3 ms·

“it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living”. That’s not really true. It least in the US, its stated purpose is to promote the useful arts and sci

“it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living”. That’s not really true. It least in the US, its stated purpose is to promote the useful arts and sciences. Incentivizing authors is a means to that end. If incentivizing corporations achieves those ends as well, it would seem to be consistent with the original purpose. Of course, there are probably valid arguments that corporate ownership of IP doesn’t always promote the useful arts and sciences (for example patent trolls).

bruce511 4y ago
"patent trolls" is an unhelpful term because it is in the eye of the beholder. Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? Was Apple a troll in patenting Swipe to Unlock? They were using those patents in their products. On the other hand is the Tolkien Estate patent trolls? They're not producing anything new.) If I have a dozen patents, and some company wants to buy them from me, is that any different to me selling my company? Surely I can sell my assets? The root issue are not "patent trolls". Being sued by Amazon is no less disruptive than by Trolls r US. The root issue is the nature of the patents being issued. The root of copyright issues are (mostly) not about actual copyright, but the length of copyright.
- encomiast 4y ago
  Fair points.
- Natsu 4y ago
  Usually they're called NPEs, non practicing entities and differentiated because their use of patents is to use them to extract tolls rather than to build things. Which isn't to say that established players don't also use them to create moats around technology of interest, or that the nature of certain patents doesn't lend them to abuse. They could, for example, require that the thing which makes the patent 'novel' also be 'patentable subject matter' for example, rather than letting one patent some novel software running on a non-novel computer and meet the standard one piece at a time. Also I wasn't aware that Tolkien or his estate had any patents. Copyrights, surely, but patents? That's surprise me.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > The root of copyright issues are (mostly) not about actual copyright, but the length of copyright. The other issues are getting worse over time. Lack of first sale doctrine. DRM preventing fair use. That Aereo thing where you're not allowed to rent a preconfigured antenna and recorder from someone else.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    Yes, very few works need more than the original 7 years in order for them to get a sufficient return to make them economically viable.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      When/where was it 7?
      - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
        IIRC under the Statute of Anne, it was 7 (plus 7 if you paid again). It seems like a good balance between private monopoly and public interest for the shirts of artistic works copyright protects.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Statue of Anne was 14+14. I'm not sure exactly if/how payment worked.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      I wonder if that applies to novels that don’t become bestsellers? A book that simply does okay. People buy it, never a ton of them, but always a few, every few days, for a long time. No idea what the answer is, just something that popped into my head.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  >Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? // Just on that example. I think Amazon were fine to get a monopoly (in USA) on commercial implementation of one-click. But realistically it's worth a couple of years at most of monopoly for something which arises naturally out of the progress of the web, which Amazon rode the wave of (and contributed to). Locking that up for 20 years doesn't serve society; it's clearly anti-democratic [ie against the best interests of society as a whole] to have that extended term for business methods/software. In this case it's trivial to work around, but that's not true of all 'small idea' patents. This is if course my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment.
  - account42 4y ago
    > I think Amazon were fine to get a monopoly (in USA) on commercial implementation of one-click. But who benefits from that other than Amazon when, as you say, it arose naturally. Does anyone think one-click purchase is something that would never have existed if not for Amazon?

bruce511 4y ago

"patent trolls" is an unhelpful term because it is in the eye of the beholder. Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? Was Apple a troll in patenting Swipe to Unlock? They were using those patents in their products. On the other hand is the Tolkien Estate patent trolls? They're not producing anything new.) If I have a dozen patents, and some company wants to buy them from me, is that any different to me selling my company? Surely I can sell my assets? The root issue are not "patent trolls". Being sued by Amazon is no less disruptive than by Trolls r US. The root issue is the nature of the patents being issued. The root of copyright issues are (mostly) not about actual copyright, but the length of copyright.

encomiast 4y ago
Fair points.
Natsu 4y ago
Usually they're called NPEs, non practicing entities and differentiated because their use of patents is to use them to extract tolls rather than to build things. Which isn't to say that established players don't also use them to create moats around technology of interest, or that the nature of certain patents doesn't lend them to abuse. They could, for example, require that the thing which makes the patent 'novel' also be 'patentable subject matter' for example, rather than letting one patent some novel software running on a non-novel computer and meet the standard one piece at a time. Also I wasn't aware that Tolkien or his estate had any patents. Copyrights, surely, but patents? That's surprise me.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> The root of copyright issues are (mostly) not about actual copyright, but the length of copyright. The other issues are getting worse over time. Lack of first sale doctrine. DRM preventing fair use. That Aereo thing where you're not allowed to rent a preconfigured antenna and recorder from someone else.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Yes, very few works need more than the original 7 years in order for them to get a sufficient return to make them economically viable.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    When/where was it 7?
    - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
      IIRC under the Statute of Anne, it was 7 (plus 7 if you paid again). It seems like a good balance between private monopoly and public interest for the shirts of artistic works copyright protects.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Statue of Anne was 14+14. I'm not sure exactly if/how payment worked.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    I wonder if that applies to novels that don’t become bestsellers? A book that simply does okay. People buy it, never a ton of them, but always a few, every few days, for a long time. No idea what the answer is, just something that popped into my head.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
>Was Amazon being a patent troll patenting single-click-to-purchase? // Just on that example. I think Amazon were fine to get a monopoly (in USA) on commercial implementation of one-click. But realistically it's worth a couple of years at most of monopoly for something which arises naturally out of the progress of the web, which Amazon rode the wave of (and contributed to). Locking that up for 20 years doesn't serve society; it's clearly anti-democratic [ie against the best interests of society as a whole] to have that extended term for business methods/software. In this case it's trivial to work around, but that's not true of all 'small idea' patents. This is if course my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment.
- account42 4y ago
  > I think Amazon were fine to get a monopoly (in USA) on commercial implementation of one-click. But who benefits from that other than Amazon when, as you say, it arose naturally. Does anyone think one-click purchase is something that would never have existed if not for Amazon?