Would you prefer no patent or copyright system, but things only exposed to the public when they become actual products? You could sit on your PII Intel computer and connect via your 56k modem and enjoy the internet that way, because that would be all you would have. Many developments in communication and computer hardware have been based on looking at patents and other public annoucements, finding out it is possible, and moving forward. Waiting for the products to actually hit the market before starting that process would slow progress tremendously. We would have a huge market of closed PII computers, but the PIII would probably still be in development (secretly)
I did not know that Intel only released the Pentium 3 due to IP protection. Could you please point to some references of this?
Dan Pink had a good TED talk on how assigning monetary value to results can reduce performance. A good example of how the marginal benefit in self empowering employees can be valued more than monetary compensation.
I am curious how you would apply relational rights from a practical standpoint. If you do not grant property rights or copyright to facts, how do you prove that a "parasitic aggregator" is "free riding" off specific content. As long as they provide only the facts, they should be in the clear.
Setting up a collection society as mentioned in #2 is dangerous on many levels.
1. Who do we declare a news originator? Is this compulsory for anybody who publishes to the internet? Seems that this would favor the large publications.
2. How do you verify the first source for a news story? Multiple sources could cover an event at the same time. How do you know which one "deserves" the license?
3. Everyone is now a publisher. Would I need a license to link and comment about a story in my twitter feed? We have already seen this with ASCAP now asking mechanics to pay performance fees for having a radio on in the garage.
Also groups like ASCAP have shown to have many issues of their own. Take a look at a few examples.