How to stop Piracy?

1. Copyright infringement is in the criminal codes in most countries in the world, laws were unified recently to ease world trade.
2. Theft too is a civil matter between thieve and victim, not only a criminal one between thieve and the people. Any crime comitted gives the victim a right to compensation against the criminal, at least in theory. Whether or not that right can be enforced in practice is a different matter.

Novelty is not the only criterion. It has to boil down to technology and it must be a significant step (and the latter I doubt very much in your example).

In addition there are a couple of restrictions like that an invention must not be immoral. And something that restricts peoples freedom may very well be considered immoral.

As I said before, patent protection itself is a good idea, but its practical application has degraded badly in the last 20 years or so.

No, the whole purpose of patent law is to make ideas available for research and innovation as soon as possible. Lets consider the alternative: Somebody has a bright idea for some new process. If there were no patent laws, he would keep it secret, and others could not use it or improve on it. For a patent, you have to disclose the idea, so that any competent person in the field can use it. In return, you receive royalties from anybody making _commercial_ use of your idea.

In an ideal world at least this protects the interest of both the public (technical and scientific progress is available as soon as possible) and the inventer to obtain the just rewards for it.

That patents, especially in the software industry, have become an obstacle rather than a catalyst for progress has to do with the wrong application of patent law, especially in the US:

- Patents are awarded on things that were, for good reason, excluded from patentability (algorithm, discoveries).

- Patents are unjustifiably broad, covering things later invented by others.

- Patens are awarded despite prior art.

No. Wealth can be generated only by work, that is a fundamental rule of macroeconomics. If I write software, or if I make an invention, or if I create a work of art, my work goes into the creation of something new. Is it not fair then that I should be the one who profits from the wealth created?

If, say, a blacksmith turns a piece of iron into a horse-shoe, he uses work to transform an object into something more usable, that is more valuable. When he turns over that horseshoe to a rider, he gets paid for his trouble. Even if the rider gave the smith the piece of iron to work with, the smith still has the right to payment for his work.

In the same way a software author has the right to earn a living from the work of his hands (or brain, as the case may be). That it is technically _easy_ to take that income away from him doesn't make it morally _right_. And so we have laws to protect us from those who want to take away from us the fruits of our labour, laws against physical theft as well as against the theft of intellectual property.

Of course it is the right of anyone to donate his work, by working for a charity for example or by making software available under a free licence (e.g. GPL). But that they do under their own free will, they should not be forced to do it (that's called communism) nor should others be allowed to just take it away (that's called theft).

As you can see from the above, it is basically a similar thing, differences in detail (and in the applicable law) none-withstanding.

You've just argued cs_posting's point (that external items -- IP, typewriters -- are not a requirement for art, etc to be produced).

Steve

So, you're saying that ideas don't exist? Consciousness doesn't exist? You don't exist?

Thanks, Rich

No, just that you don't exist! ;-)

Well, I know I exist, because I can feel me.

I know the St. Louis Gateway Arch exists, because I've been up it. (well, that doesn't guarantee that it _still_ exists, but physical matter pretty much stays put per Newton). And so on.

I'm pretty sure _you_ exist, at least on some level of reality, because if you were imaginary, you wouldn't constantly be bitching about your aches and pains. Have you ever tried feeling into your pains to ask them what their message for your spirit is?

There might be some ideas you could look into here:

Good Luck! Rich

You would probably "feel the pain" if you weren't drunk all the time.

Apparently John has a reading comprehension problem...

Grease doesn't exist? You cracked the code?

Its obvious, if you'll just look for the signs. ;-)

I don't think it follows that the originator-"ownership" of an idea is necessarily the same as ownership of a property interest in it (I am my parents' child, but they do not own me).

However, the issue of non-disclosed ideas may touch on a possible difference between the world today, and the world of the early industrial revolution when property-concepts of IP were systematically established. The grant of a patent as a reward for publishing a method seems to reflect a fear that knowledge would remain secret - aquite legitimate feat in that day and age.

Today however, the idea that knowledge will remain secret is almost laughable. Techniques of analysis have advanced so far that any idea used in commerce has a fair chance of getting "out of the bag" regardless if a patent is filed or not. To a deteremined competitor, simple evidence that something is possible is quite a shortcut - add in an example of the result and it's only a matter of time and money to reverse engineer the method.

So perhaps it's worth asking, if society is no longer concenred about secret knowledge holding back the state of the art, is the original 'temporary owernship in return for publication' patent construct still a good deal for the public? Or does the information age need to treat IP differently than the industrial age did?

why do you use the past tense? "was my idea".

is it because at some level you understand that by sharing it it is no longer exclusively yours?

Bye. Jasen

In what way is a more free market "socialist" ?

What part about letting entrepeneurs use publicly available information to create products for consumers is socialist?

If anything is socialist or communist about this issue, it is government creation of a monopoly. Patents were originally monarchistic - allowing those favored by the crown to control a market.

---

Unfortunately that's not an option under current intellectual property law. You aren't asked if you want to agree to the deal; rather, you are forced.

Yes, if you agreed to such a contract. Instead, people who haven't agreed to such contracts are being shut down.

Thanks John for your responses to these perhaps radical ideas.

One more comment:

Under IP laws, an idea does not belong to its originator, but belongs to whoever is favored by (who has paid) the governors. The originator, other people who came up with it (what idea has ever been had by only a single person?), those who appreciate the work and would build on it, and those who could use the idea to better the economy, are out of luck, at least in the lands under power of the crown - I mean the forementioned governernors.