sennoma's Feed

Patent Crisis and The Age of Open Source Ideas - ReadWriteWeb

sennoma — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:50:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty, patents, openscience,

PDTool

sennoma — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 03:25:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under copyright, intellectualproperty,

Against Monopoly

sennoma — Tue, 13 May 2008 01:42:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

SSRN-Open Source, Open Access, and Open Transfer: Market Approaches to Research Bottlenecks by Robin Cooper Feldman, Kristopher Nelson

sennoma — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:49:00 -0400

Abstract: One of the most hotly contested issues in the field of intellectual property law concerns the existence, or non-existence, of patent thickets and the extent to which any such bottlenecks may be interfering with research. For decades, scholars warned that problems related to the over proliferation of patent rights would interfere with innovation. In contrast, a growing body of commentary argues that patent thickets are not a problem in modern industries. Either patent thickets do not exist, or if they do, patent thickets do not interfere with the progress of research. The rhetoric is particularly heated these days because of dramatic changes underway in patent law. Research bottlenecks, or lack thereof, are invoked either in support of or in opposition to such changes, and it is difficult to have a rational discussion when so much seems to be at stake. Stepping back from the rhetoric a bit, this piece suggests that one can sometimes indirectly observe effects, even if one cannot directly measure the extent of a phenomenon. With this in mind, the piece describes three approaches appearing in modern patent markets that are directed at mitigating the effects of patent thickets. These approaches can be described as Open Source, Open Access, and Open Transfer. From our vantage point, we may not be able to see or to measure the depth of the thicket. We can, however, observe the altered growth patterns that give us some indication of where the problems lie. Tagged by sennoma under openscience, oa, intellectualproperty, openlicensing,

Kneeling at the altar of patents - john wilbanks' blog - john wilbanks' blog on Nature Network

sennoma — Sat, 03 May 2008 01:17:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

cc through the looking glass: be an ip donor

sennoma — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:24:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty, publicdomain,

DigitalKoans » Blog Archive » To Loan an Electronic Article from an Elsevier E-Journal, Print It, Scan It, and Send it with Ariel

sennoma — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:15:00 -0500

Elsevier has clarified for the list how articles from its e-journals should be handled: the article should be printed, and then "mailed, faxed or scanned into Ariel (or a similar system) as means of delivery to the borrowing library." (Ariel is an ILL system that is widely used by libraries to deliver digital copies of documents.) To recap the Ariel workflow, the digital article should be printed and then it should be digitized for delivery via Ariel. Tagged by sennoma under openlicensing, intellectualproperty, assholes,

Against Monopoly

sennoma — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:03:00 -0500

If It's Property Why No Property Tax Via slashdot, a letter in the Los Angeles Times by Dallas Weaver raises an interesting point. While propogandists for the copyight and patent mills are eager to have their exclusive grants treated as "property" they don't seem terribly interested in paying property tax. Since they've successfully managed to press the term "intellectual property" into the dictionary, why not charge them a property tax? This is a serious suggestion with serious benefits for two reasons. First, it would go a long way to solving the problem of automatic copyright and orphan works - it would force copyright holders to emerge from the shadows or give up their copyrights. Moreover, it would get around some ridiculous language in the Berne convention to the effect that "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality." It's not that you wouldn't get your rights if you didn't pay your property tax, any more than you would if you didn't pay property tax on your car. You would of course go to jail. Second, owners of houses and automobiles and the like pay taxes on their property in exchange for real government services they receive ranging from roads to police. So also with owners of "intellectual property" who receive a variety of government enforcement services - which at the current time they do not help to pay for. Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

Against Monopoly

sennoma — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:03:00 -0500

At the assertion that to be patentable something must be novel we can only laugh or cry. There is an article on apple insider: James and Marguerite Driessen of Lindon, Utah are suing Apple Computer claiming they have patented the idea of a gift card where the gift is downloadable over the internet. The actual patent 7003500 - which took six years to issue for some reason - is vastly worse than that. They have patented the "idea" of "selling of merchandise or media content on the Internet [using] at least one in-person contact with the buyer." I want to emphasize: this patent was approved by the U.S. Patent Office. Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

Kevin Kelly -- The Technium

sennoma — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:09:00 -0500

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty, howtopaycreators,

Against Monopoly

sennoma — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:48:00 -0500

To what extent does research now focus on "what can we patent?" and not on "how do we cure X?"? Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty, scienceisfucked,

DigitalKoans » Blog Archive » Against Intellectual Monopoly Freely Available

sennoma — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:49:00 -0500

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

Against Monopoly

sennoma — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:43:00 -0500

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

Dissecting CCZero

sennoma — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:59:00 -0500

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty, publicdomain, cczero,

CC Zero beta tools now available

sennoma — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:59:00 -0500

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty, publicdomain, cczero,

::: the future of ideas :::

sennoma — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:58:00 -0500

Tagged by sennoma under lessig, intellectualproperty,

Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Macaulay on Copyright In Bullet Point Format

sennoma — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:01:00 -0500

1. You should read Thomas Macaulay’s speeches on copyright. These were conveniently quoted by SF writer and firebreathing blue-collar intellectual Eric Flint in Prime Palaver #4. Here’s Flint’s introduction: These are two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out. They are, no other word for it, brilliant—and cover everything fundamental which is involved in the issue. (For those not familiar with him, Macaulay would eventually become one of the foremost British historians of the 19th century. His History of England remains in print to this day, as do many of his other writings.) I strongly urge people to read them. Yes, they’re long—almost 10,000 words—and, yes, Macaulay’s oratorical style is that of an earlier era. (Although, I’ve got to say, I’m partial to it. Macaulay orated before the era of “sound bytes.” Thank God.) But contained herein is all wisdom on the subject, an immense learning—and plenty of wit. So relax, pour yourself some coffee (or whatever beverage of your choice) (or whatever, preferably not hallucinogenic), and take the time to read it. The “oh-so-modern” subject of “electronic piracy” contains no problems which Macaulay didn’t already address, at least in essence, more than a century and a half ago. I should note that Macaulay’s position, slightly modified, did become the basis of copyright law in the English speaking world. And remained so (at least in the US) for a century and a half—until, on a day of infamy just a few years ago, the Walt Disney Corporation and their stooges in Congress got the law changed to the modern law, which extends copyright for a truly absurd period of time. Which—those who forget history are doomed to repeat it—is a return to the position advocated by Macaulay’s (now long forgotten) opponent in the debate. 2. Packbat boils down Macaulay. Packbat has summarized Macaulay’s speeches on copyright as five bulleted points: * The copyright is not an innate right, but a creation of human government. * A copyright is a form of monopoly, and therefore effectively a tax on the public—thus, it should be restricted to precisely as long a term as would make equivalent the harm done to the public by monopoly and the good provided by encouraging the creation of new works. * The prospect of income from a property a long time after one’s death is no incentive whatsoever to the creation of new works. * The probability that the persons for whom the author might have concern will own the copyright a long time after one’s death is minute. * The probability that the copyright owner might suppress the works, for whatever reason, is great. Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

About this site (iusmentis.com)

sennoma — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:33:00 -0400

The name "ius mentis" is Latin for "legal rights on mental things", which I think is a better term for rights granted by copyright, patent or trademark law than "intellectual property". The very name intellectual property is, in my opinion, biased by referring to products of the mind as "property", i.e. something one can own. While this is a common way of thinking, it is certainly not the only possibility. And I do not want to appear prejudiced towards this way of thinking. Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

TLF: Why I Don't Say "Intellectual Property" (and You Shouldn't Either)

sennoma — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:29:00 -0400

Fortunately, we don’t need a replacement for the term “intellectual property,” because there are already two that will do nicely: “patents” and “copyrights.” Since I decided to stop using the term intellectual property, I’ve been surprised at how rarely it’s actually needed. Most practical policy debates are not about “intellectual property” as such—they’re about either patents or copyrights. Simply replacing “intellectual property” with the appropriate, more specific term, works just fine. Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty,

James Boyle's Intellectual Property Page

sennoma — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:51:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under intellectualproperty, importfromGB070822,