"of willing nations" = Those who wish to continue economic trading.
"for the efficient applications for registration of intellectual property rights" = It should be easy to have something patented.
"irrelevant from an intellectual property perspective that software is being developed throughout the world" - No, because something that is patented in the USA can be seized at the border if imported. Soon also over the internet. In reality, ACTA and laws like it means that your laptop can be searched for patented software and that you can be forced to prove that you have paid for the licenses. Good luck if you're running Linux.
"software inventions being no different or any more special than any of the countless other types of inventions being developed daily throughout the world" - Wrong, because software is developed at a higher pace, cheaper and by enthusiats at home without the financial power of a company.
"means that [under US law] a US inventor is not entitled to a US patent on a computer program if someone in India invented it first and published it for the world to see." - You still have to prove that the other piece of software was first. In reality, that's not cheap or easy.
"As for the circumstances that must all come together which, if they do, you believe will overwhelm our patent system, the odds are so remote that your argument can only be characterized charitably as fanciful" - How many times do we have to mention patents like Amazon's one-click patent?
"Bach's concerto's, Shakespeare's sonnets, Picasso's paintings, Rodin's sculptures --- NONE of those works simply existed in whatever is this "knowledge commons" that you so admire. All were created by the combination of money, time, talent, and inspiration and, because of those efforts, all were exclusively owned by their creator -- that is, all were the intellectual property of their creator."
Uhmm... The physical items where of course the property of the creator, but I doubt that any of them could do anything about copying at the time besides accusing those people for plagiarism and have them mocked for it in case they claimed it was theirs.
"You will say, "Ah, but that is art. The creator of art is entitled to his rewards. No one should be allowed to reproduce a Shakespeare sonnet and call it his own. Shakespeare alone has that right." Of course. "
Huh? Of course I won't prevent anybody from selling their creations. But I disagree when they try to prevent people from mimicing it to such an extent that they try to have them put in jail for years.
"The drive to create is, of course, an inherent part of the human psyche -- and soul. That's obvious.
The question is not WHETHER there will be inventions and artistic works created (by individuals and by collaborations), the question for society is how best to motivate their creation."
No. The question is what gives the biggest benefit to the society. What meaning would it be with an HIV vaccine that nobody can use? The LHC if the data was inaccessible? Anything, really?
If it's not going to be available to the public when created, I see no benefit in encouraging it's creation. Rather the opposite.
I see a much bigger benefit in encouraging sharing.
"Rejecting the fact that creators are motivated by financial reward is Pollyanna school girl fantasy. But it's much more than that: it is a rejection of the premise that the creator of the work has the RIGHT to exclusively own the results of his labors. No one else -- and certainly not "society." If you deny that premise that you deny the theory of property. "
1: Many inventors are not motivated by money at all.
2: What says he has the exclusive right? The law which has been written by people like you?
3: No, you do. The "theory of property" is that if you've made an effort to get something, you get to keep it.
"When through your efforts you create the tools and methods that permit the mass market to make 3D images am I going to be allowed to sell them? And call them mine -- because, now that they're made, they reside in the "knowledge commons?""
There are tool for everybody to make 3D images, such as Blender. The GPL says you can charge anything you want, just provide the source too. And you can't remove the GPL. And no, you can't claim you made it, that's a huge no-no among all serious artists and programmers.
"Your position on intellectual property is fashionable but philosophically bankrupt and socially bad policy."
Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice, Jamendo.com with Creative Commons... Your move.
Authored Comments
"of willing nations" = Those who wish to continue economic trading.
"for the efficient applications for registration of intellectual property rights" = It should be easy to have something patented.
"irrelevant from an intellectual property perspective that software is being developed throughout the world" - No, because something that is patented in the USA can be seized at the border if imported. Soon also over the internet. In reality, ACTA and laws like it means that your laptop can be searched for patented software and that you can be forced to prove that you have paid for the licenses. Good luck if you're running Linux.
"software inventions being no different or any more special than any of the countless other types of inventions being developed daily throughout the world" - Wrong, because software is developed at a higher pace, cheaper and by enthusiats at home without the financial power of a company.
"means that [under US law] a US inventor is not entitled to a US patent on a computer program if someone in India invented it first and published it for the world to see." - You still have to prove that the other piece of software was first. In reality, that's not cheap or easy.
"As for the circumstances that must all come together which, if they do, you believe will overwhelm our patent system, the odds are so remote that your argument can only be characterized charitably as fanciful" - How many times do we have to mention patents like Amazon's one-click patent?
"Bach's concerto's, Shakespeare's sonnets, Picasso's paintings, Rodin's sculptures --- NONE of those works simply existed in whatever is this "knowledge commons" that you so admire. All were created by the combination of money, time, talent, and inspiration and, because of those efforts, all were exclusively owned by their creator -- that is, all were the intellectual property of their creator."
Uhmm... The physical items where of course the property of the creator, but I doubt that any of them could do anything about copying at the time besides accusing those people for plagiarism and have them mocked for it in case they claimed it was theirs.
"You will say, "Ah, but that is art. The creator of art is entitled to his rewards. No one should be allowed to reproduce a Shakespeare sonnet and call it his own. Shakespeare alone has that right." Of course. "
Huh? Of course I won't prevent anybody from selling their creations. But I disagree when they try to prevent people from mimicing it to such an extent that they try to have them put in jail for years.
"The drive to create is, of course, an inherent part of the human psyche -- and soul. That's obvious.
The question is not WHETHER there will be inventions and artistic works created (by individuals and by collaborations), the question for society is how best to motivate their creation."
No. The question is what gives the biggest benefit to the society. What meaning would it be with an HIV vaccine that nobody can use? The LHC if the data was inaccessible? Anything, really?
If it's not going to be available to the public when created, I see no benefit in encouraging it's creation. Rather the opposite.
I see a much bigger benefit in encouraging sharing.
"Rejecting the fact that creators are motivated by financial reward is Pollyanna school girl fantasy. But it's much more than that: it is a rejection of the premise that the creator of the work has the RIGHT to exclusively own the results of his labors. No one else -- and certainly not "society." If you deny that premise that you deny the theory of property. "
1: Many inventors are not motivated by money at all.
2: What says he has the exclusive right? The law which has been written by people like you?
3: No, you do. The "theory of property" is that if you've made an effort to get something, you get to keep it.
"When through your efforts you create the tools and methods that permit the mass market to make 3D images am I going to be allowed to sell them? And call them mine -- because, now that they're made, they reside in the "knowledge commons?""
There are tool for everybody to make 3D images, such as Blender. The GPL says you can charge anything you want, just provide the source too. And you can't remove the GPL. And no, you can't claim you made it, that's a huge no-no among all serious artists and programmers.
"Your position on intellectual property is fashionable but philosophically bankrupt and socially bad policy."
Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice, Jamendo.com with Creative Commons... Your move.