more on Google, Kaaza, and patent fairness

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "RJR RJRiley.com" <RJR () RJRILEY com>
Date: September 7, 2006 9:30:51 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: "'Krulwich'" <krulwich () yahoo com>
Subject: RE: Google, Kaaza, and patent fairness

Dave, for IP if you wish.

I agree that copyright owners deserve fair compensation.

First, I believe that most copyright does not create new wealth as do
inventions.  Generally copyright only shifts wealth from one pocket to
another.

I have known many top inventors.  Dr. Damadian (MRI), Wilson Greatbatch
(Pacemaker), Gordon Gould (Laser), Gertrude Elion (Leukemia treatment  
and
other inventions), and Jim Fergason (LCD) to name a few.  The value  
of those
inventions are incalculable.  What is a movie or song worth to  
society?  Is
there any comparison?

Second, I think that the priorities are backwards.  Copyrights have very
robust protections, protections which have steadily increased while the
ability to protect patents is much more limited.

Third, I think that the term of protection for copyright is far too  
long.
Most certainly copyrights deserve protection for a long enough period to
give a reasonable return.  How about twenty years or the life of the  
author,
which ever is greater?  The Mickey Mouse bill really was outrageous.   
DRM is
outrageous.

Forth, I believe in fair use for both patents and copyright (i.e.  
research).
The problem is that the copyright interests are attempting to force  
people
to pay again and again for the same work.  They are trying to kill  
all fair
use.

Fifth, copyright interests are impeding innovation, not based on the  
merits
but with abusive litigation.  And many of the bigger copyright  
interests are
campaigning to weaken inventor's rights while at the same time  
overreaching
with their own rights.  Copyright owners should be chasing infringers  
not
crippling new technology.  As an inventor I had to punish those whole  
steal,
not those who licensed.  I expect copyright holders to live by the same
standards.  Just as we do not punish people for what they might do, we
should not punish the public at large for what a few do.

I am deeply disturbed by the actions of companies like Apple and  
their iPod.
The truth of the matter is Apple is not a great innovator today.   
They did a
good job of packaging others inventions and of marketing, but they  
really
did nothing to advance the collective arts.

I also do not understand why anyone would by music which is locked in a
propriety format.  I sure will not. When I pay for a product I do not  
expect
to be forced to watch commercials as is the case with DVD.  I rarely  
go to
theaters anymore because they force me to listen to deathening  
commercials.
I can and will do without products like these.  Besides, most of  
movies are
drivel.

I do not mind paying for rights, but I will only do so once for any  
given
work.  I will not purchase products which unreasonably restrict my  
ability
to use those products.  I will not purchase software with copy  
protection.
I have a right to make backups and if I cannot backup one product I  
look for
an alternative.  I will not pay for subscription software unless  
there is
valuable and constantly updated data which merits ongoing payments.

Ronald J Riley, Exec. Dir.              Ronald J Riley, President
InventorEd, Inc.                            Professional Inventors  
Alliance
www.InventorEd.org                     www.PIAUSA.org
RJR"at"InvEd.org                          RJR"at"PIAUSA.org
Change "at" to @                          Change "at" to @

RJR Direct # (202) 318-1595

________________________________

From: Krulwich [mailto:krulwich () yahoo com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:19 AM
To: dave () farber net
Cc: RJR () RJRILEY com
Subject: Google, Kaaza, and patent fairness


Regarding the comment below about Microsoft and Google feeling that  
they can
"take others intellectual property for virtually nothing," I find it  
very
ironic that many of the same people who are in favor of stopping  
Microsoft
and Google from violating patent rights are also in favor of p2p systems
letting them take musician and movie maker's IP for "virtually" nothing.
Isn't it the case that musicians and movie makers are the source of
innovation in the entertainment industry?  Don't they deserve IP  
protection
and renumeration for their work as much as tech startups?

--Bruce



        Both have a legislative agenda to tip the balance of the patent
        system in
        favor of vested interests like themselves. This will be at the
        expense of
        individual inventors and their small companies who are and always
        have been
        the source of the bulk of breakthrough inventions.
        
        I will try to get time to publish a list of companies who are
members
        of the
        Coalition for Patent Fairness, aka. The Coalition for Patent Piracy.

        The
        Coalition's idea of "fair" is being able to take others property for
        virtually nothing.
        




-------------------------------------
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/