U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2013, 04:17 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,662,341 times
Reputation: 3699

Advertisements

Patents are relatively limited. The real problem is copyrights. Books, music, films, etc.,—once the domain of individuals—are now in the hands of corporations. I firmly believe that a creator should have copyright for his or her lifetime plus a few years, but now corporations want to hold them (effectively) in perpetuity. I think that stifles creativity and the dissemination of knowledge.

What’s more, corporations only care about a relative handful of extremely valuable copyrights. However they’ve used their lobbyists to extend protection to everything—the vast majority of which will never return a significant royalty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2013, 04:45 PM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,816,797 times
Reputation: 6172
Most (if not all) discoveries and technological advancements are due to the fact that "idea" is in the air already. Exact authorship is not important, it's already there. Even trillion$ of investments would not produce an "idea" if it's not there. An "idea" is an evolutionary product of collective knowledge, imagination and efforts of current and all previous generations. Placing some corporate logo on something inherently "collective" is wrong and stifling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 04:47 PM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,816,797 times
Reputation: 6172
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
I firmly believe that a creator should have copyright for his or her lifetime plus a few years, but now corporations want to hold them (effectively) in perpetuity.
Mark Twain was a firm believer in the perpetual copyright, that's why I don't reed his books, not to infringe on his dead wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 05:08 PM
Status: "King of the World" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Itinerant
5,209 posts, read 3,758,192 times
Reputation: 4084
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
First, I want to compliment you on your debate technique. Nicely done. It is so much simpler for me debating well formed thoughts than what is commonly presented. I'm going to try interlacing my responses.



Good debate, but as I have gone over much of this ground before, I'm likely to not continue to respond in detail. I do appreciate your post though.
Ok I'm going to cherry pick some of your responses, since interlacing makes dissected quoting difficult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
My argument would be a simplistic extreme if I called for a total end to patents and copyright. I am not doing that. I am asking for patent and copyright REFORM to bring it back more into compliance to the original concept.


However, what you see today isn't caused by patents, it's caused by the belief (I'm being generous) that the intellectual property is either more than is written on the patent (i.e. patent ransoming), or is an actual patent infringement. Let's be specific here, can in all honesty Apple patent a rounded corner on a device? No and the patent they filed doesn't specifically state that either, they're stretching the spirit of the patent to achieve a competitive advantage, that isn't an issue with the patent, it's an issue with the enforcement of patent law, and business practices. It may appear to be splitting hairs, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
I'll agree that some technology has been around for a while, but my point is that after 20 years, it should be public domain. I bring to your attention a couple of little examples (among many) of what goes wrong. First, the GIF wars, where a common standard was held hostage for undue profits. Second, the patent on the process of sending a fax by scanning and sending it over the internet. Currently, thousands of people are being told to pay-up for doing this. Both examples prove my point of intellectual property rights misuse.
the GIF war wasn't about GIF's it was about LZW compression, CompuServe dropped the ball "thought" LZW was free, and wound up causing a lot of problems for many people who were caught out by CompuServe being stupid, since the patent existed four years prior to the GIF 87a specification, it's somewhat interesting that CompuServe chose to make the GIF format royalty free, don't you think? It's far more difficult to estimate damages when there isn't a money trail back to the person infringing some other persons patent. Those patents expired in 2003/2004, and that ended that war.

The other issue I don't understand the specifics, but scanning is covered by multiple patents (and OCR is too), sending may be covered under other IP, the only issue I could see would be a gateway that converts from TCP/IP to FAX audio formats. That said while FAX audio format may not be under patent the mechanism to convert TCP/IP data to telephony (and fax understandable audio) may be, which may be why a charge (although that said I've never been charged anything other more than any other VOIP fee for sending a fax).

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
I was primarily using that as an example, so dissecting it is a deflection from the overall point, but I'll simply say that my method consistently allowed me to recover the data-stream when the company that was being paid big bucks to do the same task could not. I'm well aware of database viewers. I could have applied for a patent, and with the state of the patent office at the time, I posit that I would have been granted a patent. (Perhaps, from your viewpoint, in error - but that would be yet another reason for patent reform.)...

And in your same post you claim that my 1993 system (a rough corollary) was unpatentable? You are seeming to want it both ways.
It was a bad example, an example is used to illuminate and illustrate, yours did neither, and also did not provide an accurate portrayal of something that could be patented, you cannot patent air, or granite, etc. you can patent means to extract nitrogen from air, but not air itself, or extract Uranium from granite, but not granite itself.

Please don't misrepresent my statements on your code, I said I did not know whether it was patentable, and gave reasons why it may not be, my example certainly would be patentable IF it was novel (i.e. it did not conflict with any other prior art).

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
I'll put this simply. I happen to be one of those people who always comes up with new ideas. It just happens. I wake up in the morning some mornings and there is a whole new idea staring me in the face. You won't see the fruition of those ideas because I have a very clear understanding of what would happen if I tried to develop them. I refuse to add fuel to a conflagration that is destroying individual inventors. A few things I might give away freely, but I know when a card deck is stacked that I'm not going to win. So the first part of what you claim would happen IS already happening on a very personal level, and there are many others like me. If I felt I stood a chance in this system of making money off my ideas, I would be spending time on them and you wouldn't see me here to argue with.


How is it destroying individual inventors? Mark Zuckerberg is an individual inventor, has he been destroyed? Jeff Bezos is an individual inventor, has he been destroyed? Sergey Brin is an inventor, has he been destroyed? Gabe Newell is an inventor, has he been destroyed? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding your point, but I've heard this kind of argument from many people many times, most of those are people who are waiting for someone to give them their chance, and they will be waiting for a very, very long time. If you feel that the system is treating you poorly, when these other people were just like you at some point in their lives with just ONE good idea, then perhaps the issue isn't with the system... Just Sayin'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
As for "lower technical achievement," I have no idea where that came from. It is so transparently false that it isn't even worth the time spent refuting.


Is it? Perhaps you're not choosing to look deep enough...

Consider how much duplication of effort there would be. Every shared technology we use would be owned by a single corporation, or there would be multiple implementations of the same. So one wireless phone company, or many who all spent the same investment creating equivalent means of transmitting/receiving telephone calls and data via a wireless network. One internet company, or multiple "internets" who all spent the same investment creating equivalent internets, and so on... If it took us from 1965 to roughly the early 90's to get the Internet from the Lab to someone's home with shared technology and innovation, where do you think it would be with isolated technology and only self innovation?

Indeed chances are even Thomas Edison would be horked, as he relied on the research for the electric lightbulb of Sir Humphrey Davy from 1804.

Let's just look at Henry Ford, he filed 161 patents, all of those patents are now expired and many are in common use today by people with no concept of who invented them. Now imagine if there were no patents (or it was changed to make it cost ineffective to patent), no one would be permitted to use any of those inventions without Ford's company approval (IIRC he even owned a patent for Charcoal Briquets).

Patents only work because the value of holding the patent is at least as beneficial as not holding any patent and siloing your technology, and that does happen. There is a risk in both, however with a patent you have an incentive to create new and novel ways of solving problems at minimal cost (lets be honest any invention that won't generate at least $10k in revenue isn't worth patenting anyway). Reducing the length of a patent reduces the incentive to innovate (especially as it's from first filing, not award, and can take 4-5 years at times to award a patent).
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The RulesInfractions & DeletionsWho's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 06:15 PM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,367,172 times
Reputation: 14840
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiphead View Post
patents are there to keep the same the same. the warner brothers own the happy birthday song if that tells you how ridiculous this world is.
Patents and copyrights are the engines that drive innovation and creation becsue they provide incentive for profit. When someone spends considerable time and money developing or creating something if they can't profit why bother?

Happy Birthday would be copyrighted and copyrights can last 100+ years. Copyrights protect text, works of art, video, images, code etc. Patents only last 20 years and protect tangible things like machines, chemicals etc.

That said we need some changes as patent abuse has become common and the pace of technology often makes patented tech obsolete by the time the patent has run out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 06:20 PM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,367,172 times
Reputation: 14840
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
Books, music, films, etc.,—once the domain of individuals—are now in the hands of corporations
Only becsue the creator or holder of the copyright agreed to sell it to them. Are you telling me if I write a book and someone wants to purchase the copyright I shouldn't be able to sell it to them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,879 posts, read 51,428,878 times
Reputation: 27798
"If you feel that the system is treating you poorly, when these other people were just like you at some point in their lives with just ONE good idea, then perhaps the issue isn't with the system... Just Sayin'."

Not offended at all. What products I have brought to market were win win win win (not windows, but a case where the customer was able to make money using my product through selling inoffensive advertising, their customers were able to get coupon discounts, the advertisers were able to get increased sales, and I made a reasonable profit. I am not the dog eat dog competitive type required to push some products or push employees to a breaking point. In the creative work that would otherwise be covered by copyright, I have offered a EULA which better fits my own sensibilities.

As I said, I'm not going to continue to respond point-by-point, as I have covered the ground extensively in previous posts. The issue is that the whole area needs reform, and many of the powers that be already recognize that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2013, 09:01 AM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,662,341 times
Reputation: 3699
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Only becsue the creator or holder of the copyright agreed to sell it to them. Are you telling me if I write a book and someone wants to purchase the copyright I shouldn't be able to sell it to them?
No, but the copyright should expire eventually. I’m a composer and I receive royalties from pieces I’ve written. However, the money’s not going to do my much good 50 years after my death. By that time I think my music should be in the public domain—with Bach, Mozart, et al.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2013, 09:07 AM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,367,172 times
Reputation: 14840
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
No, but the copyright should expire eventually. I’m a composer and I receive royalties from pieces I’ve written. However, the money’s not going to do my much good 50 years after my death. By that time I think my music should be in the public domain—with Bach, Mozart, et al.
It does expire, it's considerable amount of time but it does expire. Make sure the next contract you sign stipulates your wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2013, 10:45 AM
 
752 posts, read 901,041 times
Reputation: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
(especially as it's from first filing, not award, and can take 4-5 years at times to award a patent).
And how someone should spend money at PCT (4-5 thousands), inside 12 months of filing date, if he do not know if he will get patent at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top