Comments on: Why I love patents and copyrights

CNET News.com's Michael Kanellos says that without intellectual property rights, we might as well go back to living in caves.

[acedtect]

Couldn't disagree more

The current patent system squelches creativity and innovation. It creates huge financial punishments for trying something you haven't had a team of lawyers examine beforehand to make sure it doesn't technically infringe. Tell me a laborious legal review has ever helped the creative process.

As for open source it would and has existed long before a behemoth such as Microsoft. It's reason for existing is not, as so many people stubbornly misunderstand, to stick it to the man. It's to give you control over your software. This has been the case since before software became closed in th 1980s. Without Microsoft, I expect there would be mroe and better open sources software.

[fredblotnic]

wow such a shallow view of the whole picture

What you don't understand is the fact that patents exist and the reason they do are important and great however its those who abuse the system that make it difficult for everyone. For example those who created the double click patent, I wont mention any names, obviously took a simple 'my grandmother could do it' idea and try to use that to lock competitors. letting benign patents be the way to legal shut down the competitor is a horrible waste of resources and time. Open Source originally existed not to compete or be a spike in the heal of Microsoft but to make is so that i could write software for others to try and help me improve on. Hobbiest programmers have went from being the ones that created the industry to the scourge of big business because of writing something for free. If Microsoft could outlaw hobby programming they would because then maybe they would be the sole source of technology. Not to mention that Patents are there to help give credit to the hard work of an inventor not the purchaser of the patent. what i mean in that area is that patents are sold to companies that do not make a product just look for companies that might have written a similar device or technology to what the patent is. usually the patent is so vague that several companies and individuals can be a match to what a lawsuit might bring about. more than any time in its history there is more problems coming from the patent and copyright system than actual compensation for creativity. And i will leave on this maybe its time for Microsoft to start competing instead of wiping its competition out the world would be better off. I like choice and would prefer the choice to say no if i dont like the conditions or terms of the product which is often the case with MS licensing.

[Laer H]

Drivel

When did c|net start publishing such twisted bunk as this?

[watchingeyes]

Response

Response posted on my blog (too long to leave as a comment here)

http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/2007/05/stupid-cnet-article.html

[jsargent]

Ok but a little naive..

Mr. Kanello,

1. you say "In the Dark Ages, one could obtain wealth by raising an army and burning someone else's kingdom to the ground. In the Gilded Age, those on the fast track had a secret weapon of success: they bribed state legislators to obtain canal and railroad contracts." What exactly has changed? Since I last looked at the world this is still an acceptable way to do things by many politicians.

2. The abuse of the way patents are used have brought about this discussion. To be a large company with infinite resources and wait forever to take advantage of a patent is unacceptable especially when they use that patent to destroy the competition with unacceptable conditions and royalties.

If someone has a patent and they have the suitable resources they should use it, lose it or be forced to make it available under acceptable conditions.

[tghounsell]

Read the book "Free Culture"

In Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig makes a compelling argument about the dangers of our current approach to intellectual property. It's hard to imagine how much more creative energy could be put to use in the world if changed our laws.

[rickr765]

ANECDOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Listen people, a collection of stories is NOT a way to defend a position! This whole article is just a pile of anecdotes, intended to rationalize away the REAL PROBLEMS that patents and copyright are causing in the world. IOW, it's a stupid article, and a C/Net editor should know better than to write such drivel.

[SPasse]

But the practice is broken?

But the practice is broken?

I love the concept of patents and trademarks?

Here is the issue; IMO the current system is broken.

These are some of the issues for technological patents:

1 Many current patents are technologically so complex, that they beyond the ability of patent examiners to differentiate the subtle details.

2 These patents are nonetheless granted, so then it becomes an issue of who has the deepest pockets in defending (or infringing on) these patents.

3 The juries are technologically incapable of making just decisions. A ?jury of your peers? in this case would have to often be engineers with advanced degrees. For example, was that the qualifications of the jurors that decided the recent case against Vonage?

Don?t get me wrong I am all in favor of intellectual property. I have personally benefited (in the form of royalty payments) form patent licensing. But if we really want to give the ?little guy? a fair shot at ?coming up with a better mouse trap? (and receiving patent royalties from it) we need to reform the system.

[SPasse]

But the practice is broken?

But the practice is broken?

I love the concept of patents and trademarks?

Here is the issue; IMO the current system is broken.

These are some of the issues for technological patents:

1 Many current patents are technologically so complex, that they beyond the ability of patent examiners to differentiate the subtle details.

2 These patents are nonetheless granted, so then it becomes an issue of who has the deepest pockets in defending (or infringing on) these patents.

3 The juries are technologically incapable of making just decisions. A ?jury of your peers? in this case would have to often be engineers with advanced degrees. For example, was that the qualifications of the jurors that decided the recent case against Vonage?

Don?t get me wrong I am all in favor of intellectual property. I have personally benefited (in the form of royalty payments) form patent licensing. But if we really want to give the ?little guy? a fair shot at ?coming up with a better mouse trap? (and receiving patent royalties from it) we need to reform the system.

[battlefella]

So wrong on so many levels

Interesting that this article was posted on the Internet, a prime example of an open standard design that would not exist today if CERN had chosen to patent and protect the concept. Amazon's 'One click' patent would have nothing to click on if it wasn't built on open technologies that caught on because of their very openness.

Patents driving innovation? Look at the Blackberry/NPT case - NPT's lawsuit not only sidelined RIM from major innovation for over a year while it was distracted with the battle, but also sucked out almost a billion dollars of research money - all because of a patent that was flimsy in the first place, and was shown not to play any role in RIM's developments. And of course there are many more examples.

The fact is that major patent holders like Microsoft, Apple, and IBM are generally non-litigious, regardless of how much we like to criticize them. Xerox had patents on nearly every major element of modern computing - user interface, pointers, networking, printing - most of which were not defended, giving rise to the huge innovation of the PC boom. Nearly every major innovation in Personal Computing is the result of someone creating new products from the foundation of undefended patents.

If all these companies started to defend their patents in an aggressive "NPT" like manner, nearly every internet, software and hardware innovation would end up in court, and nothing new would see the light of day (especially from small or startup companies without the ability to make cross-license agreements).

[Renegade Knight]

This Post Is Copyrighted By Me

Since the TOS for this site likely makes that a moot point, that is my point.

The current copyright tools would invalidate who ownes the footage in favor of the artist who took the footage. Thus the "artist" who shot the rolling stones eletrocution could issue a take down notice on the auction and remove the owner's ability to profit from their ownership.

Copyrights have a purpose. A lot of abuse is happening in the copyrighted word that favors the legally strong over the merely smart and creative.

[ripragged]

Keith Richards in a near death experience?

From this angle, Keith Richards looks like he has been in a near
death experience since about 1977.

Funny article, and true.

[Uncle Gil]

Patents are the great equalizer

Why should my creative efforts not be rewarded? Why should large companies be exempt from using my intellectual property without paying?

If you want to give away your writings and creations please do so but don't give away my rights.