Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
No, every legal system is like that
Posted May 24, 2012 14:21 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
It all comes down to people, and anything vague is going to give vague results. The only way to avoid this kind of patent case, or the copyright case, is to avoid patents or copyrights altogether, something which would please me immensely. As clever as copyleft is, I'd rather have neither copyright nor copyleft, and have all the associated resources spent on innovation.
Posted May 24, 2012 18:32 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
So it would be pretty much the same.
What would be ideal is 'rule by nobody'. Just voluntary contractual agreements. There really is no factual basis for any of this IP law crap.
The only defense that people can bring up for IP is either a argument economic practicality (we need copyright/patents to create markets to foster ideas), which has no factual basis (this is something that should can be demonstrably true if it a correct notion). Or a argument supporting some vague notion of 'rights' and 'fairness' over the ownership of ideas.. which is something impossible since ideas have no physical presence.
Posted May 24, 2012 18:46 UTC (Thu) by krakensden (subscriber, #72039)
And when people disagreed on the meaning of those contracts, they would...
Oh right, avail themselves of a neutral third party to arbitrate. Who would have to be able to enforce that arbitration.
It doesn't matter what you do, you're going to wind up with judges.
Posted May 24, 2012 18:46 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
I will address third party judgements.
You suggest completely voluntary contractual agreements. What if the parties disagree?
*Someone* has to be an independent judge, even if it is just those who consider doing business with any of the parties to a disagreement, and people will differ, which is fine. But in practice, few individuals would want to investigate and fully inform themselves of all disagreements by all parties with whom they might consider doing business; they will instead rely on third parties, whether that be a coercive central government or a voluntary distributed system of judgement (whether friends or service bureaus), and then you are right back to people making judgement calls.
And this is all pretty off-topic, but I suppose that too is a judgement call.
Posted May 25, 2012 6:46 UTC (Fri) by eduperez (guest, #11232)
I would prefer a system of rule by law... well thought and written laws.
Posted May 25, 2012 7:43 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
You cannot get away from judgement by people. The oceans will evaporate before you get rid of judgement by people.
Posted May 25, 2012 9:27 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted May 26, 2012 12:16 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656)
Laws can be well thought out and well written at the time, yet will fail as the world evolves and can also be incorrectly applied. There is also the law of unintended consequences. Many countries have specialised courts or specialised judges to take care of IPR-related cases, even so an appeal will often show that the law was incorrectly applied. Also the same laws can be applied by the supreme courts in different countries and come to opposite conclusions.
Most of the European countries have acceded to the European Patent Convention (EPC). The European Patent Office (EPO), operating under EPC, runs seminars for Europe's top judges. Even so you still get totally different conclusions. Now the European Union is considering a centralised patent court. Unless something changes dramatically it will only mean you get to throw the dice once in Europe rather than once for each EU member state.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds