Posted on 12/07/2019 4:00:59 AM PST by Kaslin
Uh, no. The “Foundation of Innovation” is PATENTS. Similar to copyright, yes, but totally different in effectiveness.
Patents and copyright both serve to protect intellectual property.
The search engine that doesn't track you
Help Spread DuckDuckGo!
This depends on the the actual code. Is oracle doing one of those things where they’re trying to claim a copyright on addition or something that anyone would come up with?
In that they are similar, but please don't try to tell me that writing a good story is on the same value level with inventing a revolutionary device. In transmission of scientific results, for instance, copyright actually hobbles the process.
The concept of "intellectual property" is modern, artificial, and dubious. It conflates patent and copyright and is used to suppress innovation and guarantee income for entities who do not contribute to innovation. In the Constitution, patent and copyright were to be secured for a "limited time", for the benefit of discoverers, inventors, and creators. Modern law enforces copyright beyond the reasonable lifetime of the creator ensuring that new works will never enter the public domain in anyone's lifetime, and the conflation means derivative work must leap an impossible bar to be considered derivative and not identical. Thus there is no effective limit.
I read an analysis which applied modern rules to the invention of the steam engine. The conclusion was all of modern technology would be infringing on the intellectual property of the inventor of the steam engine. Thomas Newcomen's descendants would own the world.
I never said they were them same, just that they both serve a purpose.
I know of at least one case (through personal experience) where theft of intellectual property was proven because the EXACT same code was proven to exist in a competitors device. Without copyright laws there would have been no course for the plaintiff to recover damages and the defendant would have been free to implement the solution without incurring NRE costs of licensing fees.
In this case the laws insured a level playing field.
I agree that copyrights extend beyond a reasonable time frame, but that aside, they encourage competition rather than stifle it. Why look for a better solution to something if just anyone can now copy your work and produce it without incurring the costs associated with development or licensing?
How about Gulag?
That they do. I think judging from your other posts that we pretty much agree. Copyright needs serious revision to a shorter time (perhaps fifty years). I think patents are pretty much good as they stand.
I have to reject your point because the recognition of Copyright isn't to encourage competition, but instead to encourage original creation (i.e. progress) by securing a monopoly for the original author over the original work and by implication any derivation. But in the arts it's difficult to create without some derivation, and so monopoly on copyright must be limited in time else it will eventually work to prevent progress rather than encourage it. Furthermore legal precedent recognizes "fair use" because there forms of original work (e.g criticism) where in order to refer to another particular work it is necessary to replicate the original in some form, but not wholly.
“Foundation of Innovation”
As if there was no innovation before copyrights or before patents.
I'd say even shorter. But unfortunately there are now financial contracts founded on risk assessment incorporating the premise that copyright is 70+ years. It would be a taking to nullify them by law. What a mass of rotting spaghetti this has turned out to be, supposedly founded with the best of intentions. Only a Constitutional amendment can cure this, and it won't go down easy. This is another reason why we need an amendment to assure Absolute Sunset, so if ignored, bad law just goes away over time (and our legislators will quit screwing around because they'll be held responsible if good law goes away).
And crucial inventions were lost time after time after time because inventors kept details secret for (rightful) fear of having their work stolen. The idea of "patent" was a successful attempt to prevent such losses. The inventor at least has a chance to enjoy the fruits of his work, and society gets the benefit of new knowledge.
I don’t disagree with that. I’m saying “innovation” predates patents and copyrights, it is not founded by them. You could say that patents and copyrights were innovations.
These days, copyright has been expanded to a regime that required no registration of works, and a term that lasts the life of the author plus 70 years. This is just insane, especially if one looks at the plain text of the Constitution, which is where the issuing of patents and copyright is granted as a power of government.
From Article 1, Section 8: 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;
Does anyone seriously think that today's massive copyright terms are in any ways compatible with the phrase "limited times"? I certainly do not. The U.S. Copyright terms have generally increased by 20 years every 20 years at the behest of major corporations like Disney and others. In general today, if you're looking at an older work, and are wondering about it's copyright status, and do not want to perform an extensive legal search, the work would have to have been published prior to 1924. This is insane, and the ever-expanding copyright terms have effectively robbed the public domain of an untold number of works over the course of the 20th century.
Yes, I said 'robbed'. The public domain is the natural repository of works, and the framers of the Constitution knew that. Unfortunately, we have legislooters who are easily bought by large corporations to continue to extend terms far beyond anything that could reasonably be seen as a 'limited time'. We, as a society have agreed to grant a temporary monopoly on works in order to encourage their continued production. Who, exactly, is being encouraged 50 years after the author himself has died? This is especially true as the vast majority of works currently under copyright are not actually in print, and are therefore not providing a benefit to anyone. It is a shame that all of these works are nonetheless unavailable to the general public that might have an interest in enjoying or preserving them.
Project Gutenberg currently has over 60,000 of these pre-1924 books available for anyone to download for free on the internet. Those interested in helping to proofread books that have been scanned for publication on Project Gutenberg, can do so in their spare time on the Distributed Proofreaders site. I've done quite a few pages myself, and think it's something worthwhile.
Good point!
One example where copyright encouraged competition...
In the 80s, Compaq had to develop an IBM Compatible BIOS without infringing on the 9000+ copyrights held by IBM for the softwAre that comprised their BIOS. Compaq could not infringe on even 1 piece of copyrights softwAre or they would be in violation of copyright law. This forced Compaq to create all original code so they could compete in the then burgeoning computer market. Much of the softwAre they produced was better than the original IBM code which then forced IBM to also improve their softwAre in San effort to stay competitive. Additionally, all additional IBM compatible computer manufactures that did not license either the IBM or Compaq BIOS were forced to create their own BIOS softwAre. The fact that a copyrighted solution created a market opportunity and therefore competition in that market cannot be denied.
While it is possible that the intent of copyright law was not to foster competition, it did in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.