|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Igne -> it could well be the case that the parts of the patent office which handle things in different categories each have flaws on their own; like the software office gives out stuff too easy, while some other parts are far too strict.
|
On September 22 2016 04:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:26 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 04:12 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:58 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music.
IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it. So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval? Yes. If you aren't aware of the multiple ways that artists get compensated for their work besides restricting access to digital copies you are only hurting your own income stream. You yourself said that they play shows. You do know that most people who go to shows have heard the music before right? You are basically telling them you don’t value their creative efforts, believe you should be able own it without compensating them and they can figure out how to make money without you. Not only that, but you think everyone else should be able to take their work and not compensate them for it. That it is up to the artist to figure out how to make money on their efforts without the ability to control their art. All to “encourage” creativity by making it harder for the creators to survive and make a living. And you are really showing how little you know about music if you think bands can make a living off of shows alone without a label. you are showing how little you know about music if you think most bands can make a living on their music, period. i do value their creative efforts. if i really enjoyed it i might donate or i would go see a show of theirs. i value them so much that i want to encourage future bands to take the best stuff around today and continue to innovate for the love of innovating. how much does it cost to make a copy of an album? how much did it cost to produce the master copy? how much do you think artists are entitled to recoup? They should be able to set the price for their creative efforts for a period of time. End of story. If they create something, they should have the right to own that creation. And I never said most bands can make a living on their music. But they should have the ability to do so. And that includes being able to control who reproduces copies of their recordings. This is honestly a pipe-dream scenario, because bootleg, mixtape, sharing, etc. is a pretty big part of the indie band culture and has been for as long as people could make copies. And really, no small-time band has the resources to stop anyone from making copies, and has no monetary gain from suing someone making a CD copy. (plus most indie bands would probably love to have a million copies of their song downloaded, even if they don't see immediate money from it)
There is a huge difference between people making copies that are not worth going after in court and have no legal remedy for anyone copying a recording. Of course people are going to copy CDs, that can’t be helped. But what is being suggested here is removing all legal remedy and making every recording that is created in the public domain. Every game, every piece of software, every song. Free for anyone and everyone forever.
|
On September 22 2016 04:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:33 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 04:03 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:00 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process. Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods. You aren't differentiating between the patent examiners performing the patent examining process and the juridical system that determines those processes. zlefin seems to be arguing that the laws are pretty clear and that the courts are constantly having to overrule the patent office by invalidating shitty patents that are being allowed by "hacks" there. this is just 1) demonstrably false and 2) a historically contingent path that is both political and juridical. Why does the difference matter? The fact of the matter is that there are many patents (and I'm specifically talking about software patents) that are absolute bullshit and based on nothing more than existing ideas being made into software. That's almost literally the same as taking an existing idea (hero meets girl), writing a book about it in a digital format (which is separate from the story in the book itself) and then claiming nobody else can use that same idea (hero meets girl) in said digital format because you did it first. You say you are an IP lawyer, but have you ever dealt specifically with software patents? There is some really wonky shit out there when it comes to software patents. I've also seen some ridiculous patents when it comes to the shape of phones, as if that requires anything more than math to calculate whether or not the parts will fit in. Maybe you can patent the miniaturization of said parts, but not simply the shape of the phone, please... They draw some really basic graph in the patent that says where the parts will go, as if that constitutes "an idea" rather than simple logic. I also read about some patent for configuring the position of satellites in space to cover the earth properly with a minimal amount of satellites. How is that an idea rather than simple mathematics based on orbital mechanics? Alice vs. CLSShow nested quote +The Court held that Mayo explained how to address the problem of determining whether a patent claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea or instead a potentially patentable practical implementation of an idea. This requires using a "two-step" analysis.
In the first Mayo step, the court must determine whether the patent claim under examination contains an abstract idea, such as an algorithm, method of computation, or other general principle. If not, the claim is potentially patentable, subject to the other requirements of the patent code. If the answer is affirmative, the court must proceed to the next step.
In the second step of analysis, the court must determine whether the patent adds to the idea "something extra" that embodies an "inventive concept."
If there is no addition of an inventive element to the underlying abstract idea, the court should find the patent invalid under § 101. This means that the implementation of the idea must not be generic, conventional, or obvious, if it is to qualify for a patent. Ordinary and customary use of a general-purpose digital computer is insufficient, the Court said—"merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
The ruling continued with these points:
A mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer "cannot impart patent eligibility."
"[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
"Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words "apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility."
"Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment."
That sounds like they're becoming more reasonable about how to patent things, but I won't hold my breath. I think a lot of this text was already included in the original implementation of patents, and then you get a few decades of corporations throwing money at lawyers in courts and governments to get small subtle changes in that ruin it for everyone.
Also, I somehow can't help but picture a jar of mayonnaise arguing in front of a court.
I think part of the problem is that companies send huge quantities of patent applications to the patent offices, resulting in far too many patent applications for them to properly check whether something constitutes a genuine new idea.
|
The use of courts are an issue in copyright too. Companies who buy patents then threaten lawsuits all the time cost companies big time money and can stunt growth of smaller ones. Again it goes back to the need to examine thw current system and update it to try to reduce excess burden on companies who try to innovate and cut down on companiea who thrive only through this shit system and produce little to no goods themselves.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
At the very least I'm glad that genes can't be patented anymore. That idea was, erm, patently ridiculous.
|
On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Not that I don't think patents should exist... for real and genuinely new ideas. Not the way it is being done now. It has gotten way too much out of hand.
I think you're giving Elon Musk too much credit. Sure, that's how he markets it, but the truth is that in a fast-evolving industry like electric cars, with relatively few top specialists, patenting your inventions has relatively little value. Even in the US, where patents are processed fairly quickly, it still takes around 2 years from applying to granting a patent, by which time, and you don't want to sit on that invention for that long, yet creating cars using that invention runs the risk of competitors copying it before it is adequately protected. That basically means you're throwing a couple of thousand dollars down the drain per useless patent. Given that you have the best specialists in a fast moving area, you might as well open source the technology, and trust that by the time your competitors have mastered it, you're already moving on to your next improvement.
When tech developments in electric cars and batteries slow down, you'll see Tesla patenting far more of their inventions. Mark my words.
|
On September 22 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Don't delude yourself. When there are competing models to fill a new technological niche standardization is incredibly important. What Elon Musk is doing is comparable to a manufacturer of VHS machines telling anyone that they can record stuff on VHS. Elon Musk is a businessman, he knows the patents have value only if they take off and become the standard model in the market.
And, of course, this.
|
On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
As a scientist working in computer science, I can say that that is most definitely true. I have filled some myself. And in fact joked multiple times about patenting an input-output black box machine. If granted, basically anything would infringe on it. And if written in sufficient technobabble terms, it would be granted in the US (but wouldn't hold up in court).
|
On September 22 2016 04:50 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> it could well be the case that the parts of the patent office which handle things in different categories each have flaws on their own; like the software office gives out stuff too easy, while some other parts are far too strict.
obviously true. but each part is operating under historical administrative and legal guidelines that they don't control. the loop starts with the courts
|
On September 22 2016 05:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Not that I don't think patents should exist... for real and genuinely new ideas. Not the way it is being done now. It has gotten way too much out of hand. I think you're giving Elon Musk too much credit. Sure, that's how he markets it, but the truth is that in a fast-evolving industry like electric cars, with relatively few top specialists, patenting your inventions has relatively little value. Even in the US, where patents are processed fairly quickly, it still takes around 2 years from applying to granting a patent, by which time, and you don't want to sit on that invention for that long, yet creating cars using that invention runs the risk of competitors copying it before it is adequately protected. That basically means you're throwing a couple of thousand dollars down the drain per useless patent. Given that you have the best specialists in a fast moving area, you might as well open source the technology, and trust that by the time your competitors have mastered it, you're already moving on to your next improvement. When tech developments in electric cars and batteries slow down, you'll see Tesla patenting far more of their inventions. Mark my words.
I'm pretty sure that, even if the patent hasn't been approved, it can still be enforced once it gets approved and it becomes apparent that the company who copied the idea only had the idea -after- Tesla implemented it and/or applied for the patent. The fact that they're open sourcing any patents at all will make them less able to be one of those companies that uses their patent portfolio to threaten others.
And again, none of this matters because my point was that people (ie. me) still invent things even if they're not getting paid. People want to discover and do things out of their own accord. Sure, for probably a not-insignificant portion of people money is a great motivator to get into the business of inventing things, but to claim that being able to make money through patents is the only incentive people have is absolutely ridiculous.
|
On September 22 2016 05:19 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 05:01 Acrofales wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place.
I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Not that I don't think patents should exist... for real and genuinely new ideas. Not the way it is being done now. It has gotten way too much out of hand. I think you're giving Elon Musk too much credit. Sure, that's how he markets it, but the truth is that in a fast-evolving industry like electric cars, with relatively few top specialists, patenting your inventions has relatively little value. Even in the US, where patents are processed fairly quickly, it still takes around 2 years from applying to granting a patent, by which time, and you don't want to sit on that invention for that long, yet creating cars using that invention runs the risk of competitors copying it before it is adequately protected. That basically means you're throwing a couple of thousand dollars down the drain per useless patent. Given that you have the best specialists in a fast moving area, you might as well open source the technology, and trust that by the time your competitors have mastered it, you're already moving on to your next improvement. When tech developments in electric cars and batteries slow down, you'll see Tesla patenting far more of their inventions. Mark my words. I'm pretty sure that, even if the patent hasn't been approved, it can still be enforced once it gets approved and it becomes apparent that the company who copied the idea only had the idea -after- Tesla implemented it and/or applied for the patent. And again, none of this matters because people (ie. me) still invent things even if they're not getting paid. People want to discover and do things out of their own accord. Sure, for probably a not-insignificant portion of people money is a great motivator to get into the business of inventing things, but to claim that being able to make money through patents is the only incentive people have is absolutely ridiculous.
Actually, if you can show you had the idea before the patent was made public, you are exempted from the patent. Hence why all these lawsuits between Apple, Samsung, Google, etc. contain pages of emails between employees, in an attempt to substantiate "independent invention".
Nobody said that money was the only incentive. Jus that it's an important one.
|
On September 22 2016 05:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Not that I don't think patents should exist... for real and genuinely new ideas. Not the way it is being done now. It has gotten way too much out of hand. I think you're giving Elon Musk too much credit. Sure, that's how he markets it, but the truth is that in a fast-evolving industry like electric cars, with relatively few top specialists, patenting your inventions has relatively little value. Even in the US, where patents are processed fairly quickly, it still takes around 2 years from applying to granting a patent, by which time, and you don't want to sit on that invention for that long, yet creating cars using that invention runs the risk of competitors copying it before it is adequately protected. That basically means you're throwing a couple of thousand dollars down the drain per useless patent. Given that you have the best specialists in a fast moving area, you might as well open source the technology, and trust that by the time your competitors have mastered it, you're already moving on to your next improvement. When tech developments in electric cars and batteries slow down, you'll see Tesla patenting far more of their inventions. Mark my words.
asian firms like samsung and toyota have thousands and thousands of recent battery technology patent applications being examined. its simply a different approach
|
On September 22 2016 05:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 05:01 Acrofales wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place.
I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Not that I don't think patents should exist... for real and genuinely new ideas. Not the way it is being done now. It has gotten way too much out of hand. I think you're giving Elon Musk too much credit. Sure, that's how he markets it, but the truth is that in a fast-evolving industry like electric cars, with relatively few top specialists, patenting your inventions has relatively little value. Even in the US, where patents are processed fairly quickly, it still takes around 2 years from applying to granting a patent, by which time, and you don't want to sit on that invention for that long, yet creating cars using that invention runs the risk of competitors copying it before it is adequately protected. That basically means you're throwing a couple of thousand dollars down the drain per useless patent. Given that you have the best specialists in a fast moving area, you might as well open source the technology, and trust that by the time your competitors have mastered it, you're already moving on to your next improvement. When tech developments in electric cars and batteries slow down, you'll see Tesla patenting far more of their inventions. Mark my words. asian firms like samsung and toyota have thousands and thousands of recent battery technology patent applications being examined. its simply a different approach
Sure. But it's business driven, not altruism driven.
|
On September 22 2016 05:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 05:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 05:01 Acrofales wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods.
If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups. I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Not that I don't think patents should exist... for real and genuinely new ideas. Not the way it is being done now. It has gotten way too much out of hand. I think you're giving Elon Musk too much credit. Sure, that's how he markets it, but the truth is that in a fast-evolving industry like electric cars, with relatively few top specialists, patenting your inventions has relatively little value. Even in the US, where patents are processed fairly quickly, it still takes around 2 years from applying to granting a patent, by which time, and you don't want to sit on that invention for that long, yet creating cars using that invention runs the risk of competitors copying it before it is adequately protected. That basically means you're throwing a couple of thousand dollars down the drain per useless patent. Given that you have the best specialists in a fast moving area, you might as well open source the technology, and trust that by the time your competitors have mastered it, you're already moving on to your next improvement. When tech developments in electric cars and batteries slow down, you'll see Tesla patenting far more of their inventions. Mark my words. I'm pretty sure that, even if the patent hasn't been approved, it can still be enforced once it gets approved and it becomes apparent that the company who copied the idea only had the idea -after- Tesla implemented it and/or applied for the patent. And again, none of this matters because people (ie. me) still invent things even if they're not getting paid. People want to discover and do things out of their own accord. Sure, for probably a not-insignificant portion of people money is a great motivator to get into the business of inventing things, but to claim that being able to make money through patents is the only incentive people have is absolutely ridiculous. Actually, if you can show you had the idea before the patent was made public, you are exempted from the patent. Hence why all these lawsuits between Apple, Samsung, Google, etc. contain pages of emails between employees, in an attempt to substantiate "independent invention". Nobody said that money was the only incentive. Just that it's an important one.
I know I'm being really nit-picky now, but Plansix did really say that (although I'm sure he didn't mean it in the absolute terms in which I chose to interpret it - the emphasis is mine):
On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:
I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things.
Its like that other guy said, you're reducing humans to homo economicus or whatever when you do this.
Oh, and in regards to your first comment: that's what I said, except I think I went the other way around on it.
|
According to the FEC filings released last night, Lewandowski was paid $20,000 in July and in August by Trump’s campaign for what it described as “strategy consulting.”
[...]
Trump’s campaign said...in a widely-reported statement this morning: “Corey Lewandowski, who is no longer involved in the campaign, continues to receive monthly severance payments...These payments are in no way compensation for services rendered.”
[...]
This story grew legs just hours after Fox News Channel issued a statement about one of its primetime star’s participation in a new Trump campaign promotional video: “We were not aware of Sean Hannity participating in a promotional video, and he will not be doing anything along these lines for the remainder of the election season.”
Yahoo
|
On September 22 2016 05:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:50 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> it could well be the case that the parts of the patent office which handle things in different categories each have flaws on their own; like the software office gives out stuff too easy, while some other parts are far too strict. obviously true. but each part is operating under historical administrative and legal guidelines that they don't control. the loop starts with the courts
how do you know it starts in the judicial branch for all the cases, and isn't the result of some screwup or lax oversight in the executive branch?
well, whatever it is; we should have an investigation to figure out what the source is, and fix it.
|
On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value.
I agree with you but I believe that what truly help research at the end of the day is the will to spend money on it, and the problem of today's research is less the effect of patent than the lack of investment at the global level, and that is the result of our monetary policies, of the financiarization of the economy and of our lack of investment in education. Pattent are kinda secondary, they are imperfect but well nothing is.
|
Altruism is nice and of course people invent things for reasons beyond personal enrichment. But claiming that the concept of patents and copyrights are inherently harmful to creativity is ignoring the economic reality of the inventor. It also ignores the fact that creatives and inverts might hid their work from the public to avoid them being copied due to the lack of legal recourse or other ways to control their work.
Our system of innovation exists alongside the current IP system and works within it. The behavior of companies, inventors and creatives are all in relation to that system. It is naïve to think that removing that system will instant cause improved innovation and creativity with no negative side effects. Or that the innovators will not just invent ways to protect their creations on their own.
|
On September 22 2016 04:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 04:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 04:33 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 04:03 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 04:00 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:52 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place. and how much do you know about the patent examining process? I know that the European Patent Agency (or whatever it is called) actually went on strike once (like a decade ago now) simply because they were being forced to approve patents without being allowed to check them properly. They weren't striking for being underpaid, overworked or anything, they just disagreed with the process they were being forced to execute. That to me was a very clear indication there was something seriously wrong with the patent approval process. Also, in regards to bands. Clearly we need to pay them for a copy of their album. That is a no-brainer, and I don't see how you can argue against that. That's got nothing to do with patents, though, and is all about copyrights, which is also being extended to retarded levels (isn't it like 90 years now in the US?), but isn't quite as a bad as patents because it is about actual (albeit possibly digital and easily copied) goods. You aren't differentiating between the patent examiners performing the patent examining process and the juridical system that determines those processes. zlefin seems to be arguing that the laws are pretty clear and that the courts are constantly having to overrule the patent office by invalidating shitty patents that are being allowed by "hacks" there. this is just 1) demonstrably false and 2) a historically contingent path that is both political and juridical. Why does the difference matter? The fact of the matter is that there are many patents (and I'm specifically talking about software patents) that are absolute bullshit and based on nothing more than existing ideas being made into software. That's almost literally the same as taking an existing idea (hero meets girl), writing a book about it in a digital format (which is separate from the story in the book itself) and then claiming nobody else can use that same idea (hero meets girl) in said digital format because you did it first. You say you are an IP lawyer, but have you ever dealt specifically with software patents? There is some really wonky shit out there when it comes to software patents. I've also seen some ridiculous patents when it comes to the shape of phones, as if that requires anything more than math to calculate whether or not the parts will fit in. Maybe you can patent the miniaturization of said parts, but not simply the shape of the phone, please... They draw some really basic graph in the patent that says where the parts will go, as if that constitutes "an idea" rather than simple logic. I also read about some patent for configuring the position of satellites in space to cover the earth properly with a minimal amount of satellites. How is that an idea rather than simple mathematics based on orbital mechanics? Alice vs. CLSThe Court held that Mayo explained how to address the problem of determining whether a patent claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea or instead a potentially patentable practical implementation of an idea. This requires using a "two-step" analysis.
In the first Mayo step, the court must determine whether the patent claim under examination contains an abstract idea, such as an algorithm, method of computation, or other general principle. If not, the claim is potentially patentable, subject to the other requirements of the patent code. If the answer is affirmative, the court must proceed to the next step.
In the second step of analysis, the court must determine whether the patent adds to the idea "something extra" that embodies an "inventive concept."
If there is no addition of an inventive element to the underlying abstract idea, the court should find the patent invalid under § 101. This means that the implementation of the idea must not be generic, conventional, or obvious, if it is to qualify for a patent. Ordinary and customary use of a general-purpose digital computer is insufficient, the Court said—"merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
The ruling continued with these points:
A mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer "cannot impart patent eligibility."
"[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
"Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words "apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility."
"Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment." If anyone is interested, many patent lawyers are now complaining about what they view as exceptionally low rates of allowance in certain business methods art units, because the USPTO has changed their allowance guidelines in response to Alice. That is why I said the problem mainly resides in the juridical structure outside of the patent office rather than with the "hacks" inside it.
that's why we're waiting for the McRo vs Bandai ruling now to make patents great again 
|
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
