Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"Is anybody out there in Washington starting to realize that copyrights and patents are just a thinly-disguised mechanism for a few cartels of lawyers to own everything, and that if this is allowed to continue the advancement of technology will be completely thwarted, except in China where they pay no attention to such nonsense anyway?"

The Founding Fathers didn't think so.

Of course the whole issue has gotten out of hand with the dramatic extensions of the time lengths for copyright but the original idea still has merit.
9 posted on 10/13/2003 2:56:40 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: webstersII
The Founding Fathers didn't think so.

Technology has come a long, long, long, long, LONG way since then.

If you disagree with that statement, then we have nothing further to talk about because I have learned it is a waste of time to discuss anything with dishonest people.

Human nature has not changed much, but technology now pervades everything we do.

Maybe innovation needed to be protected from competition in the days of the founding fathers, and maybe it didn't. Maybe "intellectual property" laws were just another obstacle that the American spirit overcame.

It is now possible to patent mathematical algorithms.

How far do you think the world would have progressed if Pythagoras had been able to patent his Theorem and collect royalties in perpetuity anytime geometry was used to solve an engineering problem?

The paperwork alone would have ground everything to a halt, much as keeping track of Microsoft licenses is a nightmare in a company with a few thousand PCs.

The ability to dispense with the expensive process of tracking licenses is going to move a lot of companies to open source in the next few years. It's already happening.

The people you would like to enslave with IP laws will find a way around them whether you like it or not. It's a derivative of one of the basic laws of thermodynamics.

12 posted on 10/13/2003 3:09:13 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: webstersII
The problem here is this is a technology that has existed and been used in practice for over 5 years now, since 1997 or even earlier.

Now after the fact this one man company applies for and gets the patent for what? Not a single line of his code is being used, never did he create or could he have imagined the uses for.

How does it affect you? Well this little re-tooling will approach the number of lines of code needed to fix y2k. All for this mans claim he owns a programmatic "concept."

He may have one the patent, he may have won the lawsuit based on that. But if he ever get's a red cent in licensing it will encourage copy cats that will paralyze the digital age.

-- lates
-- jrawk
14 posted on 10/13/2003 3:19:38 PM PDT by jrawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: webstersII
The Founding Fathers didn't think so.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

- Thomas Jefferson

28 posted on 10/14/2003 2:52:14 PM PDT by CodeMonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson