Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Maybe it shows someone the absurdnessMaybe it shows someone the absurdnessPosted Sep 8, 2011 6:14 UTC (Thu) by ttonino (subscriber, #4073)Parent article: HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg)
of the system. More like a chess game than promoting progress.
It wouldn't be sad, except there are huge costs directly (lawyer bills and courthouses) and indirectly (slowed progress, market risks) that we all pay.
The only winners in the end are lawyers, who will promote more types of "rights" to be created and "protected" by the law class. And create special courts for these "rights". Think the European Patent Office, whose workers, who are probably not underpaid, also receive huge tax breaks.
Another thing I do not understand: libertarians are generally against creating more laws and rules. But patents are laws too, but with a difference: generally written as broadly as possible, published in huge numbers, and no limit set on the punishment.
Thus, it is literally impossible to build new works avoiding existing patents. The only safe way is to copy works that are old enough not to be patented. The practical way is not too look and hope patent abusers find it not worth to sue you. Is that "promoting innovation"? Guess not.
I hope someone in government notices.
(Log in to post comments)
Maybe it shows someone the absurdness Posted Sep 8, 2011 6:48 UTC (Thu) by fhuberts (subscriber, #64683) [Link]
> I hope someone in government notices.
They know, but don't care. Politics is ruled by money, not by ideals.
Maybe it shows someone the absurdness Posted Sep 8, 2011 16:06 UTC (Thu) by tdwebste (subscriber, #18154) [Link]
"Politics is ruled by money, not by ideals."
Corruption and democracy: Political finances - conflicts of interest
Maybe it shows someone the absurdness Posted Sep 8, 2011 16:41 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
This is, perhaps, a step towards money being for patent reform. I would be unsurprised if HTC were able to get an injunction against Apple selling any more iPhones, using patents that are very likely to pass review. Apple may not have a lot of lobbying infrastructure in place, but they've got plenty of money.
For that matter, this mess could easily surpass money and reach personal inconvenience for politicians. "Vote for patent reform, or you'll be stuck with your old cell phone forever" is tough to overcome with money.
Maybe it shows someone the absurdness Posted Sep 8, 2011 7:07 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
> Another thing I do not understand: libertarians are generally against
> creating more laws and rules.
Yes? What exactly do you not understand? I am a libertarian, and I sure as hell want the patent-system destroyed, banished and eradicated. All of it.
Maybe it shows someone the absurdness Posted Sep 8, 2011 7:47 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Some libertarians see intellectual property as an extension of personal property, which I think is wrong. Others see it as a state-granted and enforced monopoly, that should be limited if the goal is to limit the reach of the state. This is a position I feel is consistent with libertarian beliefs
Ron Paul has in the past I believe expressed support for the IP-based industries, and despite the major reforms he recommends in other aspects of finance and economy, has never suggested widespread IP reform. I think he falls into the former category.
This is where the confusion lies
Maybe it shows someone the absurdness Posted Sep 9, 2011 12:49 UTC (Fri) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
>Ron Paul has in the past I believe expressed support for the IP-based industries
Copyright and patents are so dissimilar that it sows confusion to classify them together. How many people out there favor eliminating copyright completely? Few to none. Why? Perhaps because copyright doesn't apply to anything susceptible of independent invention.
No one needs to clone Mickey Mouse. It might be nice after a couple of generations, but Mickey Mouse is not a major drag on the economy. Patents are. Outside of perhaps pharmaceuticals (due to government testing requirements), patents are just an economic and technological progress destroying form of corporate welfare. Progress destroying because most patents, especially the most valuable patents, are on things that tens to hundreds of companies are about to "invent" in the ordinary course of business.
If patents were only granted for things that had a vanishingly small probability of being independently invented in the next twenty years, that would be one thing. As they are, they are the economic equivalent of throwing sand in the gears.
Maybe it shows someone the absurdness Posted Sep 8, 2011 15:22 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]
The *idea* of the patent system isn't necessarily bad. It was designed to prevent $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY from copying the idea of $JOE_BLOW_INVENTOR and muscling $JOE_BLOW_DEVELOPER out of the market by brute force.
In implementation, it actually has done the polar opposite. Now only $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY can afford the full time lawyers to go over what all of their engineers are working on and file patents in a frenzy.
This is why politicians aren't always the best people to fix problems.
Sorry, but no. Posted Sep 8, 2011 16:13 UTC (Thu) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] It was designed to prevent $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY from copying the idea of $JOE_BLOW_INVENTOR and muscling $JOE_BLOW_DEVELOPER out of the market by brute force. Not even close. This is retcon which tries to justify this abomination. Patents were invented for one single purpose: make more money for the crown without raising taxes. Nothing more, nothing less. "Progress" was not ever even mentioned. Now, modern patents... these are different. When patents abuse passed certain threshold and patents become outright toxic they were mostly abolished - but their supporters managed to convince people that it'll be good idea not to abolish all patents but to keep some (for completely new inventions). In implementation, it actually has done the polar opposite. Now only $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY can afford the full time lawyers to go over what all of their engineers are working on and file patents in a frenzy. Yup. It looks like we need another round of patent frenzy reduction. Last one was almost 400 years ago - it's time for the repeat! Perhaps this time they can be abolished completely...
Sorry, but no. Posted Sep 9, 2011 7:58 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
I had this (absurd?) idea that patents were established to give incentive for inventors to disclose their secrets in exchange of protection against copycats (big and small).
Maybe someone forgot to mention that society had to win something for the patent system to make any sense.
Nope. Posted Sep 9, 2011 12:18 UTC (Fri) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] I had this (absurd?) idea that patents were established to give incentive for inventors to disclose their secrets in exchange of protection against copycats (big and small). Yes, this is popular idea, but as I've already said it's retcon. Initially patents covered extremely wide areas and continued almost indefinitely - and this was so obviously bad that people decided to abandon them. But it looked like some patents are less evil then others and may, in fact, benefit the society. These were retained - and people tried to justify them ever since. When Statute of Monopolies abandoned most patents it gave such a strong push to the society development (this act basically jump-started first Agricultural Revolution and later Industrial Revolution) that the problems with remaining [relatively narrow] patents were barely felt - but over time lawers expanded the scope of patents and now they are significant barrier for the progress. It's time if not to abandon then at least trim them again.
|
|
||||||||||||