Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
(I've only just now read the last several posts, after already composing a message, because the topic had changed and thus the thread changed in my mail reader. I'm not piling on, but am glad to hear the strong support for abolishing the broken patent system.) On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 1, 2011, at 11:05 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang wrote: > > > > are NOT good businessmen. So, it is really unfair to independent > inventors, > > if the law protects only those who BOTH invent and commercialize. > Inventors > > I quote from the Constitution of the United States: > > "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." > > It is entirely within both word and intent of the Constitution for > legislation to do exactly that. The reason is the first part of the clause: > "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The primary purpose > of IP law is to encourage progress, to encourage new inventors and > authors/artists to draw upon the inventions and artistic works of their > predecessors to create new, better things. The evil is that greedy MBAs and > patent lawyers have turned the system inside out and made it more lucrative > to be a patent troll than to invent anything. > > The open source community cannot benefit from this. Nobody can, except for > patent trolls. Your fellows continue to do everything they possibly can to > ensure that only patent trolls benefit from patent law. Even > mega-corporations like Google and Samsung with massive fiscal resources and > huge teams of lawyers on their payrolls are finding it difficult defending > against the patent law extortion hammers. How can an all-volunteer open > source project with no funding and no attorneys hope to compete? And you > call it fair? Sorry, Charlie, but I don't buy it. > > --Rich P. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > The whole premise of individual ownership of anything which is not a physical artifact needs to be abandoned. (I'm not necessarily against individual physical property ownership, but even that can be shown to work against the benefit of society.) We all share a commons (quite literally the earth) built on finite resources with almost unlimited thought power. The freedom of the minds of 7 billion people are what we need to protect. We need to repeal and eliminate laws that forbid a person from using or expanding or simply thinking the idea of an another. The fact that IP-heavy industries have 72% more value-add [1] is another way of saying that IP-heavy industries are literally printing their own currencies at the expense of others. Any system where (few, large players) can print currency would appear to be unfair and biased against those who can't. Free Software companies and individuals / developers / users / advocates can all get really familiar with the current laws, lobbies and regulations (on a local, state, national and international basis) which govern patent, copyright and trademark. However, that is an utter waste of time and constitutes lost productivity versus the potential to create or build something -- even if it's only an idea, or even if it's only to teach someone else who may have resources to put those ideas to use. Now you could argue that specializing in patent law is a very good economic opportunity and potentially pays more than inventing new technology, but I'd argue that it's detrimental to society whereas the latter vocation is what everybody who makes a killing in the legal trade declares that they are defending. So Ayn Rand is wrong. Prosecuting people for using other people's ideas is morally corrupt. Pursuing invention is a morally good choice. Inventions ALWAYS build on prior art. Practically speaking, there is no way that freedom advocates will ever get a fair shake working within the confines of the present and ever-growing legal system. So, we must do whatever we can, at every opportunity available, with all the intensity we can muster, to eliminate patent law jurisdiction over software. Greg Rundlett my public PGP key<http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5E07A26B877CEBF6> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property#Economic_growth
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |