| |||||||||||||
Dangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophyDangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophyPosted Sep 1, 2005 8:21 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: Dangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophy by FlorianMueller Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
At this point in history, IPRs are considered a major success story, the foundation of the modern economy, and also the only major area in which the U.S. has a trade surplus vs. Europe and Asia. As man_ls said, "burden of proof". The patent system is getting to be fundamentally broken - why else is Florian fighting it? And how come that all of the fastest growing world economies basically ignore patents? China, the "tiger economies", and for good measure I'll add "early 20th Century US" to the list as well. Oh - and I'll add the pharmaceutical industry to the list of examples of a pathological patent system too - there's a LOT of evidence that it belongs there. Copyrights - I think "Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act" is pretty much all that needs to be said there, although I'll add the film soundtrack industry to that too. No halfway decent (or pretty crap, even) composer is now that keen on writing film music. The studios demand "all rights", which means suddenly that if you then write another piece that even remotely resembles your earlier piece (something that's very hard NOT to do) you promptly get "approached" by the film industry for breach of copyright! About the only IPR that, in my view, can be declared unambiguously good is trademarks. Who's purpose is merely to guarantee that when you shell out good money, you're really getting what you think you're getting. They don't stop you making cheap imitations. They don't stop you making expensive imitations. They just insure that if you make an imitation, your customer knows it's an imitation. Cheers,
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||