Re: Getting rid of copyright and patent protection


But copying ideas now costs nothing.

Copying ideas always did cost nothing. If you tell me an idea, I can
spread it to anyone else by word of mouth, without it costing me, or
anyone else, anything.

Therefore the world (or at least the
west) needs a system of protection against copying ideas. If a Chinese
factory starts making Dior handbags that are just as good as the original,
there needs to be a way of stopping them. The design needs to be protected,
rather than the manufacturing process.

A "design" is not an "idea", and designs are already protected.
Meanwhile,
manufacturing equipment is actually rather expensive (and probably
subject
to many patents). There are examples of copying things costing
nothing,
but this is a spectacularly bad one.

Also your analysis is wrong because while markets are global,
intellectual
property law is territorial. Anyone in the world can apply for a
patent in
a particular country, but that patent is valid only in that country.
There
is nothing to stop Chinese firms from filing shedloads of patents in
western countries, and then suing European and American companies on
over
these patents. Thus western businesses are vulnerable to lawsuits in
their
home markets from foreign firms. Meanwhile, if Chinese intellectual
property law is laxer, or the western firms have not bothered to file
patents in China, then they can't do the same back.


With no protection for ideas, it's suggested that J K Rowling would never
have written the Harry Potter books - there would have been no incentive to
do so.

A book is also not an idea, but an expression of ideas. However,
excessive
copyright protection is also hindering innovation and creativity in
multiple ways. One example is the EU's proposed extension of copyright
on
sound recordings frmo 50 to 95 years. Copyright is intended to give
creators incentives to create works, but where's the incentive in
giving
continued protection to musicians who have already been well rewarded
for
their creativity (and who are often dead, so can't create any more
work)?


I am not against copyright or patent protection in principle --- just
against its recent expansion through lobbying by special interest
groups.
Legislators need to remember the original purpose of these laws --- to
encourage creativity and innovation.

Alex
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... designs protected by design patents and copyright, ... functionalities protected by patents and many ... The Tivo box is not "a collection of literary ... enough enough to gain copyright protection. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Patent
    ... The purpose of the _publication_ of patents is to publicize them. ... AFAIK the idea is that the patent offers the inventor ... still maintain the protection of the intellectual property. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: More on Releasing New Software
    ... > aspect that was not addressed was protection. ... I don't know squat about patents and trademarks. ... You don't have to register it, ... maintain a copy of the source code for every version on disk. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: WTF patents
    ... protection against a competitor copying your work can't be provided. ... I would argue that whether or not patents are necessary to protect ... There are plenty of things the government could give me that it ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Evil Apple steals from Kodak
    ... Internet Explorer, and again, little innovation ... that actual copying has taken place is so hard to do that copyright is ... It's patents where even completely independent reinvention is ... I expect you can find a few webshops ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)