Software Patents show even qualified majority voting is too democratic for the EU

by .commie Thu Dec 16, 2004 21:40

"Though Bill Gates recognizes Linux as a threat to Windows, it is easy to miss the truly revolutionary nature of this type of cultural production. If you give people the opportunity to create, they will do so, even without economic incentives. The core justification for intellectual property protection is that, without it, no one would have any reason to produce cultural, creative content. They would undertake a rational calculus and go off to become tax attorneys. But the dynamism of the open source movement shows that this fundamental justification doesn't hold. Many people will produce creative content even outside what we can think of as the capitalist underpinnings of I.P. It's a small step to go from this to a Marxist revolution: The open source movement promises to put the means of creative production back in the hands of the people, not in the hands of those with capital."

by seedot Thu Dec 16, 2004 23:03

On of the things that gets me about this whole Intellectual Property, Digital Commons stuff is the notion of property itself and how we need to start to question all property rights.

The 16th & 17th Century saw land suddenly becoming property with the owners dismissing all responsibilities. Since then we have had waves of regulation and deregulation, from laissez faire economics which saw a million Irish die because interfering with the market was too great a sin to the deregulation of the 80's and 90's which saw the public assets being stripped.

Regulation = controls on property rights.
Deregulation = removal of these controls.

We need to question property rights, we need to look at other models to regulation.
Thats why I disagree with the criticisms of the phrase Intellectual Property - this is currently an attempt to enclose something that was previously held in common and make it property. Some geek who has read a Stallman article telling me that I shouldn't use the phrase pisses me off, because it is they who are shortsighted. Attacking IP (which is a winnable political battle at the moment imho) attacks the sacrosanct nature of property in our current culture which is a necessary part of any solution that I can see.

by .commie Thu Dec 16, 2004 23:17

Link is to a speech everyone who likes indymedia and wants to rationalise their involvement (at whatever level) in it to socialists/marxists/others needs to hear/see. It blew me away and i tried it on a few crowds of young uns too and it blew them away as well and THEY ARE the revolutionaries he is talking about.

Watching the lo band version makes him seem like a bolshevik in russia in 1915 but it somehow adds 'a certain frission of je ne sais quoi' to the whole thing. What a speech.

Now I have to write my 5th (unawnsered so far) preaching mail to Vinnie B over at the village about ohmynews before he spends all his readies

;-)

by R. Isible Fri Dec 17, 2004 00:06

I don't understand your objection. I agree with you about the attempt of a "new enclosure" but I don't think that Stallman objects to the _property_ part in IP.

Isn't he objecting to the use of a phrase which deliberately confuses copyright, trademark, and patent law with each other and makes it harder for people to realise what the point of establishing some sort of property rights in these very different fields was?

by seedot Fri Dec 17, 2004 16:38

While trademarks, copyright and patents all evolved seperately each does represent a newly created form of property. I can understand RMS argument regarding the differences between the forms - however I think his arguments are based on a belief in the market system and the need for some copyright etc.

(e.g. he ends the article you link to by talking about the reform of the WIPO).

I think the dotcommunist manifesto which I have just read is a clearer articulation of my own feelings than I could express - but basically think that by questioning IP as property we can start a process of questioning property rights full stop.

When the Mickey Mouse laws continually extend copyright beyond the life of the creator we see that whatever the original protections given by copyright it is now a tool of corporate control and expansion as they try and impede the commons. (it should be remembered that copyright was actually introduced as a control mechanism by the British Government to stop unlicensed printing - nothing to do with awarding artists or creators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright ).

When Microsoft get awarded domains such as mikerowesoft.com because of possible trademark infringement it is continually pushing the limits of private property.

Examples of patent stupidity and the economic harm caused by them are numerous and know to anybody who has bothered reading this thread.

Many people can see problems with these 'rights' and the motivations of those who promote them.

By attacking Intellectual property as a concept we have a winnable argument against a form of private property. Those who are convinced of the arguments here can then look at other property rights - such as land etc. and look to distinguish from 'use rights'. While RMS makes a valid case about the differences between physical and intellectual property and the confusions theirein, the fact that his politics could probably be described as US style libertarian with a belief in markets and the sanctity of contract and governments role in protecting private property menas that he overstates this difference.

All property is theft - some theft just happened longer ago.

But tbh the thing that really annoys me about this is when I am told not to use the phrase by someone who has been told not to use it by RMS and accepts this without considering that maybe I have heard his arguments and disagree with them. Too many coders apply binary logic to politics and language.

by quijote Fri Dec 17, 2004 20:18

are increasingly using free software options, the latest local government to join the free software family was Castille de la Mancha one of the autonomous regions of Spain which has launched "molinux" from it's capital Cuidad Real. (see link)
you should check this out too, lovely illustration -
http://www.donquijotedelamancha2005.com/main.php?L=en

by R. Isible Fri Dec 17, 2004 20:47

Stallman gets portrayed as a communist, an anarchist, a libertarian (US sense), a Utopian geek but what's he's always said is that he seeks to maximise freedom. Specifically he does it with regard to the field that he's knowledgeable in, and with regard to the right of communities to share knowledge.

I don't see that his attack on the deliberately obfuscating portmanteau term "Intellectual Property" means that he's endorsing property or endorsing the individual components within that term. In fact the GPL turns one of those components on its head.

You may be right that it would be better if the FSF were to attack the actual idea of "property" itself, but that may be the task for someone else.

W.r.t. whether or not Stallman is a "libertarian" see the link below. It suggests to me that he is attacking the state-capitalist-monopolist position from the basis of some of its own unchallenged rhetoric. That doesn't mean that he's libertarian and to my knowledge he's never declared that he is and it would be surprising if he were to keep quiet about it:

Anyway, I realise that I'm not addressing your points properly. I need to think about it more. I accept the examples you give as problems, but I don't see how Stallman's demolishing of the marketing term "Intellectual Property" necessarily reinforces the validity of "property rights" in a more general sense.

by .commie Thu Jan 06, 2005 22:53

flags desktops whatever at link

by .commie Thu Jan 06, 2005 23:01

this is what the imc crew look like in their dayware ;-) Bill Gates does not love us.

Journo: "In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, 'We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights.' What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

Bill Gates: "No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.

by redjade Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:31

Led by former Polish PM Jerzi Buzek, 61 MEPs have introduced a motion asking the Commission to reconsider its proposal on the controversial software patents directive.

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-133964-16&type=News&_lang=EN&email=33983

by howya! how you doin'? how yours gig space? Wed Jan 12, 2005 09:57

oday's news from IBM (NYSE: IBM) has all the earmarks of geek romance. The company said that it's releasing 500 of its patents into the wilds -- in lip service to the open-source movement.

According to the reports, IBM will allow open-source developers to use 500 of its patents without fear of legal reprisal. It's easy to look at the news with a slightly jaundiced eye, since that's a tiny percentage considering IBM holds 10,000 patents in the U.S. However, CNET said that IBM is describing today's move as a "first step."

IBM -
http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNCID=39&CIaNID=17537
reaction -
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05011122.htm

by - - "didn't catch your name"... Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:07

Compare the "lip service" of the World's largest corp to the news that Victoria university, Melbourne Australia is to be sued for au$48 million damages claim for breaching software patent.
(will the Uni go out of business?)
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;201879249;fp;16;fpid;0

by eeekkkkkk Thu Aug 18, 2005 14:11

"Without intellectual property protection, incentives to engage in certain types of creative endeavors would be weakened. But there are high costs associated with intellectual property. Ideas are the most important input into research, and if intellectual property slows down the ability to use others’ ideas, then scientific and technological progress will suffer. "