Mike, I fail to see how copyright and patents are lumped together. One excludes use of an instance of a work, where the other excludes use of an entire concept, irrespective of an instance of a given work. They're both clearly out of hand, but there are few show stoppers born out of copyright, where patent law prohibits competition in many, many areas that simply cant be worked around.
See, this is how you know you have ADD :) The first thing that happened when the gorilla entered the screen. I stopped counting and looked at the ape. That... clearly has some evolutionary advantage. But not so much in this day and age :(
Re: Re: Re: um ... i think you've missed the point
The "Mr T Night Elf Mohawk Grenade" (mtmg) is an excellent example for extraction. Let's say we have two scenarios. One is WoW cast to the real world. The other, is WoW as it sits.
Real WoW: The mtmg is a new toy made by Mattel. What keeps someone from making and selling mtmgs? Certainly not patents, there have been countless toy grenades, and that wouldn't make it past the sitting clerk. No, the only thing protecting it would be the licensing of Mt T. which is a trademark and some countries allow styles and designs to be copyrighted or patented. Now if someone wanted to create the Fro-hawk Hipster Grenade, they would/should have every right to do so. However if we flip over to our virtual counterpart.
Virtual WoW: Ssuddenly it's an invention!! Not because it's inventive or even innovative, rather JUST because it's based in software. The lamentation of non-practicing entities (trolls) and patent attorneys echo in unison "Just because it's intangible doesn't mean it's not an invention!", and so they get a patent on something like "grenades in a virtual world" (no seriously). So, for the next twenty years the industry wonders if that patent would be exercised or if it's even valid. And so they try to avoid putting grenades in their games, and worry about the liability of letting users make their own content as they would be the clear target in any silly litigation. On the other hand, if they allowed user created content, I'm sure it would outsell the mtmg in aggregate, and it would spur insane X-hawk grenade innovation as they have to step up or go home (free markets and such)...
The mtmg would also covered by copyright, which is a protection NOT offered to a real MTMG.. (so is it a copyright until the last artist that rendered it dies plus 70 years?)
Either way, those that like to use "real world" analogies to prop up their bread and butter arguments for; idea/software/process patents, generally hate these points and try to obfuscate them with false dilemmas, crooked logic and even outright lies.
Essentially, NO you shouldn't be able to make mtmgs especially to compete with those that created them. The exact implementation may be protected, but the abstract concept must remain free. That is, if the market is to evolve at it's own pace and not just a pace less threatening to corporate bureaucracy.
I think you miss a few points actually. First of all, the no IP argument is not really about NO IP, there isn't much of a movement in that direction. When the intellectual body starts speaking out against IP and they use the concept of zero IP, it's not literal. It's used to illustrate how zero IP is more just than the draconian direction that IP has taken to this day.
Lets use your example of virtual goods.
1. Gold or "virtual goods" are in fact a scarcity in WOW, they release these goods with a real economy in mind. If they flooded the game with goods or let you just copy them they would be worthless no one would pay for them. So that argument is moot. Even if it were not, Virtual gold has NO IP and it is clearly valuable. So it doesn't work both ways.
2.Your assertion that ideas deserve patent protection is not even remotely valid. Ideas have never been patentable for one very distinct reason... everyone of us has the same ideas. The idea is not the invention... concepts do not provide revenue, implementations do. Concept patents do nothing other than create litigation and slow/derail progress.
This is the exact point that I have been arguing since this debockle began. Last week for example, Microsoft used several of it's broad idea patents (on how buttons are arranged in a tool bar amongst others) to pry the doors open to a market that they had difficulty proliferating. They wanted to extend their illegal monopoly to the.... Wait... So, you're giving a TWENTY YEAR MONOPOLY to a company, with bottomless pockets, that's *been convicted* of tampering with and indeed attempted to destroy the free markets which they, themselves used to establish this deadlock.
Idea Patents... Really? Does that sound like a good idea? This system of intellectual property is an artifact of corruption. If there were no lobby this mess would have been cleaned up years ago.
You're absolutely right. Very well put also. The only way that an educated community can neutralize FUD, is through strategic arguments and education of those that will teach others. The fact is, most people need talking points and a few links. It's almost like you could put a media kit together and serialize .. "gorilla education"?.
It's like iMax, they have a central institution that utilizes cutting edge technology to sell customers something they cant get from content. I'm talking, of course about the experience. Think about it like this, if a customer buys a magazine he has an expectation that it convey information, opinions etc etc. The first Color magazines sold because they were offering a new experience. I imagine that people who would never have purchased it otherwise would have bought it and it would have seemed that it was the potion that saved Maggot monthly magazine. Of course expectation wet up a notch so did the competition. Markets are reactive, not typically proactive. Today, publishing color photos in a periodical is a golden patent.
Im just sayin.. It might provide temporary relief for these industries.
one more thing, I worked way too hard to make this fit the adolescent subject title, I know. I was just going to say it's more about convenience than 99 cents, and it's more about that experience being delivered in the moment, when the buyer is ready to spend rather than the "whip out the credit card and think about it as you enter/re-enter the obscure CV2# on the flip side etc. Spending with the tap of a finger is an effective formula for selling to the Id rather than the Ego. I cant wait to hear about celebrities in iPad rehab.
I for one, would be able to stock the pond with favorable information about myself through SEO. I mean, could you imagine how easy it would be to shape search queries on your name?? Not that hard if you're not famous.
In general the concept of reading a robots recommendations about what is prudent to an individual is fundamentally flawed.
To quote Steve Jobs: "I've been shameless about stealing good ideas" and "They showed me really, three things, but I was so blinded by the first one that I didn't see the first two. One of the things they showed me was Object Oriented Programming".
So first he steals the idea, then he patents it.. thats innovation for ya!
See, the problem is.. Monopolies are like death sentences. You have to weigh the cost:benefit against the implementation. What I'm trying to say is that if you hand out death sentences all willy nilly, then you have become a vehicle for grave injustice. With patents, the point is the same, though the result may not be a single corpse at the end of a rope. Ethical questions aside, how would you remedy the injustice of patents like this?
I mean.. really.. I'm sincerely asking for ideas, I've come to the conclusion that there must be 1 in 100 patents that deserve to exist at this point in time. Everything is a derivative and we have gone entirely the wrong direction on IP as a whole... In all of my studies (hundreds of patents top to bottom, some taken to trial others not) I find with few exceptions, little more than obvious, uninspired, re-worded standards and legal dribble.
I'm all for rewarding truly innovative inventions, I'm just not convinced that a 20+ year monopoly is the remedy.