I suspect that they would rather have us going more often. And to get that, they need more reasonable ticket prices.
Yeah, the author was pretty unclear on this. Certainly, using the GPL or something similar will prevent companies from legally leaching too much off of the project. At any rate, it insures that any changes the company makes should be able to find their way back to the project itself. Of course, this can still be violated, at which point it becomes a legal question. Honestly, this is one of the big reasons that I disagree with many people who favor BSD style licenses. If that's what you want for your code, then it's all well and good, but don't ever complain about leaching, since the license gives complete permission to go ahead and do that.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is right here. I just think that we ought to be a little skeptical when a government starts trying to decide how much a company is allowed to charge for their product.
So that's why they keep getting clogged so easily.
darn, looks like they haven't crossed that line yet
Maybe if I check again.....
Sure, but I don't agree that a totally free market is the ultimate end goal that we should judge things by. Honestly, I'm not really sure what criteria would be best used as a measure, but I do believe that free markets are merely a generally good way to get there, not the end goal itself. As far as patents are concerned, I disagree that they are a bad thing. Besides the standard argument of protecting innovation, they also serve the important role of exposing most innovations to public record. Sure, the companies get a temporary monopoly, but once that time has expired we are left with all records of the innovations as a matter of public record. To my mind, that is a lot better than having to deal with a bunch of companies that hoard their trade secrets so that they never see the light of day.
It seems to me that venue shopping is the thing that needs to go here. The idea that it is possible to pick and choose who gets to decide on the lawsuit based upon how easy it will be to win simply boggles the mind.
True, but then again, pretty much all "American" food is just a variation on the cuisine of other countries due to the comparably short amount of time that the country has been in existance. That said, this is true of pretty much every culture's food if you go back far enough. It's just a matter of regional variations changing enough that they can actually be considered distinct from the cultures that originally spawned them. The thing that bugs me is that a lot of people look at the worst of American food and then decide outright that all food in America is just a crap version of someone else's cooking. When you really take a look at it, American cooking isn't that bad at all. Besides the pizza example, I'd also point out things like the various clam chowders (New England being the best variation, IMO), and other popular regional dishes. Although things are still a bit derivative, there have been plenty of great foods that have been created in America.