Jakerome's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the you-only-think-this-is-free dept

It's pretty obvious that The Masnick only pretends to take the weekend off, because man did Techdirt start off the week with some solid stories. While the Techdirt team is pretending to relax, you can catch up on the best posts from the week. While it's true that I occasionally long for the days of single paragraph posts, I'll ignore fellow short post fans & instead follow Mike's example by providing more insight into my insights.

Techdirt has been at the fore of intellectual property issues for a decade or more, and I've learned much along the way while informing friends about how SOPA and related bills would hinder technology advances, harm free speech and do little to promote the progress of science and useful arts. This post will focus on IP issues, starting off with yet another story that demonstrates the duplicity of Chris Dodd. The man who once proclaimed "no lobbying, no lobbying" upon leaving office now counts the days until he can lobby his former Senate colleagues. In the meantime, he is lobbying the Obama administration and inviting a few select tech companies to join in his secret plan to impose government supported censorship, despite claims to the contrary. All in a futile attempt to preserve the existing MPAA business model so his paymasters are insulated from the independent artists who are competing by embracing new technology.

The MPAA/RIAA lobbying juggernaut has been sadly successful in hobbling internet technologies, as congressional insiders and administration officials conspire to increase government control of the internet by proposing laws that would censor disfavored websites under the guise of copyright protection and cybersecurity. The takeaway is obvious, that internet users have to remain vigilant to prevent Congress from choking innovation on the internet and maintaining freedom of action for themselves. That ties in nicely with a story from Planet Money highlighting the parallels between the MPAA & German button weavers, which used government power to insulate themselves from competition enabled by new technology, leading to stagnation in button weaving technology. The parallel becomes clearer by the day. Viacom continues to sue YouTube as part of it's long attack on user generated content, while in content industries left unprotected by legal fiat, we're witnessing the movement of creators from old media to new media. Not losing those jobs in the process but merely shifting the work to outlets where the creators provide the greatest comparative advantage.

As copyright law is a mess, so is the copyright office itself. Copyright assignments last 70 years or more, but electronic records are not available before 1978. That was backward a decade ago and inexcusable today. Billions are spent to influence legislation & hundreds of law enforcement personnel work to enforce intellectual property laws, yet so little heed is given to cataloging our cultural heritage that millions of copyright records are effectively inaccessible. That has real world consequences, as there is a paucity of in print books from the 1930s-1960s since the copyright status of those works cannot be ascertained; in contrast, books from earlier decades enjoy widespread availability. With all the attention being paid to copyright enforcement, we've managed to neglect great works that have already been produced by emphasizing profit over culture. But "is there any value in cracking down on 'piracy' if it doesn't increase sales?" Congress repeatedly compromises our liberties in the name of fighting piracy, but this story suggests even that doesn't boost sales. By emphasizing enforcement and neglecting record keeping, the government has effectively made it more difficult to enjoy new & old cultural works while doing little to improve revenues for the Old Media companies the laws are intended to protect.

Alas, even internet pioneers are allowing this unhealthy obsession with IP enforcement cloud their judgments. As an admitted Flickr addict, I've taken a keen interest in the developing tactical nuclear patent war being fought between Yahoo and Facebook. It's shocking enough that Facebook was awarded patents for (a) drawing rectangles on photos and linking that box to a person, and (b) displaying an integrated list of actions on my items & those I've commented upon. What's more preposterous is that Facebook would sue over concepts so barely differentiated from preexisting Flickr features to (a) draw rectangles on photos and add a note or link, and (b) display separate lists of actions on my items & those I've commented upon. I imagine the 18 other patent claims in the lawsuit are similarly specious. Hopefully, both come to their senses and drop their lawsuits before spending all their money on lawyers.

Now, my least favorite story of the week, which completely destroys my plan to become a multithousandaire should anyone ever decide to take up Techdirt on CWF+RTB and shut down the site for the year. Yes, fellow favorite posts of the week writers, our dreams of launching a class action lawsuit to obtain our just rewards have been squelched by an activist judge* who opined that Huffington Post contributors that wrote articles without any expectation of compensation aren't entitled to any compensation even though Huffington Post turned out to be quite profitable. No justice, no peace!

*Whereby activist judge I mean any judge I disagree with.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    nyctreeman (profile), Apr 7th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    wow

    Jake has a lot to say :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 5:58am

    You Decide: 11 Game-Changing Copyright Cases

    You Decide: 11 Game-Changing Copyright Cases
    By Kathleen Culliton Apr 04, 2012 10:40 am


    Examine the evidence and judge for yourself where the boundaries of intellectual property lie.

    http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/politics-and-regulation/articles/YHOO-AAPL-URBN-MON -SNE-VIVPA/4/4/2012/id/40019

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Kevin (profile), Apr 8th, 2012 @ 7:42am

    The land of the free

    "The land of the real free" I wonder where it is.
    For a country that raves about it's freedom it appears that the USA uses North Korea for comparison because when it comes to freedoms the USA is not much better than China.
    I live in Australia and from my perspective I am glad I do.
    The USA need more people like yourselves to wake up the complacent majority who cannot see that the freedoms have been slowly chipped away from the day the USA constitution was signed. The people need to remember that the constitution did not have nor has anywhere near 100% support with the main protractors remaining the same type, power hungry controllers.
    I think I will sue every songwriter for using a breaching my pending patent for typing. I invented that when I first tapped my fingers on the side of my heads when I was a month old. Oh I could also claim copyright for goo gaa blbbbb. I have a recording of me saying that when I was three months old and so far no one has brought forward a recording that is older.
    What is really scarey is I could probably register both claims.
    Now all I have to do is prove I am a direct descendent to the caveman who firsts hummed the scales and I, along with some trillion people, can claim copyright to every song ever written. Ok, I am being absurd but then so is the whole copyright/patent system

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Tom Gallagher, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 8:28am

    Re: You Decide: 11 Game-Changing Copyright Cases

    The author and editor (if there is one) are such idiots, they don't even know the differences between patents, trademarks, and copyrights. These are not 11 copyright cases.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Tom Gallagher, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 8:38am

    IP

    The problem with most of what you read about Intellectual Property is that the people writing about it don't what they're talking about. It's not that they don't know anything; it's just that most of what they know is wrong. Most people writing about the scourge of "clearly invalid" patents don't know how to read a patent. They also don't know what it takes to get a patent allowed. Many of them don't know the difference between a patent and a patent application.

    In order to be qualified to interpret a patent and charge someone money to read your interpretation, you need an engineering degree and a law degree and you need to pass 4 separate bar examinations. Most "journalists" don't have any of these qualifications.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 8:57am

    Re: IP

    Correct only the high priest educated on the arcane art of law can interpret those ancient signs correctly.

    Never mind that is exactly why one when trying to apply to a patent also need a highly trained costly lawyer so he can file that, the first time correctly or have to keep refiling it until kingdom come.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), Apr 8th, 2012 @ 9:07am

    "In order to be qualified to interpret a patent ... you need an engineering degree and a law degree and you need to pass 4 separate bar examinations."

    And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 9:13am

    Re: IP

    This is why we need hyper qualified professionals to read patents so they can tell us how these things work.

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

    Patent Number:
    20080270152

    Title:
    Patent Trolling Application - by Halliburton

    Summary:
    Yes - this Application, by a Halliburton Patent Attorney, seeks a Patent for "Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party".

    Patent Number:
    3216423

    Title:
    Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force

    Summary:
    This one is too old to have full-text, so you are going to have to look at the pictures -- but it's worth it. I can't help but wonder if this device was ever actually used?

    Patent Number:
    6360693

    Title:
    Animal Toy

    Summary:
    Thanks to Samuel Pai for this submission, which is nearly unbelievable. Claim 1 describes (in fancy language of course), a synthetic STICK. Yes, a stick. I'm not kidding. This patent was applied for in 1999. Do you think anyone had ever conceived of the idea of using a stick (albeit a plastic one) as an animal toy prior to 1999? Check out the front page image -- a picture is worth a thousands words, or in this case, a stick.

    Now just typing "crazy patents" on Google brings you in direct contact with the magical world of patents.

    http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/patent-lunacy/top_ten_bizarre_ crazy_patents

    http://crazypatents.com/

    Judging by the numbers dedicated to making fun of patents by so many people which also include patent law firms, the number of people who don't understand patents is just immense, something needs to be done to protect inventors from those crazy people right?

    I got it, lets make more laws giving more power to monopolies so the inventors can be better protected LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: IP

    PS: Guys you missed your chance patent trolling is already patented.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 9:16am

    Re: IP

    Therein lies a big part of the problem. You don't need any degrees. You need knowledge and the ability to think logically. However, unfortunately our educational system is designed not to produce a public empowered with knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge constructively. Instead from a very young age it is designed to condition people to chase grades and degrees instead of knowledge by regurgitation of the information fed to them producing lemmings incapable of thinking for themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 9:21am

    Re: IP

    Quote:
    Most "journalists" don't have any of these qualifications.

    That also should disqualify most judges and lawyers.

    Would people be surprised to know that judges making decisions on patents are less then qualified to do so?

    LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2012 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: IP

    Here I found one unqualified lawyer talking nonsense about patents.

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/03/30/crazy-patents-in-an-era-of-alleged-patent-quality/i d=2413/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Apr 8th, 2012 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re: IP

    or have to keep refiling it until approved.


    FTFY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Apr 8th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Re: IP

    No wonder engineers don't even worry about the patent system. It's too useless to what they do on a daily basis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Kevin, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:04am

    Lighten up

    The humor in many posts on this subject is so good it would make one great comedy sketch.
    As for not knowing the difference between copyright, patents and whatever they are all the same with slightly changed wording. After all they are laws drawn up by lawyers for lawyers with the aim of not so much protecting the applicants but to hinder everyone else.
    In the written word no one can copyright a sentence or paragraph or even a title. Copyright for music should be the same and should only apply to to the work as a whole not just some some part of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This