5 ms·

Why does this automatic enforcement of law only ever cut one way? If we're mandating that technology should enforce laws automatically, how about anti-monopoly

Why does this automatic enforcement of law only ever cut one way? If we're mandating that technology should enforce laws automatically, how about anti-monopoly-power technology? All mergers and acquisitions of companies above some size are automatically blocked, and they have to make a compelling case in a court of law to have the block lifted. It has to be renewed every three years, or the company is automatically broken up again. Oh, and a simple similarity search versus the entire web, to mark patents as invalid due to prior art or obviousness. DRM could be presumed to infringe upon fair use and other legal rights of ownership, and be automatically declared illegal (no, I don't mean that breaking it would become legal, though it would. I mean the DRM itself would be illegal, and the manufacturer would be by law forced to remove it), unless the manufacturer convincingly argues it is necessary (and re-argues it every three years). And naturally, use of copyrighted material would be presumed fair-use, and just like wrongful takedowns don't get punished currently, if some material were proven to be infringing in a very non-automatic legal proceeding, the only consequence would be taking the material down - no other fines or punishment of any kind.

jotm 5y ago
Why would the rulemakers make rules for themselves...
lazyier 5y ago
> Why does this automatic enforcement of law only ever cut one way? Because the people paying for it only want it to go one way. > how about anti-monopoly-power technology? That defeats the purpose of the legislation in the first place. The goal is to establish monopolies. Why would they introduce a provision to undermine everything they are trying to accomplish with the law in the first place? It would be counter productive.
- nimbius 5y ago
  actually, id argue its much more grandiose than just monopolistic activity. If you want to continue doing capitalism, youll need to switch from physical property to imaginary property as the laws of thermodynamics simply do not permit for endless consumption of scarce physical resources. maximum consumption with minimum production expense has already eclipsed its zenith in the seventies. evermore impoverished consumers seeing longer hours and lower wages were made to establish credit as an extension of their purchasing power. this credit was made mandatory at all levels of capitalist society, including government. to permit even the idea of piracy would be to undercut capitalisms current waxing pivot to continued survival. its less a drive from the MPAA, and more a common understanding amongst leaders.
  - acomar 5y ago
    I agree with you that it's an attempt to side-step the tendency of the rate of profit to fall but I'm not sure it's particularly well-understood by anyone involved. and even a cursory examination of the material basis for so-called imaginary property can't help but identify that such property only exists insofar as computers continue to make them accessible. this transition cannot prevent the death of this society to climate change.
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
      I would suggest reading the "soverign individual" and "capitalism without capital." It might change your views on some things.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > as the laws of thermodynamics simply do not permit for endless consumption of scarce physical resources 1) Ever-increasing consumption is not a prerequisite for capitalism, but rather a beneficial consequence of the increasingly efficient use of available resources which capitalism enables. 2) Economic growth is about increasing value, not physical materials. Value is a human concept, not a physical one, and can increase indefinitely unhampered by the laws of thermodynamics. 3) Copyright is anti-capitalist. It's a subsidy granted to one group at the expense of another in the form of a monopoly (or rather, many small monopolies) enforced through threat of violence. As a means of directing production toward "social" goals (encouraging the creation of "creative" works) instead of those chosen by the market it has its roots in socialism. Far from enabling further growth, it causes less efficient allocation of resources and in doing so impoverishes society.
the_common_man 5y ago
In the us atleast, the end goal is to have Monopolies. So this goes against what you want
- grapescheesee 5y ago
  I think the end goal is actually price fixing and market control via duopolies. This masks the actual monopoly.
imtringued 5y ago
There are also more important things than this DRM rage boner. Surely, providing the entire country with fast internet has priority over DRM? I just see this as an attempt to increase the amount of bureaucracy for no real reason other than to let people specialize in navigating the bureaucracy and using that as a weapon against other people.
- unstatusthequo 5y ago
  I could see them saying faster Internet makes more piracy. I doubt they actually give a shit about faster Internet for the masses. Nobody is lining their pockets on that one.
mc4ndr3 5y ago
America+ Subscription by Disney
blackoil 5y ago
> All mergers and acquisitions of companies above some size are automatically blocked, While I agree to the spirit of your comment, isn't this already true, I have heard of multiple times of deals waiting for approval across multiple countries for them to be a closed.
roywiggins 5y ago
> All mergers and acquisitions of companies above some size are automatically blocked, and they have to make a compelling case in a court of law to have the block lifted Something like this is already a thing, though the review is performed by the DoJ and FTC. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/hart-scott-rodino-antitrust-improvements-act-1976 https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/hart-scott... > This Act, amending the Clayton Act, requires companies to file premerger notifications with the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department for certain acquisitions. The Act establishes waiting periods that must elapse before such acquisitions may be consummated and authorizes the enforcement agencies to stay those periods until the companies provide certain additional information about the likelihood that the proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart%E2%80%93Scott%E2%80%93Rodino_Antitrust_Improvements_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart%E2%80%93Scott%E2%80%93Rod...
- formerkrogemp 5y ago
  I'll take the Sherman antitrust law for 300 Alex.
  - grapescheesee 5y ago
    What is vertical integration and where is the line?
steve76 5y ago
fsflover 5y ago
> how about anti-monopoly-power technology? big tech monopoly power is vital to national security https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570
thrashh 5y ago
Well imagine if you have a few friends who are into cars and they're all about, say, reducing certain regulations on tailpipes. You yourself don't know much about cars and frankly don't care, but because the people you are around predominantly keep giving you these convincing arguments, you start to support their side without even thinking about it. When someone random person starts arguing a counterpoint, you might even start repeating what your friends told you. Most congressman aren't creating or remixing content. They probably don't care that much, but the people lobbying are definitely more one-sided.
imchillyb 5y ago
Why not automatic culling of donations over $100.00 from a single entity? We should do this to combat corruption.
Bud 5y ago
It probably only cuts one way because it's difficult or impossible to implement "anti-monopoly-power technology", as you put it. Indeed, in your own comment you posited the existence of such a technology but then failed to suggest one, or even how it might theoretically work. You proposed a cumbersome, entirely legal-system-based solution instead.
agilob 5y ago
>how about anti-monopoly-power technology Somebody please think about the shareholders!
btrettel 5y ago
> Oh, and a simple similarity search versus the entire web, to mark patents as invalid due to prior art or obviousness. Former USPTO patent examiner here. Patent similarity search doesn't work that well at present. Even when there is a perfect 102 reference (the best sort of prior art reference; the reference shows exactly what is claimed) in the patent literature [0], frequently none of the 3 similarity-based search engines I'd try [1] would return that reference. There are many reasons for this. In my previous area (water heaters and ventilation, mostly), a lot of the issue was because the software would only look at the text (and citations) and the drawings really did provide a lot of critical details that aren't easy to express in text. (I already would check the provided citations so the AI checking the citations is not a value-add in my opinion.) Patent searching is not anywhere near as easy as many people here seem to think! That's particularly true when the examiner has a very limited amount of time to search, which is every time. [0] Yes, searching the entire web in addition to patents would be better. But it's already clear that the software often doesn't return the best references from the patent databases it does search, so I'm skeptical that moving to the entire web would make that much of a difference. [1] IP.com (can work on unpublished applications), Dialog Foreign Patent Finder (can work on unpublished applications), Google Patents (if the application was already published). Each of these seem to be roughly as good as each other. For a while I'd also try the USPTO's home-grown PLUS system from the early 00s, which returned mostly irrelevant documents.
- car_analogy 5y ago
  > Patent similarity search doesn't work that well at present. Neither does automatic detection of fair use - that's the point. Just crank up the false-positive rate so anything vaguely related counts as prior art. If the submitter is not happy about it, they can argue their case in a proper court.
  - btrettel 5y ago
    The status quo is close to what you describe. Very few patent applications are not rejected in the first action. I did a quick Google search that indicates that over the entire USPTO, 88% of patent applications are rejected by an examiner in the first action [0]. I myself never allowed an entire application on the first action! However, it's rare that an attorney will argue that their patent should be issued in court. Almost always they argue with an examiner. A lot of people here seem to believe that the USPTO issues patents like handing out candy to children, but the reality is that a large fraction of patent applications are never granted. Mistakes happen, yes, but that has more to do with how little time the USPTO gives examiners than anything else. It's really easy to miss something. If you want to improve patent quality, tell your congressmen to increase funding at the USPTO so examiners can get more time. Nothing else will work in my view. Right now the USPTO is funded solely by fees paid by patent applicants, which isn't enough and probably distorts the incentives. [0] https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/ https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/
pavel_lishin 5y ago
> Why does this automatic enforcement of law only ever cut one way? If we're mandating that technology should enforce laws automatically, how about anti-monopoly-power technology? The people writing those laws understand that monopolies and the regulations surrounding them are complicated. They don't understand that technology is, also.

jotm 5y ago

Why would the rulemakers make rules for themselves...

lazyier 5y ago

> Why does this automatic enforcement of law only ever cut one way? Because the people paying for it only want it to go one way. > how about anti-monopoly-power technology? That defeats the purpose of the legislation in the first place. The goal is to establish monopolies. Why would they introduce a provision to undermine everything they are trying to accomplish with the law in the first place? It would be counter productive.

nimbius 5y ago
actually, id argue its much more grandiose than just monopolistic activity. If you want to continue doing capitalism, youll need to switch from physical property to imaginary property as the laws of thermodynamics simply do not permit for endless consumption of scarce physical resources. maximum consumption with minimum production expense has already eclipsed its zenith in the seventies. evermore impoverished consumers seeing longer hours and lower wages were made to establish credit as an extension of their purchasing power. this credit was made mandatory at all levels of capitalist society, including government. to permit even the idea of piracy would be to undercut capitalisms current waxing pivot to continued survival. its less a drive from the MPAA, and more a common understanding amongst leaders.
- acomar 5y ago
  I agree with you that it's an attempt to side-step the tendency of the rate of profit to fall but I'm not sure it's particularly well-understood by anyone involved. and even a cursory examination of the material basis for so-called imaginary property can't help but identify that such property only exists insofar as computers continue to make them accessible. this transition cannot prevent the death of this society to climate change.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
    I would suggest reading the "soverign individual" and "capitalism without capital." It might change your views on some things.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > as the laws of thermodynamics simply do not permit for endless consumption of scarce physical resources 1) Ever-increasing consumption is not a prerequisite for capitalism, but rather a beneficial consequence of the increasingly efficient use of available resources which capitalism enables. 2) Economic growth is about increasing value, not physical materials. Value is a human concept, not a physical one, and can increase indefinitely unhampered by the laws of thermodynamics. 3) Copyright is anti-capitalist. It's a subsidy granted to one group at the expense of another in the form of a monopoly (or rather, many small monopolies) enforced through threat of violence. As a means of directing production toward "social" goals (encouraging the creation of "creative" works) instead of those chosen by the market it has its roots in socialism. Far from enabling further growth, it causes less efficient allocation of resources and in doing so impoverishes society.

the_common_man 5y ago

In the us atleast, the end goal is to have Monopolies. So this goes against what you want

grapescheesee 5y ago
I think the end goal is actually price fixing and market control via duopolies. This masks the actual monopoly.

imtringued 5y ago

There are also more important things than this DRM rage boner. Surely, providing the entire country with fast internet has priority over DRM? I just see this as an attempt to increase the amount of bureaucracy for no real reason other than to let people specialize in navigating the bureaucracy and using that as a weapon against other people.

unstatusthequo 5y ago
I could see them saying faster Internet makes more piracy. I doubt they actually give a shit about faster Internet for the masses. Nobody is lining their pockets on that one.

mc4ndr3 5y ago

America+ Subscription by Disney

blackoil 5y ago

> All mergers and acquisitions of companies above some size are automatically blocked, While I agree to the spirit of your comment, isn't this already true, I have heard of multiple times of deals waiting for approval across multiple countries for them to be a closed.

roywiggins 5y ago

> All mergers and acquisitions of companies above some size are automatically blocked, and they have to make a compelling case in a court of law to have the block lifted Something like this is already a thing, though the review is performed by the DoJ and FTC. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/hart-scott-rodino-antitrust-improvements-act-1976 https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/hart-scott... > This Act, amending the Clayton Act, requires companies to file premerger notifications with the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department for certain acquisitions. The Act establishes waiting periods that must elapse before such acquisitions may be consummated and authorizes the enforcement agencies to stay those periods until the companies provide certain additional information about the likelihood that the proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart%E2%80%93Scott%E2%80%93Rodino_Antitrust_Improvements_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart%E2%80%93Scott%E2%80%93Rod...

formerkrogemp 5y ago
I'll take the Sherman antitrust law for 300 Alex.
- grapescheesee 5y ago
  What is vertical integration and where is the line?

steve76 5y ago

fsflover 5y ago

> how about anti-monopoly-power technology? big tech monopoly power is vital to national security https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570

thrashh 5y ago

Well imagine if you have a few friends who are into cars and they're all about, say, reducing certain regulations on tailpipes. You yourself don't know much about cars and frankly don't care, but because the people you are around predominantly keep giving you these convincing arguments, you start to support their side without even thinking about it. When someone random person starts arguing a counterpoint, you might even start repeating what your friends told you. Most congressman aren't creating or remixing content. They probably don't care that much, but the people lobbying are definitely more one-sided.

imchillyb 5y ago

Why not automatic culling of donations over $100.00 from a single entity? We should do this to combat corruption.

Bud 5y ago

It probably only cuts one way because it's difficult or impossible to implement "anti-monopoly-power technology", as you put it. Indeed, in your own comment you posited the existence of such a technology but then failed to suggest one, or even how it might theoretically work. You proposed a cumbersome, entirely legal-system-based solution instead.

agilob 5y ago

>how about anti-monopoly-power technology Somebody please think about the shareholders!

btrettel 5y ago

> Oh, and a simple similarity search versus the entire web, to mark patents as invalid due to prior art or obviousness. Former USPTO patent examiner here. Patent similarity search doesn't work that well at present. Even when there is a perfect 102 reference (the best sort of prior art reference; the reference shows exactly what is claimed) in the patent literature [0], frequently none of the 3 similarity-based search engines I'd try [1] would return that reference. There are many reasons for this. In my previous area (water heaters and ventilation, mostly), a lot of the issue was because the software would only look at the text (and citations) and the drawings really did provide a lot of critical details that aren't easy to express in text. (I already would check the provided citations so the AI checking the citations is not a value-add in my opinion.) Patent searching is not anywhere near as easy as many people here seem to think! That's particularly true when the examiner has a very limited amount of time to search, which is every time. [0] Yes, searching the entire web in addition to patents would be better. But it's already clear that the software often doesn't return the best references from the patent databases it does search, so I'm skeptical that moving to the entire web would make that much of a difference. [1] IP.com (can work on unpublished applications), Dialog Foreign Patent Finder (can work on unpublished applications), Google Patents (if the application was already published). Each of these seem to be roughly as good as each other. For a while I'd also try the USPTO's home-grown PLUS system from the early 00s, which returned mostly irrelevant documents.

car_analogy 5y ago
> Patent similarity search doesn't work that well at present. Neither does automatic detection of fair use - that's the point. Just crank up the false-positive rate so anything vaguely related counts as prior art. If the submitter is not happy about it, they can argue their case in a proper court.
- btrettel 5y ago
  The status quo is close to what you describe. Very few patent applications are not rejected in the first action. I did a quick Google search that indicates that over the entire USPTO, 88% of patent applications are rejected by an examiner in the first action [0]. I myself never allowed an entire application on the first action! However, it's rare that an attorney will argue that their patent should be issued in court. Almost always they argue with an examiner. A lot of people here seem to believe that the USPTO issues patents like handing out candy to children, but the reality is that a large fraction of patent applications are never granted. Mistakes happen, yes, but that has more to do with how little time the USPTO gives examiners than anything else. It's really easy to miss something. If you want to improve patent quality, tell your congressmen to increase funding at the USPTO so examiners can get more time. Nothing else will work in my view. Right now the USPTO is funded solely by fees paid by patent applicants, which isn't enough and probably distorts the incentives. [0] https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/ https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/

pavel_lishin 5y ago

> Why does this automatic enforcement of law only ever cut one way? If we're mandating that technology should enforce laws automatically, how about anti-monopoly-power technology? The people writing those laws understand that monopolies and the regulations surrounding them are complicated. They don't understand that technology is, also.