more on Why IP owners should worry

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: [IP] Why IP owners should worry]]]
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:53:44 -0800
From:   Henrik Brameus <blondino () gmail com>
To:     dave () farber net
References:     <438622B7.5090105 () farber net>



Dave, for IP if you wish. /Henrik

On 24/11/05, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Re: [IP] Why IP owners should worry]]
> Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:44:27 -0500
> From:   Miles Fidelman <mfidelman () meetinghouse net>
> To:     dave () farber net
> CC:     ip () v2 listbox com
> References:     <43860607.9040408 () farber net>
>
> Every time IP discussions come up, I find it incredibly useful to go to
> the source:
>
> -----
> Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
>
> The Congress shall have power
> ....
> 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> respective writings and discoveries
> -----
>
> Not withstanding some (IMHO) bad legislation and case law, and somewhat
> different international policies, the ultimate test for US IP policy
> remains: does the policy "promote the progress of science and useful arts?"
>
> Seems to me that open standards pass the test, proprietary standards,
> for the most part, don't.  Same again for open software (the reductio ad
> absurdum case: picture armies of software engineers having to get patent
> and/or copyright clearance for each and every line of code).
>
> Miles

A devil's advocate would just turn that aroun and say what if there
are no software engineers at all because everybody is afraid that
somebody else will steal what they have created, stopping them from
earning their daily bread.

Taking a step bak from that, I don't agree with the way copyright and
patent law is written and interpreted at the moment. I think that too
many patents are protecting vague ideas or common knowledge, rather
than actual inventions.

Let me give you an example. Many years ago I worked on the floor of a
Swedish farmaceutical company, and our factory produced fat based
emulsion for intravenous drip. The process of homogenizing the fat
into microscopic droplets was patented. It didn't stop others from
producing fat emulsion. Believe me, the competition was quite fierce.
All it did was stop others from producing emulsion exactly the way we
did. I find now that what a lot of people want to do is patenting the
concept (e.g. one click shopping) rather than how it's actually done.
In my example it would have been patenting the fat emulsion. Or even
more ridiculous, trying to patent intravenous drip. I know it's a fine
line, but I think that current legislation is creating a risk of
hampered development and good to society.

I also think that the time that the author's or inventor's rights are
protected might be too long. An extreme example is the Disney heirs
protecting the copyright of Walt's old prouctions through getting
extension after extension. I don't mean that the Walt Disney
corporation should lose the protection of characters they are using.
They are more like living trade marks.

I'm not saying I have the solution, but I would like a debate about
what promoting "the progress of science and useful arts" actualy
means, and who should be allowed to judge that.

Today's decisions always control the future.

Henrik



--
"If you're right 98% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?"
Henrik Brameus - http://www.benitel.com/ - blondino () gmail com.invalid
MSN: hbrameus () hotmail com


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/