Have you ever heard about open source? It has already been mentioned several times.

Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc… They all live on donations – and they get plenty.
Want to clone their products?
Feel free to, as long as you follow the license.
If you take Firefox’s codebas you can even keep your modifications secret if you want (MPL), or you can publish it and demand that others publish their modifications (GPL).

I’m a big fan of open source, and contribute everything I can think of. I’ve already gotten a shirt sent home to me as thanks without asking for it. The idea has already been implemented. (www.openlina.org)

Sure, I can’t live of that – but what’s up with that thing they call “day jobs”?
Oh right – I’m currently on educating myself to become an electrician.

I don’t know if my name are on a “thank you page” somewhere, and I don’t really care. My ideas are being used and are helping people. If I would demand money for everything they would never have been used.

If everybody would have been that “territorial” about “their” ideas (a lot of my “original” ideas have already been thought of), then I wouldn’t have an entire operating system on my computer where I can do ANYTHING I want – I can get the latest kernel’s source whenever I want, I can create my own file systems, I can replace the GUI, and whatever I want.

Do you know an OS where that is illegal? I do, and you probably have it on your computer (88% chance, ir rather “risk”).

(1) The inventor should be perfectly capable of keeping the product a trade secret and profiting from it anyway.

(2) In order to get a patent, the inventor should be obligated to release complete specs so that any idiot could completely clone the product.

That way, the patent provides monopolistic benefits which would have been obtained anyway by trade secret without the patent, but gives the public information for later use. (The patenter benefits by not having to guard his secret.)

Other than that patents are worthless. If you have no right to patent your work, but you can’t keep it secret while selling it, you’ll share it anyway — you’ll advertise as ‘The Original’ and ‘The Inventor’ and make money. If you don’t share it you make nothing.

The reason open source organizations utilize a form of copyright is that under current law if you don’t copyright your work someone else can.

They should be reduced drastically. And the one thing that copyright
should be limited to is to people… Human beings NOT corporations
it should be not transferable to corporations, companies and so forth.

WRONG!

the phrase “intellectual property” is almost two hundred years old.

“Yeah, so says two mid-level academics with guaranteed incomes, guaranteed benefits and retirements and guaranteed lifelong employment through protectionist tenure, THEIR FORM of teaching monopoly.”
———————-

LOL! exactly…

a couple of low level, mouthy hypocrites. where can i sign up for their newsletter?

““Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright.””
————————–

O RLY?

where is this “evidence”? i see no specific mention of it in the article or video posted. funny, they left that out…

“When self-serving companies like Disney successfully lobby to keep Mickey Mouse in their pocket well past reasonable time limits, we all loose. Everyone knows who created Mickey Mouse, no matter who is selling it.”
———————

LOL!

exactly how do we all “lose” given the fact that mickey mouse still isn’t in the public domain? is that REALLY affecting your daily life?

the only people disadvantaged by this are parasitic knock-off companies who want to benefit financially from some other person’s creativity and innovation. frankly, i’d prefer knock-off non-artists starve to death in the gutters rather than make a mint riding someone else’s coattails.

“I’ve always wondered why anti-file sharers come on torrent freak, their like Jehovah witnesses, unwanted, not welcome , annoying and pathetic”
——————–

whine more. this is a website designed around discussion not your own private circle jerk. also, the word is “they’re” not “their”. i hope english isn’t your first language.

“patents and copyright are about ONE thing: stopping the vaunted “market competition””
———————

LOL!

illegal filesharing does NOT constitute “market competition”. don’t be ridiculous.

“equality of data, access and opportunity is a right for everyone on this planet”
———————–

LOL!

you do not have a god-given right to the newest summer blockbuster or hit record, free of charge. don’t be ridiculous. recorded entertainment is not a bodily need. you have no inalienable right to something you merely “want”.

god ezee, i bet you have a closet full of che guevara shirts…

thats WHAT THEY FEAR PEOPLE
its not art they are money grubbing whineys

Two economists from Washington University have looked at current copyright and patent laws and concluded that they’re not good. The pair see current Intellectual property laws as similar to ‘medieval trade monopolies’ which were bad for the econo…

the global price of separateness is dollar envy and war

equality of data, access and opportunity is a right for everyone on this planet

the days of privilege of information for those who can afford it are well and truly over. likewise the days of control of information are similarily dead

filesharing extends far outside of the market boundaries of the intellectual property holders. copyright content is otherwise unavailable outside of its own domain for all the structural reasons. the cynical arrogance of the MPAA and RIAA is to extend their systems outside of their domain of control

a strict interpretation says that people lacking resources to pay the market price for content are also outside of the copyright domain e.g. the old, infirm, young, poor, disabled, students, teachers, clergy, government employees etc

Inventions will always be created if they are financially viable. With the short life cycle of products these days, trade secrets are often more useful than patents. If your competition has to wait until you’ve brought your product to the market, disect it, and then build their own product, their product will be useless by the time it’s available. If they develop the same technology without looking at your products, you should not have been allowed a patent monopoly on it in the first place, since it’s obviously and obvious advancement in the field (since multiple companies independently come to the same solution).

Two economists from Washington University have looked at current copyright and patent laws and concluded that they’re not good. The pair see current Intellectual property laws as similar to ‘medieval trade monopolies’ which were bad for the econo…

As for computer programs – they don’t disclose their source texts so they don’t “share how something works” at all – but they still profit from the copyright(at the taxpayer’s expense)!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

this may sound selfish but that how human is .

Uhh, what “little guy” are you referencing?
The vast majority of folks who don’t ‘own” a patent, who are gouged because pharmaceutical prices aren’t allowed to be lowered via the “market competition” capitalist types are always talking about?

Or maybe you’re thinking of the “little guys” like musicians and customers, busily getting harassed and bankrupted by the RIAA/IPFI?

Yeah, Patents and copyright really hlep the “little guy”.

“Without patents and copyright, where’s the incentive to create or innovate”?

So you’re saying, then, that the “market doesn’t work?” Patents and copyright are about ONE thing: stopping the vaunted “market competition” your type is always blathering about as such a good thing.

Or maybe you’re saying that “market competition” should only be permitted in a field where “innovation” isn’t that big of a concern (like, for example, several grocery-stores being permitted to all sell cans of corn.)

Really, it’s hilarious to watch capitalist/business-types line up in favor of a State-granted monopoly privilege. One wonders what happens to their “Free market” blather, but maybe hypocrisy is too strong a word.

(Of course, we’re seeing far bigger “capitalist” fish lining up for the Big Bad “Nanny State” to save their asses, and nobody calls them on it. I don’t buy it. The medieval “guilds” probably loved THEIR system of privileges as well.

maybe if they push the idea hard enough to abolish copyrights on intellectual property it will get the ones that would be hurt to stand up and fight the laws for them to give them a good image (that theyre not the bad guys)because the image of the RIAA/IFPI is causing more damage now to the industry because of the bad politics then if it where just left alone…

so my bet on this subject if one would look for the resources for this im betting you could find traces back to the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA ect…

No it’ll still be greed and there is nothing wrong with that. One common fallacy is in thinking that there can be no profit without IP. There was life and profit before IP and there will be after IP is gone – and it will be gone.

they should definitely make it less strict, which in the end hurts everyone.

Oh I don’t know, necessity, inspiration, creativity. Instead of greed.

People are waking up.

It’s not really in line with what most people here think of when abolishing copyright (i.e. media should be free). The authors of the book don’t think things should be free.

I’ve always wondered why anti-file sharers come on torrent freak, their like Jehovah witnesses, unwanted, not welcome , annoying and pathetic

The questionable legitimacy of IP has been an ongoing debate within the Libertarian community for many years and you can find many articles and threads on the subject at mises.org .

In any case, I’m very glad this book is getting attention. It’s very relevant to the debate. You guys should check out the Mises Institute for similar kind of (libertarian) ideas… they’ve been on a rip lately against IP.

Nobody’s suggesting that you shouldn’t be able to patent the latest medical device or some specific implementation that requires skill, materials, and a prototype.

They’re saying stuff like Amazon.com’s “One Click Checkout” isn’t something that should be patented. Or NCSofts “show ads during game loading screens”. Protecting IDEAS and not THINGS is what stifles technological progress.

Intel can hold it’s patents on processor hardware, but Microsoft should probably lose the patent on it’s Start Menu. See the difference?

I think the smartest thing to do is to make the patent/copyright expire with the lifespan of the filer/author. Your descendants aren’t OWED your ideas. Will them the money you made with it. Or teach them how to improve your idea so when you’re gone they can continue to be the “expert” on the subject.

The other rule is to have a shorter “to implementation” window. Currently you never have to DO anything with a patent. Give it 5 years. If you can’t find a company to finance your idea 10 years after patent approval, or can’t build it yourself in that time. So you file the patent and gain your protection. You have a decade to bring a product to market that uses the patent. If you can’t do it in 10 years, the patent expires. That should fix the stockpiling of IP or “preemptive patenting” since you really don’t want to waste time holding patents you don’t intend to use right away.

(((Oh really..?!!)))

Rage

In the same sense globalization is just a a false term used to open the gates to corporate enslavement of humanity, through debt, to subservient servitude….

It’s nice to see the world slowly come back to it’s senses….

/sarcasm

Theory is nice, but now look at reality: GSK will simply take your “invention”, and market it. You try to sue them, and they laugh at you while you go bankrupt trying to cough up the millions it costs to defend your patent and get buried in the paperwork of 100s of patents they feel YOU have been infringing as you discovered your patented invention.

“Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright.”

Perhaps you could also use common sense. A company which creates an invention could profit by using this invention.

Patents may actually not be entirely bad of an idea, but it should be extremely limited, for exmaple, by limiting it only to commercial activities.