4 ms·

> ...failed to fully address key complaints from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) made on behalf of rightsholders. I'm glad that a country reminde

by m000 7y ago

> ...failed to fully address key complaints from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) made on behalf of rightsholders. I'm glad that a country reminded their local USTR that they're not a colony and he's not the viceroy. It's so easy to get confused on matters like this.

pas 7y ago
Yes and no. Naturally as the biggest IP holding nation/country it has the most interest in maintaining, strengthening, enforcing IP protection around the globe. However, small countries that want to encourage foreign investment/capital to flow into them, or want to protect their small but occasionally successful startups' IP around the globe (for example Skype, TransferWise, all started in Estonia) also has some incentive to adopt IP laws. Of course mindlessly abiding rarely enriches a small country.
- jMyles 7y ago
  You presume that a legal regime of IP per se encourages the flow of foreign capital and is to the benefit of local successful startups, but what's the evidence for that? What happens when relatively robust economies start to reject IP conceptually, altogether? It seems unambiguous that they'll be at an advantage, not the other way around.
  - pas 7y ago
    I don't really support that view, I just explained what's usually the common explanation / motivation for politicians of smaller countries. The real motivation is probably simply the fact that radical politicians rarely get to the point where they can decide about US trade agreements and so on. And even if they do, realpolitik usually gets in the way of saying fuck you to forever-copyrights. > It seems unambiguous that they'll be at an advantage, not the other way around. Sure, they might gain some export advantage, but then countries can simply refuse/tax/toll their products. Some degree of protection is warranted. Trademarks, results of R&D, songs/tracks. The problem is that the patent process is largely useless, because where it matters it's not used (eg. for the pharma sector the FDA can and does grant exclusivity regardless of patents), and where it doesn't matter it's misused (fast moving tech, it's just used for fucking with the other market participants); the creative arts IP regulation is completely captured by the rent-seeking incumbents (Disney, the big 4 music "labels" and so on). The whole IP protection should be reformed, and it should be decided based on how hard it was to innovate versus how hard it is to copy the result of that innovation. (This means coming up with a new iOS/Android programming thing in a year, gets you at best 6-12 months of protection, whereas if you spend 10 years researching a new steelmaking technique, maybe you should do get 5-10 years of protection, because it's trivial to copy the process and it takes a long time to get the fruits of your innovation in that sector compared to the mobile app dev sector.) And for creative stuff holding the IP should be taxed, and the longer you hold it the more you should pay for it based on how much you made from it in the previous years. Of course FRAND should be mandatory (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) so anyone can use and build on top of IP, be it green steelmaking or new medicine, or just a fucking one-click pay-and-order solution for your webshop.

by m000 7y ago

pas 7y ago

Yes and no. Naturally as the biggest IP holding nation/country it has the most interest in maintaining, strengthening, enforcing IP protection around the globe. However, small countries that want to encourage foreign investment/capital to flow into them, or want to protect their small but occasionally successful startups' IP around the globe (for example Skype, TransferWise, all started in Estonia) also has some incentive to adopt IP laws. Of course mindlessly abiding rarely enriches a small country.

jMyles 7y ago
You presume that a legal regime of IP per se encourages the flow of foreign capital and is to the benefit of local successful startups, but what's the evidence for that? What happens when relatively robust economies start to reject IP conceptually, altogether? It seems unambiguous that they'll be at an advantage, not the other way around.
- pas 7y ago
  I don't really support that view, I just explained what's usually the common explanation / motivation for politicians of smaller countries. The real motivation is probably simply the fact that radical politicians rarely get to the point where they can decide about US trade agreements and so on. And even if they do, realpolitik usually gets in the way of saying fuck you to forever-copyrights. > It seems unambiguous that they'll be at an advantage, not the other way around. Sure, they might gain some export advantage, but then countries can simply refuse/tax/toll their products. Some degree of protection is warranted. Trademarks, results of R&D, songs/tracks. The problem is that the patent process is largely useless, because where it matters it's not used (eg. for the pharma sector the FDA can and does grant exclusivity regardless of patents), and where it doesn't matter it's misused (fast moving tech, it's just used for fucking with the other market participants); the creative arts IP regulation is completely captured by the rent-seeking incumbents (Disney, the big 4 music "labels" and so on). The whole IP protection should be reformed, and it should be decided based on how hard it was to innovate versus how hard it is to copy the result of that innovation. (This means coming up with a new iOS/Android programming thing in a year, gets you at best 6-12 months of protection, whereas if you spend 10 years researching a new steelmaking technique, maybe you should do get 5-10 years of protection, because it's trivial to copy the process and it takes a long time to get the fruits of your innovation in that sector compared to the mobile app dev sector.) And for creative stuff holding the IP should be taxed, and the longer you hold it the more you should pay for it based on how much you made from it in the previous years. Of course FRAND should be mandatory (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) so anyone can use and build on top of IP, be it green steelmaking or new medicine, or just a fucking one-click pay-and-order solution for your webshop.