Indeed, the problem is not that some companies choose not to do business with Wikileaks (which in and of itself should be perfectly acceptable), but that those companies represent such a large portion of a particular field that they are essentially shutting Wikileaks out.
Be that a good thing or a bad thing in this particular case, this gives the impression that influence peddling, threats and bribery have replaced the Rule of Law. This is not acceptable under any circumstances. If we believe that no-one is above the law then the same applies for ideas and ideals. There can be no morally superior principle that is above the rule of law.
The rule of law has been a cornerstone of democracy (and other systems of government) for over 23 centuries. It would not be an overstatement to say it is a cornerstone of civilization. I cannot see how it can be removed.
The horizontal vs vertical innovation theme, at least at face value, seems like an artificial distinction to me. It is most likely "a" property of different types of patents, but probably not the only one, or the one that matters most.
The main problem with patenting is that it creates an artificial monopoly. I get that the monopoly is a necessary evil to reward the creator of the patent. However, that same monopoly in turn limits the ways in which the patent can be used, expanded upon, etc. I say the problem is not patenting, but the artificial monopoly it creates.
So how about this: You can have your patent, but you must offer it at the same licensing fee to everyone. We'll need some hefty anti-trust lawyering to make that work properly, but the main idea is sound. Instead of a monopoly that you can gouge, you get the market equilibrium price your idea is actually worth.
Even with this model, there will be some "horizontal innovation", especially if the licensing fee is high, but at least no-one will be forced into such tactics just to be able to compete. Which is probably all we need.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ragnar Krempel.
Indeed, the problem is not that some companies choose not to do business with Wikileaks (which in and of itself should be perfectly acceptable), but that those companies represent such a large portion of a particular field that they are essentially shutting Wikileaks out.
Be that a good thing or a bad thing in this particular case, this gives the impression that influence peddling, threats and bribery have replaced the Rule of Law. This is not acceptable under any circumstances. If we believe that no-one is above the law then the same applies for ideas and ideals. There can be no morally superior principle that is above the rule of law.
The rule of law has been a cornerstone of democracy (and other systems of government) for over 23 centuries. It would not be an overstatement to say it is a cornerstone of civilization. I cannot see how it can be removed.
Sue them all, sue them all to hell!!
I see a win-win scenario here. ;-)
Ms Collins loses: it's a blow for against copyright.
Ms Collins wins: it's a blow against a copyright-abuser.
Patent Good, Monopoly Bad.
The horizontal vs vertical innovation theme, at least at face value, seems like an artificial distinction to me. It is most likely "a" property of different types of patents, but probably not the only one, or the one that matters most.
The main problem with patenting is that it creates an artificial monopoly. I get that the monopoly is a necessary evil to reward the creator of the patent. However, that same monopoly in turn limits the ways in which the patent can be used, expanded upon, etc. I say the problem is not patenting, but the artificial monopoly it creates.
So how about this: You can have your patent, but you must offer it at the same licensing fee to everyone. We'll need some hefty anti-trust lawyering to make that work properly, but the main idea is sound. Instead of a monopoly that you can gouge, you get the market equilibrium price your idea is actually worth.
Even with this model, there will be some "horizontal innovation", especially if the licensing fee is high, but at least no-one will be forced into such tactics just to be able to compete. Which is probably all we need.