4 ms·

EFF advocates for civil liberties, not for Silicon Valley or the US. But for Silicon Valley and US, it's debatable whether trying to maintain continued dominan

EFF advocates for civil liberties, not for Silicon Valley or the US. But for Silicon Valley and US, it's debatable whether trying to maintain continued dominance through stronger IP is a good bet. China and elsewhere are switching to producing more IP faster, even if starting far behind. It's not a simple or binary choice, but consider whether over the next decades it will be more advantageous to make it easier for US firms to copy Chinese firms, or to make it harder for Chinese firms to copy US firms? I'm in favor of whatever lessens potential for non-digital catastrophic conflict.

rayiner 8y ago
> EFF advocates for civil liberties, not for Silicon Valley or the US. Patents are business regulation. There is a civil liberties element to business regulation, but it’s well accepted that civil liberties concerns are attenuated when you’re talking about business conduct. There are lots of regulations that hurt small businesses and have a civil liberties angle, such as overly burdensome occupational licensing. But you don’t see ACLU spending a lot of effort on those as a top priority. EFF spends time on patent far disproportionate to the civil liberties impact. As to your second point. Copying is bad and destroys innovation. Look at what’s happened to PCs. The vast majority of PC makers, Lenovo, Asus, etc., produce no innovation. They release fungible machines at cut rate margins that leave no room for R&D. The only companies innovating are companies like Apple, who have huge IP moats. Copyright protecting iOS and MacOS. Patents protecting things like MacBook touch pads. Trademark protecting the brand. Trade secrets protecting their vertically integrated manufacturing process.
- mrmyers 8y ago
  I don't think copying is bad. Copying is what's beautiful about Capitalism, it reduces everything to competition around the margins in cut-throat markets, with tons of choice. Personally, I feel like if we want to foster research and innovation, subsidizing them directly is easier than creating eminently abusable rights and monopolies.
- mlinksva 8y ago
  I'm curious what makes you think EFF spends time on patent far disproportionate to the civil liberties impact? Out of their https://www.eff.org/about/staff https://www.eff.org/about/staff of 80+ it looks like they have 2 attorneys and one analyst that might be mostly working on patent. How much time would be proportionate? Assuming the current time spent is disproportionate, why do you think they've allocated time in that way? I haven't followed closely, but on why ACLU might spend less time on business regulations that have a civil liberties angle than they might: they don't ignore completely, but they likely have mixed opinions on extent to which such regulation protects workers or consumers, and being relatively liberal, are skeptical of deregulation. So market libertarian civil liberties entities like IJ are the ones dedicating lots of their time to business regulation with a civil liberties angle...and as far as I know ignore IP altogether, perhaps because to them all property is sacrosanct. On "copying is bad and destroys innovation", I'd really love to read your take on the ideal set of innovation policies stemming from this assertion!

rayiner 8y ago

> EFF advocates for civil liberties, not for Silicon Valley or the US. Patents are business regulation. There is a civil liberties element to business regulation, but it’s well accepted that civil liberties concerns are attenuated when you’re talking about business conduct. There are lots of regulations that hurt small businesses and have a civil liberties angle, such as overly burdensome occupational licensing. But you don’t see ACLU spending a lot of effort on those as a top priority. EFF spends time on patent far disproportionate to the civil liberties impact. As to your second point. Copying is bad and destroys innovation. Look at what’s happened to PCs. The vast majority of PC makers, Lenovo, Asus, etc., produce no innovation. They release fungible machines at cut rate margins that leave no room for R&D. The only companies innovating are companies like Apple, who have huge IP moats. Copyright protecting iOS and MacOS. Patents protecting things like MacBook touch pads. Trademark protecting the brand. Trade secrets protecting their vertically integrated manufacturing process.

mrmyers 8y ago
I don't think copying is bad. Copying is what's beautiful about Capitalism, it reduces everything to competition around the margins in cut-throat markets, with tons of choice. Personally, I feel like if we want to foster research and innovation, subsidizing them directly is easier than creating eminently abusable rights and monopolies.
mlinksva 8y ago
I'm curious what makes you think EFF spends time on patent far disproportionate to the civil liberties impact? Out of their https://www.eff.org/about/staff https://www.eff.org/about/staff of 80+ it looks like they have 2 attorneys and one analyst that might be mostly working on patent. How much time would be proportionate? Assuming the current time spent is disproportionate, why do you think they've allocated time in that way? I haven't followed closely, but on why ACLU might spend less time on business regulations that have a civil liberties angle than they might: they don't ignore completely, but they likely have mixed opinions on extent to which such regulation protects workers or consumers, and being relatively liberal, are skeptical of deregulation. So market libertarian civil liberties entities like IJ are the ones dedicating lots of their time to business regulation with a civil liberties angle...and as far as I know ignore IP altogether, perhaps because to them all property is sacrosanct. On "copying is bad and destroys innovation", I'd really love to read your take on the ideal set of innovation policies stemming from this assertion!