Intellectual Property: Is it a necessity?

[Silurian]

Hopefully Kyriakos will be a successful writer some day and may even be famous outside of Greece. But that could take a long time, many writers produce stuff for twenty or thirty years before they start making serious money. Kyriakos works in a book shop to pay for his writing. If he gave up writing he may be able to get a better paid job. If he becomes famous he will be able to release and make money out of the stories he is making now to make up for spending years working in a lower paid job. If he does not make it big he still may be able to make a little bit if old stories are republished.

So why shouldn’t people who spend a considerable portion of their life creating a product benefit from it.

 

[Tahuti]

Jeez that is not something special to medial research and hence obviously not what I meant. You totally missed the point. Medical research is nasty because the human body is nasty and it is very intricately to experiment with human beings for ethical reasons.

If you think that way, name one reason why you would want to make it to more difficult by adding legal hurdles in medical research too.

What you forget to appreciate is, that those copying instead if innovating would make the best deal financially. You think that won't stifle development? Come on...

The difficulty of reverse engineering is often ignored. And besides, you're missing the point anyhow, which is that while copying is inevitable, being the first in something gives you a headstart in that area as well.

Now you are just fantasying to fit your narrative. As said, the financial most efficient ones will be those who only copy. How can you just ignore such kind of detrimental effect? Those "business secrets" would mostly be easy pray in a world without intellectual property. Companies are not some sort of secret service after all. Things leak, can be copied, and than can be produced at a smaller price because nothing was spend for R&D.

Coca-cola has a special ingedrient that gives it a taste unlike all other coke brands. That's still a secret, even though other coke brands are legally allowed to reverse engineer this by now, they simply don't know how.

 

[aronnax]

UK TV shows are paid for by a Tax (BBC) or advertising revenues.
If you want to watch a TV program that I have paid to make you should buy it.
Programs like, Doctor Who, are expensive to make and if the BBC did not know it could make some money overseas it would not be able to make so many or would have to reduce the quality.

Would it be acceptable to get some product made in Singapore, distribute it for free in the UK and then say to the Singaporean supplier that we are not paying because we gave it away.

Let me say that the rest of the Commonwealth thanks you for your Tax! And, we can't buy it. There are hardly any British TV shows in DVD copies in Singapore. There's a BBC channel on cable but it's really bad. However, British shows are all over the internet, especially youtube. You can't expect me to not watch it.

I get your point, I do. But with the ease of uploading a video onto an internet and someone else downloading it or streaming it, it's hard to defend the current status of IP. Since you can't defend it, might as well follow it.

 

[Silurian]

Yep. Though you are absolutely right that patents also mean a decrease of efficiency in the aftermath. The assumption is, that this inefficiency is worth the motivation to produce patent-worthy stuff in the first place.

Do patents decrease efficiency in the aftermath?

The difficulty of reverse engineering is often ignored. And besides, you're missing the point anyhow, which is that while copying is inevitable, being the first in something gives you a headstart in that area as well.[

Coca-cola has a special ingedrient that gives it a taste unlike all other coke brands. That's still a secret, even though other coke brands are legally allowed to reverse engineer this by now, they simply don't know how.

This is an argument for patents. When you apply for a patent you have to describe how the thing works. So there is no reverse engineering cost. The competitor knows what you have done and can work to make it better as soon as the patent is granted. If the improvement is sufficiently different they will get their own patent, if not when the patent expires they will be ready with their improvement. If the process is kept secret reverse engineering may not be possible so the process will not be able to be exploited by all when the patent expires.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

@Kyriakos: Passing off the work of another as one's own is not really an intellectual property issue, or if it is then it deals with Trademarks rather than Copyrights. There is no reason we could not prosecute plagiarists for fraud without a system which grants a work's creators the privilege of determining who may use the work and extracting from them arbitrary rent

I am all for protections against fraud, including prosecuting plagiarism and trademark violations. Passing off your work as that of another is just as big a problem as passing off the work of another as your own, as it can ruin the reputation of the other party.


The complete elimination of Copyrights and Patents would be better than continuing the IP system as it currently exists, although there might be some reforms that would be preferable still.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

I consider all intellectual property that does not in fact "promote the progress of science and useful arts" to be unconstitutional and unacceptable.

There are some things that people have always done on their own without financial incentive. Creating songs is such a thing. I am of the opinion that copyrights on music do far more to hinder than help progress, and so are not acceptable.

As the constitution only allows granting legal monopolies to authors and inventors, I consider it rather dubious to allow said authors and inventors to sell their privileges to third parties not involved in the work's creation. It seems fine for those with a monopoly to accept a fixed payment in exchange for allowing another party to use the work all they wish, but a system that allows for patent trolls to support themselves based off nothing but litigation and the threat of litigation is not acceptable.

Copyrights that last long after death do not meet any reasonable criteria of "limited times." I consider a decade to be more than enough duration for intellectual property in most cases. I am however open to allowing IP holders to petition the courts for extensions in particular cases where royalties from the legal monopoly have not yet been sufficient to fully recoup the costs of developing the product. The losses from previous unsuccessful attempts could be factored in to this.


I do not think that copyrights should ever be granted automatically. Those seeking legal privileges for creative works should have to do so as openly as those seeking patents. In either case, we need to do more to make sure that IP is only granted when the work in genuinely new and non-obvious. Patenting things created by someone else or already existing in nature should never be acceptable.


It might be a good idea to make the duration of IP depend not on time but on how much the privilege has earned the IP holder. When filing for a patent or copyright (for something like a big budget movie), the petitioner could be required to state the total costs incurred in development (including the costs of related failed projects). The court could review the figures, and reject the request if it is found to be completely unreasonable unreasonable. It could set a reasonable rate of return on the investment, perhaps something like five times the costs of development. The privilege of a legal monopoly could be granted and set to automatically expire once the revenue from royalties have surpassed this limit.

 

[NickyJ]

So the original company must continue to offer support or to produce something related to IP in order to keep the IP?

No, all the original company has to do is exist. I said that if the company is purchased, the new company must still offers support or actually produce it.

How are you going to police an adequate level of support? Who gets the IP if a company doesn't offer adequate support?

If the new company does not support it or produce it, it become abandonware since, basically, the new company has abandoned the product.

What about IP where no support or production is required?

What would be an example of that?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Do patents decrease efficiency in the aftermath?

Yes.
Now it is my turn to ask a question: Did you read the part of innonimatu's post on the matter?

If you think that way, name one reason why you would want to make it to more difficult by adding legal hurdles in medical research too.

That's an easy one. Because otherwise no private capital would be used for such a strenuous effort to begin with. But that assumes that one wants to hand this over to private capital, against which Montezuma has made a decent case.

I consider all intellectual property that does not in fact "promote the progress of science and useful arts" to be unconstitutional and unacceptable.

Sounds reasonable.

There are some things that people have always done on their own without financial incentive. Creating songs is such a thing. I am of the opinion that copyrights on music do far more to hinder than help progress, and so are not acceptable.

Do you say this keeping in mind how much producing music can actually cost? (I doubt it) Or that people devoting significant time to it my not do so when not being able to pay the bills with it?

 

[Silurian]

What would be an example of that?

How about this

http://www.elliott-europe.com/

 

[NickyJ]

How about this

http://www.elliott-europe.com/

I don't see anything there that has to do with IP.

 

[Silurian]

I don't see anything there that has to do with IP.

Well

Originally Posted by Zelig
What about IP where no support or production is required?

Well once you have been told this method of breaking down piles, to the correct level, there is no need for support. (The concrete normally has to be poured high for a number of reasons), there is also no need to get anything from the company as you can get the foam to wrap around the steel bars from most plumbers.

You wanted an example that was just an idea that was being sold and patented.

 

[NickyJ]

Well once you have been told this method of breaking down piles, to the correct level, there is no need for support. (The concrete normally has to be poured high for a number of reasons), there is also no need to get anything from the company as you can get the foam to wrap around the steel bars from most plumbers.

You wanted an example that was just an idea that was being sold and patented.

Isn't that what patents are for?

 

[Zelig]

No, all the original company has to do is exist. I said that if the company is purchased, the new company must still offers support or actually produce it.

Who's going to police if a company "exists"?

What if a gaming company fires all their developers and exists solely as some executives and lawyers to deal with the IP?

What if a company gets purchased, but continues to "exist"?

What would be an example of that?

The IP rights to game series - ie. Interplay and Fallout.

 

[BasketCase]

The government absolutely does has incentive - the good of the people.

Bush Administration, 2000 to 2008.

Gotcha. See the problem? Governments have widely differing ideas of what "the good of the people" actually is, depending on who's actually IN that government. Not good enuff, d00d.

 

[NickyJ]

Who's going to police if a company "exists"?

If a company ceases to exist, there's really no need to police. When it files for going out of business (correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that companies had to file to officially go out of business), it also gives up it's IP rights.

What if a gaming company fires all their developers and exists solely as some executives and lawyers to deal with the IP?

Then I guess they hold onto the IP.

What if a company gets purchased, but continues to "exist"?

Like I said before, if a company is purchased, the new company must still offer support or actually produce the product.

The IP rights to game series - ie. Interplay and Fallout.

That series, to me, looks like it would need support or production.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's a step backwards, for two reasons. First, the government doesn't have any incentive to invest wisely (because it's spending somebody else's money)

And what do Boards of Trustees do, with shareholder money? Or bankers, with investors' money?

 

[El_Machinae]

Cause the Great Recession of the modern age, Cheezy!

 

[Zelig]

If a company ceases to exist, there's really no need to police. When it files for going out of business (correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that companies had to file to officially go out of business), it also gives up it's IP rights.

What if two companies merge, does the new company lose the IP of both previous companies?

That series, to me, looks like it would need support or production.

What constitutes support? Is Bethesda supporting Fallout still? What about 2k games and the Duke Nukem series?

 

[BvBPL]

Yes, it is a necessity.

 

[wolfigor]

Suppose a company now invented "the wheel"; reinventing the wheel in a thousand different ways just to evade a patent on the wheel is wasteful. Let companies pour less resources into making copies, instead of pouring them into making slightly different and probably inferior stuff. That means more resources left for investment on really original stuff. Let prices be lowered faster by scale and efficiency gains by eliminating managed artificial scarcity.

In general I agree with you: patents are often used to block competitors (see Apple) instead of allowing for share of knowledge as they were supposed to be.

Taking your example: the invention of the wheel would have been kept secret and nobody would be able to improve upon it.
In this example a company see the wheel in action and invent a war-chariot (paying a royalty to whom invented the wheel).

The concept of patents is exactly about allowing innovators to don't keep their inventions secret but to offer an incentive to share knowledge.
However patents have, in my opinion, a far too long duration.
Today the duration of a patent is a minimum of 20 years from the date of filing (however countries can decide for a longer grant or different starting date).
Lets now look at the pace of evolution in technology: what computers did we have 20 or 25 years ago?
It's redicolous that "inventions" in technology can be protected for such long time.

The other problem, in my opinion, is the possibility to patent ideas without actually implementing anything.
If you have a good idea and you want to protect it, you have to implement it even as simple proof of concept or prototype.
It happens rarely today (too strong competition to don't use good ideas immediately) but still happens.

I am a patent owner (3 patents for software) but I still feel completely silly that a patent can be filed without implementation and keep the idea protected for over 20 years!

Last but not least is the possibility to patent simple ideas (e.g. rectangular screen for a tablet).
It's ironic that "silly" patents can be enforced at will while patents for essential technology must be licensed in a special way (FRAND: Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) and limited cost.

So far as I'm aware, the only difference between patents and copyrights is that patents are generally in engineering or inventions, while copyrights apply solely to works of art and entertainment, etc.

A lot of people confuse IP protection with copyright and trademark.
Copyright is what protects an intellectual creation (e.g. a song or a story). that has no practical application.

Patents last for 20 years which is a reasonable time frame with which to make a profit; copyrights last 70 + the life of the author. Incredibly and infuriatingly long. I have voted accordingly.

20 years for the duration of a patent is not short nor long... it depends on the field.
In medicine, where the research and development of a drug last for more then 10 years and it's regulated by long safety trials, a patent duration of 20 years is well justified.

In software industry, where R&D projects are often measured in months, a 20 years duration for a patent is clearly too long.
5 years is already an eternity: even well paid exclusivity contracts are rarely longer than 1 year.

A 90 years protection for copyright (actually 90 years after the death of the last "creator") is completely bullocks: it's only made to protect the gain of a corporation and not to protect the artist.

In my vote I expressed that IP protection is necessary but needs to be considerably shortened.
For copyright protection, not only I would shorten it to a mere 5 years from first public occurrence but also waver it away for non-profit use.

 

[NickyJ]

What if two companies merge, does the new company lose the IP of both previous companies?

No, because neither company was sold nor went out of business.

What constitutes support? Is Bethesda supporting Fallout still? What about 2k games and the Duke Nukem series?

I don't know if Bethesda is still supporting Fallout. As for Duke Nukem, since they did actually work with the series, they would keep the IP.