The patent system was created to serve a world that doesn't exist anymore. In that world it protected creativity, but in this world, it suffocates it.
Just my opinion, of course.
The patent system was created to serve a world that doesn't exist anymore. In that world it protected creativity, but in this world, it suffocates it.
Just my opinion, of course.
The world hasn't changed that much. An innovation in 1913 is no more or less valuable or worthy of protection than an innovation in 2009.
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. The world of 1913 was a relatively unconnected one, so two guys in different parts of the world could get away with having the same way to peel an apple, because they weren't aware of each other's existence.Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger
Today, everything is connected. There's google, email, and lawyers who use google to find targets to fire off cease & desist emails.
The patent system was created to serve an unconnected world. Things have changed, and we need a new system to address that.
You basically argued for why patent is even more important in today's world without even knowing it. Now that the world is more connected there's even greater risk that Joe Middle Class who invents a brilliant tool will be abused when big shot Craftsman gets wind of it and starts selling the same thing thereby putting Joe Middle Class, the inventor, out of business. If you want to argue for basic fairness, patent does just that. It protects the little guy. What would you tell Joe Middle Class when that inevitably happens after patent is abolished? "Better luck next time"?
This tends to happen when some news story comes out where it seems somebody is taking advantage of the law in a way it normally shouldn't be used. While I can understand being miffed at the "patent farms" and the sometimes overly broad patents why not ask what narrowly tailored changes can be made to fix the issue at hand and prevent some similar event in the future rather than conclude that the entire institution is to blame? The old saying "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" couldn't ring more true in this situation.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-02-2009 at 07:06 PM.
Actually, I'm arguing for why creativity gets stifled when people are allowed to wall it in within a Small Pond situation. But more importantly, I'm arguing for what I'm arguing for - not what you imagine I'm arguing for.
Last edited by Berserker; 10-02-2009 at 09:22 PM.
Then with all due respect, you're doing it poorly. People are more willing to create something if they know that should it be successful they'll get a return on their investment and that they will have the power to protect their creation from outside fiddling. Without those kinds of protections people will feel less secure and therefore less inclined to put forth the effort needed to actually create something.
Your belief that people would be more creative without patent/copyright is just not true. And, even if it is, would you rather see the Joe Middle Class situation happen as I and others have mentioned above? You seem to be dodging that issue.
Protection or barrier? This thread topic demonstrates the fact that those 'protections' are not altruistic in all cases.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Where did I ever say that the system is perfect? The point is that saying "get rid of patent" because somebody abused a certain aspect of it is akin to saying "get rid of cars" because a particular model Jeep has a problem with rollovers. You fine tune the system based on the few problems that arise. You don't abolish it altogether when it does plenty of good in the long run.
This is where the common law comes in. The courts gradually fine tune a law when issues arise. Perfect example, the First Amendment. Most people would agree that the blanket idea of "freedom of speech" is a good thing. Then people started yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. The courts had to fine tune things. They didn't just say "Oh, shit. I guess this freedom of speech thing isn't so good after all. Too many abuses."
We can have an open discussion about how to fix the problem. But it's really hard to swallow the argument that the institution itself is the problem.
It also has nothing to do with altruism and never has. It has to do with encouraging economic growth. Entrepreneurs play a very important role in our economy and so things like patent and copyright exist so that Joe Middle Class can actually become the next Henry Ford or Walt Disney rather than watch an already established powerhouse rob him of that chance.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-02-2009 at 11:37 PM.
If you are so attached to these ideas, why then do you steal your nick/avi from a cereal company? Or do you practice as well as preach and send them $50 a year to use their protected likeness?
Fairly silly huh?
Part of that discussion also encompasses ditching the system as an option. It might not prove to be the best scenario, but you can't rule it out. There are correlations between protections and barriers and economic stagnation...
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-02-2009 at 11:42 PM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Ugh. Ok, fine. Guess it's time to do that superfun line-by-line thing that everyone else scrolls past. Apologies in advance, mousewheels.
Yes, you'll have to excuse me. You see, I'm not that well-versed in things like attributing my own arguments and words to others instead of simply speaking for myself, attempting to verbally beat anyone who disagrees with me into the ground instead of simply agreeing to disagree, etc. Thankfully though, you're here, so we can all learn how to do it properly.
Well, that's your guess. I have another guess, which I summed up in my last post. You do realize that without facts, without figures, without evidence, that this is all just guessing and supposition, correct? I freely admit this on my end, but then, I wasn't on the lookout for internet fights.People are more willing to create something if they know that should it be successful they'll get a return on their investment and that they will have the power to protect their creation from outside fiddling. Without those kinds of protections people will feel less secure and therefore less inclined to put forth the effort needed to actually create something.
Again, more opinion passed off as fact. Which is fine, but if you're going to directly tell me my beliefs are wrong, you might want to back it up with something a little more substantial than imaginary situations.Your belief that people would be more creative without patent/copyright is just not true. And, even if it is, would you rather see the Joe Middle Class situation happen as I and others have mentioned above? You seem to be dodging that issue.
And I didn't dodge it, by the way - I just didn't acknowledge it because I was too busy trying to figure out why you just put words into my mouth. However, acknowledging it now - if patents were abolished then "Joe Middle Class" would still be free to sell his invention along with Craftsman and whomever else. The best-made version would become the most popular, and either way it goes the public would win. The lawyers and the squatters would lose.
Patents don't protect the little guy - they protect the first guy to squat on the claim. Everyone else loses.
Of course, that's also just another guess.
That's hilarious. A great deal of Disney's success was due to adaptations of public domain properties like Snow White and The Three Little Pigs. It's why animation fans react with such hostility when Disney the corporation comes crawling to Congress to get the next extension.
Last edited by GarrettCRW; 10-03-2009 at 12:34 AM.
An adaptation is still a creation. How many man hours was put into producing Snow White? This isn't exactly what I'd call a cut and paste job.
Now you're just goofing off. I picked what you see because I liked it and decided to do so because I feel that Kellogg's won't really give a shit. If Kellogg's so desired to take Digital Press to court because the site is hosting a member's I.D. and avatar that violates their trademarks then Digital Press might very well be ordered to delete my account and I would end up creating another one. But it would be Kellogg's that decides. That's the point. Kellogg's is in control of their I.P. Not me, not Digital Press, not anybody else. If Craftsman steals Joe Middle Class's new tool then Joe Middle Class gets to decide what to do. To sue or not to sue. To settle or not to settle. And the courts will deal with the mess by either saying "Yes, it's a violation because..." or "No, it's not a violation because..."
I get the sneaking suspicion that the identity of the plaintiff and defendant matters quite a bit when considering the public perception of an issue.
Case in point, Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes. People got really up in arms when Square Enix shut down the project. "They're evil, they're bad, they're abusing the little guy, etc." But what if the situation were reversed? What if some little guy made a game and Square Enix decided to make an unofficial sequel to it using the original game's assets? I get the feeling that people wouldn't be so irate when the little guy sets out to shut down Square's project regardless of how far along in development it was.
Fine, let's discuss what the world would look like if we did abolish the system.
After investing a lot of time and money, Joe Middle Class creates a tool that's perfect for a certain task. It's brand spanking new. He decides to open a shop and sell this tool and various others of his design. His customers love his stuff. He's making money hand over foot and gradually is expanding his inventory and is even thinking of opening a few more stores. He's from humble origins and is now on his way to becoming a success. A textbook case of the American dream.
One day, a representative from Craftsman tools wanders into Joe's shop and spots the wonder tool among other unique things of Joe's creation. He buys one of each and scampers back to Craftsman headquarters. Craftsman, having the resources to produce these tools cheaply and in mass quantities, can sell them for half of what Joe can afford to sell them for. They decide to move ahead and market Joe's tools. Joe Middle Class can't afford to sell the tools as cheaply as Craftsman is. Now all of his customers are buying the tools he invested his blood, sweat, and money to design from Craftsman.
Not too much time passes before Joe can't afford to keep his shop open. He thought maybe he could use his special tools to one day be able to compete with Craftsman on that same level. And maybe because of the extra competition the prices on all tools would come down and the quality of all tools would go up because now, with more competition, each company has to work hard to stay above the rest. But that was just a foolish dream. Joe goes out of business, returns home, and never bothers to build another tool because there's no way the little guy can compete with the established giant.
I really would like to hear how this story is not likely to come to fruition if the system is abolished because for the life of me I can't see how it isn't inevitable.
Let me ask you this. How does an upstart manage to make the best-made version or the cheapest version? How is an upstart supposed to compete with Craftsman? They literally cannot do it without being afforded some protection. Craftsman has too many resources. Every single tool anybody invents would immediately be snatched up by Craftsman (or whatever other tool maker, just using Craftsman as an example) and then be sold inexpensively. A patentless world will encourage monopolies (because upstarts can't gain any steam to become real competition) and that is bad for everybody.
This is a very serious question. What is an upstart to do in a world without patent? Give me a business plan.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-03-2009 at 12:35 AM.
Now I get it. You're one of them "rules apply to everyone except when I don't like the implications" people. Your examination/example is also anecdotal rather than empirical.
This is like a child-molester priest chastising an unwed couple for pre-marital sex.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-03-2009 at 12:33 AM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Ok, three things.
1) You ignored absolutely everything. In fact, I plainly said the rules apply to everybody. See the Chrono Trigger scenario.
2) Remember that you're the one arguing for a radical change. The burden is on you to explain why such a change would be an improvement. It's like that in the courts, the legislature, pretty much everything. If anybody needs to supply facts, it's your end.
3) Do you think the scenario I presented is unlikely to occur? I will openly admit I can't provide an empirical example but that's because there are none since patent and copyright have been around for a very long time in just about every developed country. We don't really have much of a choice but to operate in the theoretical. But at least I'm providing theory. All I'm getting in return is a string of ad hominems.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-03-2009 at 12:54 AM.
Under copyright law, you can't adapt a work if it's protected unless you have permission from the creator/rights holder. The silent film Nosferatu had many of its prints destroyed because it was deemed to be an unauthorized adaptation of Dracula (which was still protected at that time). Star Trek: The Next Generation avoided using Moriarty for years because the producers thought the Doyle estate was hostile to their use (in the end, the hostility was over the Paramount feature Young Sherlock Holmes, and Doyle's estate had no hostility towards TNG). I can give you more examples if you'd like.
Yeah, I know. But, here's the kicker. The adaptation is also a protected work because it's considered derivative of the original. It becomes like a chain. If you write a book then you own the copyright until it goes into public domain. If I want to do an adaptation of it (let's say I want to turn it into a movie) then I have to get your permission. If I get your permission and make the movie then my movie is now also protected as a separate entity because it's technically a "new" creation. That's why Disney can protect Snow White. The original story is public domain but Disney's adaptation was a "new" work. I believe the standard is "substantially unique" or something along those lines. That means I can't just photocopy your book and then claim copyright protection as a derivative work. It requires I actually do something to get protection.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-03-2009 at 12:48 AM.
You forget the key point: the original copyright holder owns a chunk of the derived work. This is why it's such a process for episodes of MST3K to be released on DVD.
Well, yes and no. It depends on the work. MST3K is a special example because the original movie is literally there. Distributing an episode of MST3K is also distributing the original movie. But the Harry Potter movies can be distributed freely by the film studio without getting permission from J. K. Rowling. The studio just needed her permission to make the movies to begin with. I happen to think that's perfectly fair since it's her work and she should be able to deny a film studio the right to make a Harry Potter movie. Others might disagree but I'm curious as to what would be more fair to Rowling.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-03-2009 at 01:01 AM.
I advocate for rational, universal and empirical examination to determine the best solution/description in all cases. That's the the scientific method. Newton didn't have to disprove all the findings of Aristotelian physics and Einstein didn't exactly disprove Newtonian conclusions. The new model simply replaced the old one. They came up with better means to explain the same things. If you are truly interested in protecting the little guy and furthering creativity, economic growth etc, you have to be able to divorce yourself from concepts and ideas when contradictions arise and reference reality in order to proceed.
Ad hominem? More like reductio ad absurdum. When your ideas are questioned and you immediately think ad hominem then you are much too invested in specifics to the case.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-03-2009 at 01:07 AM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
I sincerely wish I could provide a concrete example but unfortunately those examples were likely never recorded and happened a long time ago since patent and copyright are both pretty old. I'm operating under an assumption that I don't think is an irrational one. The assumption is that at some point in the past somebody got screwed because he created something, somebody else took it, and because the second person was already in a better position to make something happen he ended up winning and the creator lost everything. The creator said "that's not fair" and the sentiment spread far enough for our current laws to be developed.
The only measuring stick we have is the world we see around us. That's why if somebody is going to argue that we should change they have to at least explain how the change would help. Providing theory, while perhaps not the best evidence, is still better than nothing. We have plenty of things based purely on theory. I'm pretty sure black holes haven't actually been proven, for example.
Newton did not have to disprove everything else but he did have to prove his own theory that changed how people saw the world around them. He didn't ask everybody else to prove themselves. He was the one who had to carry the burden and he did it rather well.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-03-2009 at 01:13 AM.
Posting Permissions
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from eBay, Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present of Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote