Sweden's Pirate Party is making inroads. Very impressive group.

[dixiegrrrrl]

In only 4 years they have become a vocal group in Sweden's Parliament.

Here is what they say about patents ( and copyright laws)


"One oft-questioned objective of the Pirate Parties is the dismantlement of the patent system, as in scrapping the concept altogether. Patents are a remnant from the guild era that has never served to advance the rate of innovations, but always to brake it in favor of incumbent industries. It should have been killed when free enterprise laws were enacted worldwide in mid-1850s, but wasn’t.

The patent system delayed the Industrial Revolution by 30 years, broadcast radio by five to ten years, powered flight by 25 years… I could go on and on. And today, it’s no different. The situation certainly isn’t helped by clueless politicians who measure “innovation” as “number of filed patent applications”, which is about as useful as measuring “economic growth” as “number of smashed windows”. It’s not just unrelated, the correlation is strongly negative.

This is important: the patent system hasn’t derailed just recently. It was always a retardant on innovation. It’s just that the pace of ideas has picked up, and so this fact has become much more apparent — and much more damaging."

A group, a website, really worth checking out. Very much in the forefront of the coming revolution/backlash against corporatism.

http://falkvinge.net/

[Ohio Joe]

1. Are these the same guys that just started up in MA?

My buddy Bill joined just so he could say "arrrrrr, I be a Pirate matey" when going to vote, heh.

[frylock]

2. yes, it is

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. I don't know...would be wonderful if they are.

The guy heading up the party in Sweden is quite bright, a delight to listen to. He was on Max Keiser today
( the 2nd half of Keiser's show, at 14 minutes in:
http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-154-report-max/)

and he and Keiser also are enthusiastic about BitCoins.

In all honesty, I think the only way to go is to develop a completely new paradigm, instead of trying to "reform"
the current political/financial/social system that is working against us now.
So I like hearing about new ideas that are working elsewhere.

[Ohio Joe]

25. It sure looks like they are at the least related

http://www.masspirates.org/blog/

They seem to have some good ideas, as a programmer though I do not agree with all of them.

[Canuckistanian]

3. I can attest to the radio broadcasting part

FM radio was available, technically, in the 1940s.

But because David Sarnof, owner of RCA and HEAVILY invested in the AM format, basically bought FM and threw up so many roadblocks to Edwin Armstrong's invention that he kept it off the air or marginalized until it finally died out in 1949.

Radio and TV are legendary for these series of lawsuits and counter-lawsuits that HELD BACK innovation and progress in the name of the almighty patent protection (and the protection of profits).

[Codeine]

5. Libertarians suck.

Even the ones that are only in it so they can rationalize downloading free music.

Fucking children.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Those who bothered to read the article can clearly see this is not about free music.

Admittedly, following the gist of the author does take some critical thinking skills to grasp all the implications.

[Codeine]

7. I'm obviously simplifying to score snarkiness points,

but I don't respect libertarians even when they present themselves well. Copyright reform makes sense, copyright abolitionism is insane.

[provis99]

10. some reform might be helpful.

For example, it might be useful to make production a requirement of maintaining a patent. If the subject of the patent is not put through production runs, then loss of patent should be the result. There are too many patent holders who have no intention of production; it's like cybersquatting.

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. Good point. Yes.

[originalpckelly]

13. These are pirates.

They would board the B.S.S.* Libertarian, steal their booty, Mopeds, and have their way with the crew.

Pirates blow Libertarians out of the water. Is this understood?

*B.S.S.: Bull Shit Ship

[NashVegas]

17. Pirates? These Are Middle Class, Bourgeoisie & Venture Capitalists

Looking to exploit other peoples' work. Read the article.

[NashVegas]

15. The Rationale Among Tech Companies

I recently spoke to the author of "The Corner Office," and asked him about differences in philosophies between CEOs of old-line corps and post-tech companies. He said that the leaders in the tech industry aren't so much about being innovative as they are taking old ideas and reinventing them, with their stamp on it.

Anyone who imagines the techies who are written about in the above article would *not* squeal like pigs if someone came along to threaten *their* livelihood, and means of using their money-making ideas to get the big house with the swimming pool, is naive and/or delusional.

[NashVegas]

12. I Often Wonder How Many of These IP-Raiding Freeloaders

List "Atlas Shrugged" among their favorites?

[Odin2005]

8. Good for them!

[msongs]

9. you have no right to private computers. everyone can come to your house and take yours. right? nt

[originalpckelly]

14. Not believing in a way to allow a company a MONOPOLY on an innovation...

for two decades sometimes, is a way to have innovation?

This is equivalent to the elimination of private property altogether?

I was unaware that knowing how to make a bike was equivalent to stealing your bike. Interesting.

[Occulus]

19. people like msongs are in for a very rude awakening when programmable matter gets developed

Intel and Carnegie Mellon are working on exactly that right now. They're in the "crude mockup so we understand the principles" stage, but eventually, I'll be able to take the code that tells the 'matter what shape, texture, and color your couch is, copy it to my device, and send it (wirelessly, of course, via a handy Android app or some such) to my pad, where my own programmable matter will reconstruct your couch for my use.

I've often observed the following: the people who think that's a wild, crazy idea that can't possibly happen anytime soon are the same people who equate unauthorized digital copying with theft. The near future will show them how wrong they are.

It's officially called Claytronics; YouTube it here.

[NashVegas]

11. Boo Frigging Hoo

Investors hate patents. Engineers hate patents.

The basic problem with patents is that you’re trying to assign property rights to something that doesn’t deserve property rights. <...> The basic problem is that Chris and a bunch of engineers can be sitting at Hunch designing some amazing new feature and somebody unbeknownst to them has a patent on this feature and never actually implemented it and can now screw them over… It’s just not right, it shouldn’t exist.”

Why should Chris Dixon and a bunch of engineers be able to dine at the expense of someone who is light years ahead of them, but didn't have the fortune of a well-connected social circle or a supportive employer (and - how many engineers sign IP agreements giving their employer rights to everything they come up with while they are with that company?) to get something funded immediately?

[originalpckelly]

16. What is the point of a patent in the first place?

That would give you a clue as to why they are so horrible.

It's the creation of a monopoly on ideas.

[NashVegas]

18. To Protect Inventors' & Innovators' Rights

To exploit and profit from their own ideas, as well as to help keep them motivated to continue creating new inventions and ideas.

Hint: the actual OP article is titled 'Startup Investors: “Patents are a cancer”'


Startup investors - not inventors, not innovators, but people looking to exploit a business/idea for financial gains.

[originalpckelly]

20. So, how does letting someone exploit an old idea for 20 years (at least)

keep innovation going?

Why make it that?

Why do the rights ever end in the first place?

[NashVegas]

27. One Always Has the Option of Paying Patent Royalties

Or am I mistaken in that?

[Heywood J]

22. You have failed to address the basic concept of that quote.

Which is to say that there are flaws in the current system. It's quite possible for someone to get a patent on an entire concept (or a minor variation of something that already exists), written so vaguely as to be nearly useless, practically conceal the patent, and base their business model on springing up to sue when they feel the time is right (e.g. the potential to extract maximum money or when the target is too entrenched to turn back and has an incentive to settle, not when the alleged infringement starts). Yes, engineers hate patents - engineers being a large portion of people who design and invent things, that process we call progress. Tell me again how patents further progress?

Then, of course, we get into issues regarding patenting parts of existing genomes (human and otherwise), "business methods", software code, evergreening, etc.

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. That is exactly the issue that some seem to not grasp.

Essentially the negative uses of the patent laws.

[saras]

24. They're right about patents, no matter who they are

Even before patents, the struggle to control intellectual property cost nations centuries and millions, and cost individuals their lives. Take a look at the historic attempts to control the making of glass and mirrors. Death penalties for revealing 'trade secrets'.

The patent system has a rationale articulated in it. It should be modified to serve this rationale, even if that means abolishing patents. This rationale is that the patent system serve to more quickly get the device into production, to publicize its design so others can design around the patent as soon as possible, and the whole thing collapses when the company has presumably made their research money back and the design enters the public domain.

There's nothing in the system about bogus patents covering ideas like the touch screen, the mouse, and the wheel, and there's nothing in the system about refusing to develop patents, threatening lawsuits over inappropriate patents in the hope of winning through superior spending, and a whole list of other abuses. The entire history of radio is a history of patent abuse, and a good argument against the entire system.

The fact that digital copying is viewed as theft rather than wealth creation is just another example of how bizarrely extremist our ideas about intellectual property are, and how out of touch with what would contribute to social progress.

[NashVegas]

26. Wake Up

" ... digital copying is viewed as theft rather than wealth creation ..."

Wealth has not been created, it's being redistributed. In most cases, from content creators and those who commit to investing in a product to get it made, to those who can get that product to the consumer with the least amount of financial investment.

At a recent music/digital summit, the head of a music tech company told the crowd (paraphrasing), "artists are going to have to get used to the idea that their money won't come from record sales, but from product endorsements and other merchandising."

The unbridled arrogance behind that statement is jaw-dropping. And of course it came from someone who lists Ayn Rand books on their Facebook "likes," oblivious to the irony that the heroes in her books would have kicked his fucking ass in.