4 ms·

>the favouring of US IP holders (as incumbents and head starters) You mean favoring the people that actually invented these things? I understand there isn't mu

>the favouring of US IP holders (as incumbents and head starters) You mean favoring the people that actually invented these things? I understand there isn't much of a notion of IP in China, but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?

white-flame 8y ago
The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Any other enforcements and punishments are overreaches by government on behalf of lobbying. Many agree that the scope and punishments on the books in the USA far outweigh the punished behavior, and these are being foisted upon the rest of the world in strong-armed multinational agreements, against the will of the people on the receiving ends.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  > The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Can you give an example of what is outside of science and arts that you think is fair game?
  - white-flame 8y ago
    Not "arts", but "Useful Arts" which are things like industry skills & practices, a specific term from the time of writing. An easy example would be the Happy Birthday song. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts
gonvaled 8y ago
The IP laws have been written by the US, for the US, and its terms keep on changing to continue protecting US interests. The IP laws should be a trade-off: temporary protection of inventors / creators, so that progress happens and consumers get a good deal. Instead, HN is already aware how IP laws get abused. The effects of those abuses are felt largely outside the US: it allows the US to foster its economic and cultural dominance. All thanks to founding and controlling the international bodies in charge of ruling on IP matters.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "The IP laws have been written by the US, for the US, and its terms keep on changing to continue protecting US interests." What? The US has only written IP laws in it's own jurisdiction. Europe, and other nations definitely write their own laws. Nations make agreements with each other for their own benefit, for example, there is an IP section within the WTO. If China, or anyone else, thinks they are better of without having IP laws - that's fine. Then nobody should respect their IP either. The other problem is that China is part of the WTO and they are supposed to actually be doing one thing, but they are actually doing another ... i.e. they are out-of-bounds of their own treaties. It was perfectly rational, in 1980's and 1990's for China to ignore IP laws, and interestingly - it was rational for the rest of us to allow them to do it. But if you want a 'seat at the table' of major economies, that needs to change. And it's in China's best interest to do so as well.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    Come on, we all know how the US has asserted itself internationally. Napster, Mega, the list is endless.
- nerbert 8y ago
  this comment provides very little data to back what you’re saying. The WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), negotiated during the 1986-94 Uruguay Round, introduced intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system for the first time. This was before China entered the WTO. It made the choice to join nonetheless.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?" It's a perfectly legitimate approach for some situations. In the 1980's , 1990's it was actually a positive strategy for China to pay no mind to IP. And it was better for us as well because it was the easiest way to move them along at a quick pace. It's better for the 'rest of the world' to have a prosperous China, than a 'broke on it's back' China. But at some point, it comes home to roost though - you can't 'catch up' to the big players without some kind of basic IP, so by becoming too entrenched in that kind of culture, they might limit themselves.
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  Why can't you catch up to major players without IP? I am of the opinion that any IP is antithetical to societal progress. If people are free to copy that means we get to remove the monopolistic pricing of goods. If people are free to improve then our ideas and products become better and better, rather than having a single player guard an antiquated model and prevent others from iterating on the idea. If information flowed more freely people interested in making money would have to continue to innovate and while it may hurt a few individuals who could run with a single idea for 20+ years, it would bring up society as a whole.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Case in point, software has been growing every year, just take a look at newly invented algorithms on Wikipedia, and they end up in new systems too. Especially in distributed systems where we have innovations like consistent hashing, paxos, etc. Imagine if those algorithms had to be licensed. Want a load balancer? Pay license fees. Want horizontal scaling? License it. Watchdog process? License that. Etc. After all, somebody or some company invented those things and it wasn’t really that obvious beforehand. Should they not be entitled to some share of the profits if it benefits other companies? Yet I’d argue that we’re all better off learning from each other’s work.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Without IP there's no incentive to invest in certain things. Particularly drugs. The more R&D involved the riskier it is to make something. It cost $1 Billion to make a new drug, there's no way anyone invests that kind of money without IP protections. On the creative side, we allow companies to protect their creations like characters, films etc..

white-flame 8y ago

The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Any other enforcements and punishments are overreaches by government on behalf of lobbying. Many agree that the scope and punishments on the books in the USA far outweigh the punished behavior, and these are being foisted upon the rest of the world in strong-armed multinational agreements, against the will of the people on the receiving ends.

pathseeker 8y ago
> The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Can you give an example of what is outside of science and arts that you think is fair game?
- white-flame 8y ago
  Not "arts", but "Useful Arts" which are things like industry skills & practices, a specific term from the time of writing. An easy example would be the Happy Birthday song. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts

gonvaled 8y ago

The IP laws have been written by the US, for the US, and its terms keep on changing to continue protecting US interests. The IP laws should be a trade-off: temporary protection of inventors / creators, so that progress happens and consumers get a good deal. Instead, HN is already aware how IP laws get abused. The effects of those abuses are felt largely outside the US: it allows the US to foster its economic and cultural dominance. All thanks to founding and controlling the international bodies in charge of ruling on IP matters.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"The IP laws have been written by the US, for the US, and its terms keep on changing to continue protecting US interests." What? The US has only written IP laws in it's own jurisdiction. Europe, and other nations definitely write their own laws. Nations make agreements with each other for their own benefit, for example, there is an IP section within the WTO. If China, or anyone else, thinks they are better of without having IP laws - that's fine. Then nobody should respect their IP either. The other problem is that China is part of the WTO and they are supposed to actually be doing one thing, but they are actually doing another ... i.e. they are out-of-bounds of their own treaties. It was perfectly rational, in 1980's and 1990's for China to ignore IP laws, and interestingly - it was rational for the rest of us to allow them to do it. But if you want a 'seat at the table' of major economies, that needs to change. And it's in China's best interest to do so as well.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  Come on, we all know how the US has asserted itself internationally. Napster, Mega, the list is endless.
nerbert 8y ago
this comment provides very little data to back what you’re saying. The WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), negotiated during the 1986-94 Uruguay Round, introduced intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system for the first time. This was before China entered the WTO. It made the choice to join nonetheless.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?" It's a perfectly legitimate approach for some situations. In the 1980's , 1990's it was actually a positive strategy for China to pay no mind to IP. And it was better for us as well because it was the easiest way to move them along at a quick pace. It's better for the 'rest of the world' to have a prosperous China, than a 'broke on it's back' China. But at some point, it comes home to roost though - you can't 'catch up' to the big players without some kind of basic IP, so by becoming too entrenched in that kind of culture, they might limit themselves.

TACIXAT 8y ago
Why can't you catch up to major players without IP? I am of the opinion that any IP is antithetical to societal progress. If people are free to copy that means we get to remove the monopolistic pricing of goods. If people are free to improve then our ideas and products become better and better, rather than having a single player guard an antiquated model and prevent others from iterating on the idea. If information flowed more freely people interested in making money would have to continue to innovate and while it may hurt a few individuals who could run with a single idea for 20+ years, it would bring up society as a whole.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Case in point, software has been growing every year, just take a look at newly invented algorithms on Wikipedia, and they end up in new systems too. Especially in distributed systems where we have innovations like consistent hashing, paxos, etc. Imagine if those algorithms had to be licensed. Want a load balancer? Pay license fees. Want horizontal scaling? License it. Watchdog process? License that. Etc. After all, somebody or some company invented those things and it wasn’t really that obvious beforehand. Should they not be entitled to some share of the profits if it benefits other companies? Yet I’d argue that we’re all better off learning from each other’s work.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Without IP there's no incentive to invest in certain things. Particularly drugs. The more R&D involved the riskier it is to make something. It cost $1 Billion to make a new drug, there's no way anyone invests that kind of money without IP protections. On the creative side, we allow companies to protect their creations like characters, films etc..