talkpolitics | Entries tagged with intellectual property

peristaltor.livejournal.com

Just yesterday, I read that the belief "that we could have utopian prosperity if we got rid of private businesses and had the government run everything" should be marked down to "stubborn stupidity." Fair enough. As hyperbolic and Straw Manned-up as that statement is, thwarting all independent economic activity would be a bit delusional, given that nobody even agrees upon the definition of "individual", let alone of "collective."

That said, I find it fascinating how many screeds railing against "statism" (again, whatever that might be) completely ignore the actual clear and present danger that non-state actors are continuously exacting on the right of countries to exercise any semblance of sovereignty, and all under the geas of "free trade." Don't these folks know that given enough size, a corporation today has—via the power granted by over-reaching trade agreements—greater legal right ( than most countries? )

stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

Notwithstanding the fact that the most innovative and progressive space we've seen - the Internet - has been the place where intellectual property has been least respected. You know, facts don't get in the way of this ideology. - Lawrence Lessig

This is just a little something to chew on. With the Edward Snowden revelations of NSA surveillance, IRS profiling of the Tea Party and the Department of Justice investigation of leaks publicized by the Associated Press, we need to fast forward into the information age and open a broad discussion on intellectual property.

Whether it is named business strategy, digital media rights, trade secrets, state secrets, patent law, copyright, trademark, or personal privacy; they all fall under the heading of proprietary intellectual property. So for the purposes of this post, they will all be considered together as a unit. Although the property is intangible, it is still a unique product of the owner and is protected by various laws to contain and control the distribution of this property.

With all the rebuttals I have seen surrounding my previous posts about intellectual property, I have only seen two arguments that approach appearing, at least on the surface, compelling.

The first is that intellectual property cannot be stolen because the original property still remains with the author. Try telling that to someone who has had their identity stolen and have had devastating losses because of it. If something is transferred from the owner to another party without the original owners express or implied consent, it is theft. If a tangible item is stolen and then recovered, that does not undo the fact that it was stolen in the first place.

The second is that the laws concerning physical property theft do not apply to intellectual property theft. This is the usual argument from those who are unwilling or unable to comprehend that intellectual property has value, just like physical property does. Your personal intellectual property is traded every time you apply for credit, purchase an item on credit, enter a legal proceeding or apply for insurance. In all these cases, you are entrusting your personal intellectual property to your lender, creditor, lawyer, insurance company or doctor and are counting on them to safeguard it to the best of their ability.

So whether the NSA is collecting phone metadata and internet information to keep us safe from terrorist threats, the Justice Department is trying to find out who is betraying their mission as a result of leaking state secrets by getting contact information from the AP’s phone records or the IRS is trying to determine tax deductible status of the Tea Party movement that electioneered heavily during the 2010 elections; the government appears to be doing its best to do its job without the massive overreach for which they are being accused. Despite claims of oppression by the government, national intelligence and intellectual property rights laws that are already on the books are being prosecuted by the administration.

Edward Snowden is the unprecedented 7^th attempt within this administration to prosecute a leaker. With the roguish sanctifications of Wikileaks and the Anonymous criminal organizations, it is no wonder that government leaks are thriving. I doubt that the information that was revealed by Snowden was anything new. The only thing that was revealed is the secrets behind the magic tricks used to keep us safe from terrorist attacks.

TBH, I don’t see why government collection of data on individuals is considered so nefarious to prosecute criminal activity when private sector of collection of data for their own profiteering, including Google photography of your home and facial recognition technology of your children, is considered to be innocuous. I will trust private sector privacy intrusions when their executive board meetings are on CSPAN.

Whether it is at a national level with security requirements down to the individual level with privacy, intellectual property will always be imbued with a sense of ownership. This property, like any property, has no purpose unless it is used and shared in some form. We need to take a serious look at how this is done with intellectual property now and in the future more than ever

ddstory.livejournal.com

Even without Angelina Jolie, BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were already destined to become world-famous. By the time the Hollywood celebrity announced her double mastectomy after a test that had found a mutation carrying a lethal risk of cancer, those two genes had already been subject of super-lucrative business, and the centerpoint of a protracted four-year court case that eventually reached the SCOTUS.

After the court decision in the middle of this month, neither naturally occurring human genes nor the method of isolating them could be patented any more. Thus, BRCA1 and BRCA2 turned into a discovery of great importance for the life of hundreds of thousands of people around the world, and possibly a symbol of the lifting of artificial and useless barriers to scientific progress.

Despite the initial reactions of immense jubilation by women in urgent need of tests for these two particular genes, and the joy of the molecular biologists in general, the precedent has left a lot of unresolved questions. Starting with the purely economic ones (like, whether gene tests would keep being a profitable business at this point), to the specifics of financing scientific discovery, to the more fundamental questions (like, how are new discoveries being made in the information age). Although at least nominally the decision only applies to the US territory, due to America's position of a global leader in scientific research (with a budget for the so-called R&D worth $366 billion in 2001, against "just" 275 billion of all 27 EU member states), the debate about what's next is now gaining a global context.

( Read a lot more )

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

In a previous posting I considered the difference between science and engineering as a difference between theory and practicality. In considering the work of military contractors developing neural wave technology the issue of distinguishing between invention and engineering came up. The military engineers have been handed the task of devising an electronic gadget with the capacity to alter the thought patterns of a target individual. Are they inventing the machine or are they engineering it? What is the basic difference between the two activities?

Invention of a device has very strict legal implications. Once the device has been invented the inventor has no control over how it is subsequently used. The best she can hope for is material compensation for her "genius" in crafting the prototype. Two individuals working independently can craft the same device but only one of them will be recognized as the lawful inventor with intellectual property rights. The other inventor receives no compensation for her efforts and may lose further in the legal proceedings that ultimately determine the disposition of the intellectual property rights.

An American or British entrepreneur may have the vision to create a gadget that alters or restricts the thought patterns of an individual but that vision is powerless without a team of engineers who are ready, willing, and able to implement the vision. Once they come up with a prototype device the cat is out of the bag. The original visionary has no way to rein in how or where her invention is subsequently used. Other entrepreneurs will take the ball and run with it in completely unexpected directions. If the technique can control a mind, it can also de-control a mind. Anglo-American monopoly cannot be guaranteed outside of Anglo-American jurisprudence. An inexpensive Chinese version is inevitable.

Do you see the limits on intellectual property rights as a benefit or a hindrance to human progress? With whom do your sympathies lie: with the inventor or with the engineer?

Links: Claude Crampes and Corinne Languinier on patent enforcement issues.

stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana. - Bill Gates

It is no secret that I am a proponent of protected intellectual property (IP). I have posted about the tantrum that internet giants threw to suppress SOPA/PIPA, the legislation to protect IP owners from international interlopers. I also posted about the potential backlash if this proprietary IP wasn’t protected.

The SOPA/PIPA legislation was defeated and its opponents celebrated their success. While the piracy advocates weakly denied their own existence, they claimed violation of rights, intrusion by a tyrannical government and that enforcement would be anywhere from impractical to impossible. These opponents decided that archaic and unwieldy government enforcement techniques and the internet giants themselves should be adequate to resolve the issue. This was all done under cover of protecting internet freedom for the consumer.

Apparently, that was phase 1 of the private enterprise hypocrisy. They are now implementing phase 2 by charging you for bandwidth that they won’t have to deliver. A cartel of internet service providers is putting a plan into action to self-police the internet at the expense of their customers. If a customer is deemed by an intellectual property owner to be violating their copyright ownership, the ISP will issue a series of warnings to the customer and then may throttle their internet bandwidth for a period of time. There is currently no plans to terminate service, but since this is a relatively unregulated utility, that can change that at any time. This will be done without the benefit of redress or any court action whatsoever.

Instead of prosecuting foreign content thieves, the American consumer will be burdened for the infraction whether or not they have done so; intentionally or with any knowledge of unlawful activity. All the same elements that everybody objected to with SOPA/PIPA are still there. A lack of judicial oversight, no opportunity for redress, restriction of internet freedom, no controls in place for erroneous or malicious claims and especially no restriction regarding the business reach of these penalties.

Exchanging a perceived government overlord with an unaccountable free market one is not a satisfactory choice. Things like this are the type of direct consequence that we bring upon ourselves with the imagined evil intentions of an elected government. While we hold the government accountable because we can, allowing ourselves to be manipulated by an unfeeling private industry is self-destructive desperation.

kayjayuu.livejournal.com

I've enjoyed watching or following the Olympics since I was a little kid. At one point I fantasized about being in the Olympics, despite not having any sports talent whatsoever. Didn't we all? It looked like fun and games! Sportsmanship and brotherhood! Peanut butter and jelly! Bread and Circuses!

This year, though, I have cut my cable and, while I still have interest in the individual athletes and some events, I more than likely will not give it much time aside from the occasional YouTube upload and passing news story. Which means I'm also committing the gravest sin, probably punishable by imprisonment somewhere in our Brave New World (read: Britain, this year): Anti-Commercial-Engagementism*.

I won't be seeing the Official Sponsor of the Official Sponsors, hardly anywhere. I'm sure they'll be all over my webpages except... a) I use a lot of Adblock, b) I'm blind to most web advertising in the way that I ignore the bugs on my car windshield, c) 99% of ads I do see work inversely with me -- DNW specifically because I saw the ad, and d) I don't hang out on websites with advertising. I'm a bad, bad capitalist.

Unlike those such as myself, many others find themselves faced with the opposite dilemma: that of actually using the words "Games," "Two Thousand and Twelve," "2012," and "twenty twelve" in a sentence. Or pairing any and all of the above with "Gold," "Silver," "Bronze," "London," "medals," "sponsors," or "summer." Because obviously they're making a buck discussing the gold fields of grain in the summer of 2012 down at the farmer's co-op. Or something.

( But wait, there's more! )

Mood: cynical

stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

How much greater would their contributions to the U.S. economy be if U.S. copyright owners could access foreign markets otherwise dominated by pirate product? - Howard Berman

I recently purchased and installed a $60 video game called Diablo III on my PC. This game was created, sold and distributed by Blizzard Entertainment, the makers of World of Warcraft. It is obviously a reputable and dependable company. I was also a fan of Diablo II so I was looking forward to this game. What I wasn’t anticipating was being at the mercy of the vendor to be able to use the validly licensed product for individual desktop use.

I am not a hardcore gamer. I look at video games as vacuous entertainment, just like most television. I would like to be able to play it during one of my many bouts of insomnia to pass the time on my days off. Diablo II, unlike Diablo III, was not reliant on a continuous internet connection to the vendor to play the game individually on the desktop. Since the game is desktop resident, it only uses the free (for now) and constant (until the game loses popularity) vendor connection for (D)igital (R)ights (M)anagement for desktop play to insure a properly licensed copy.

I bought the game 2 days after it launched on May 15, 2012 and took the gaming world by storm. Amazon.com said it was the highest volume preordered game in their history. There were widely reported incidents of vendor outages for the first 48 hours of the game launch. After that, it has not been unusual for the game to be interrupted due to a vendor connection problem. Right now, I am composing this post because the vendor servers are down for 8 hours of maintenance.

The vendor is perfectly justified to protect their digital intellectual property. With worldwide pirating being a problem that is widely recognized, I can see their point. This game was 3 years in the making and I have no doubt that the development costs were astronomical ($100 million) by industry standards. Aside from the animosity about regulation and denial of freedom concerning the government, I have no doubt that this is the kind of direction that the private entertainment sector is going to be motivated to take to protect their digital rights investments.

This is not a slippery slope or snowball effect style argument. This is an actual implementation. I would expect that this is going to be implemented throughout the entertainment and literary industry. Gone will be the days when music, movies, books, software, educational materials, games, periodicals and other digitally based or printed media can be easily licensed or purchased. We already have the technology for unrestricted per use and subscription only access. Once again, the rights of the honest consumer are going to be compromised for those that commit crimes against sincere intellectual property developers.

Do you think your cable bill is bad? Wait until you have to purchase 10 similar subscription services to get the content you take for granted today. The choice has been made whether we want the digital gun held to our head by some ridiculous perception that the government exists to hold a kill switch for legitimate communication; or having that gun held by private sector entities whose entire existence is defined by the ability to leave no stone unturned to increase their profits.

SOPA/PIPA was assassinated by the public to augment pirates’ ability to steal digital content for a synthetic perception of freedom. Thank you, SOPA/PIPA opponents. Prepare to bathe in the blood of this legislation with heavily restricted access to digital and printed content.

airiefairie.livejournal.com

French ‘Three Strikes’ Law Slashes Piracy, But Fails to Boost Sales
http://torrentfreak.com/french-three-strikes-law-slashes-piracy-but-fails-to-boost-sales-120330/

So... apparently France is now claiming the title of standard-bearer of anti-piracy legislation. A recent law has resulted in a 66% reduction of piracy in the country, BUT! Maybe surprisingly (to some), the sales haven't improved any.

Perhaps it is time to reassess the correlation between tougher anti-piracy legislation and the effects on the industry? To get real and "face the music", so to speak? As it turns out, people download pirated stuff that they would not otherwise buy. Or am I getting this wrong and there is some other factor that I am missing?

Of course the failure of this legislation to bring the desired effect still does not erase the other question: Just because piracy doesn't necessarily directly correlate to lost sales, still does that make it OK? From an ethical POV? In other words, does there have to be a victim for there to be a crime?

( A solution - maybe )

a-new-machine.livejournal.com

Once upon a time, I wanted to be a copyright attorney post-graduation. I am enamored of quite a few fields where copyright is a key issue, particularly gaming. Then I took a few IP classes. I still find the law interesting, but for totally different reasons.

Copyright and patent laws are interesting because they are an express command, in the US Constitution, to engage in social engineering. They allow the creation of monopolies to encourage invention and creativity. This has its upsides and downsides, of course. The upside is that owners of the IP get to exploit it for a limited time, and the downside is that only they get to. Since everything is a remix, this sort of restriction is moderately anti-creativity, if we understand that the vast majority of creative people are extremely good at mixing-and-matching things that others have done before. It's presumed that we get more out of it than we lose, though.( But do we? )

mahnmut.livejournal.com

When is freedom slavery and ignorance is strength? It's when under a specious pretext the freedom of expression gets brutally oppressed. And when the ACTA was getting born. Then peace became war. And ignorance became strength.

Say, you're a bank employee. One nice day someone knocks at your door, you open, and suddenly a bunch of cops jump in and arrest you. On what charges? You don't know. The trial is over before it has even begun. You're sentenced without being given a chance to defend yourself. What's there to defend about, they ask? The evidence is there. "But what have I done?", you desperately insist, while passing under the slogan that hangs over the entrance of the Ministry of Truth, saying "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength".

"He was spreading knowledge!", the prosecutor barks. "And people should be constantly spoon-fed little useless facts, only then will they have a sense of dynamics without being able to move! And they shall be happy! MUHAHAHA." ...

OK, that was just a lyrical diversion. ;-) Actually the year is not 1984. The year is 2012, and the world has just ratified the ACTA. Kafka, Orwell and Bradbury are sitting around a table, drinking Bourbon and playing poker.

Kafka: "While I was writing The Trial, I never realized I was giving them instructions. I swear!"
Orwell: "And I'm so dumb. I mixed up the dates! In 1948 I thought it'd be cool if I substituted the last two digits, so I got 1984. If I had had more brains I'd have summed the 4+8 and gotten 12. It should've been 2012!"
Bradbury: You're such n00bs, you know? Both of you, duh. Whoever still fucking reads your books anyway? (Kafka and Orwell give him a side-eye look). Quick, quick, come closer to the fireplace if you're suddenly feeling cold. I still have a few copies of my book".
Kafka: "Yeah, it's a bit cold in here... Why don't you throw a couple more books into the fire?"
Orwell: "Look at them, ain't they just beautiful as they burn? Such a beauty, even Big Brother couldn't dream of that in his wildest dreams!"
Bradbury: "The temperature is 451 Fahrenheit, har har har!"

( War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength )

stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a threatening characteristic shared by the latter group. - Robin Morgan

Ladieeeees and Gentlemen. Let’s get ready to rummmbbble. Tonight’s bout is between two leviathans. In one corner, weighing in with Social Media, Web 2.0, Google, Facebook, Twitter and other web applications we have the Mighty Internet. In the other corner, weighing in with the entertainment media industry, the literary industry, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the proprietary pharmaceutical industry, the software application industry and other privately owned products is Propertus Intellectus. Your referee tonight is from the U.S. Government, SOPA PIPA. You know the rules. Let’s have a fair fight.

( Ding Ding Ding. Round 1 )

jerseycajun.livejournal.com

Hey all,

Starting up Firefox the morning brought my attention to a couple of upcoming bills before congress. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP act of 2011.

I can't offer much yet in the way of my own personal analysis, except that it seems the usual suspects are lining up on either side, with the RIAA et al on the "For" side and Google et al on the "Against" side. So I'm inclined to lean with the latter, especially given that the title of a bill and its stated summary of purpose almost always contradicts its actual text and implications. In any case, has anyone else read much about these two bills, the pitfalls or benefits?

rasilio.livejournal.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/25/navy-seals-fights-mickey-mouse-trademark/

"On May 3, just two days after Usama bin Laden was killed in a raid on the Al Qaeda leader’s Pakistan compound, Disney filed trademark applications to use the name "SEAL Team 6" on everything from entertainment, toys, video games, clothing, footwear -- even Christmas ornaments and snow globes."

This just shows how screwed up out IP laws are. The idea that there is enough of a chance of this succeeding that Disney even bothered to file for the trademark is ridiculous. It is absolutely and abundantly clear that Disney will be attempting to leverage the already existing reputation of the actual Seal Teams to sell these products without the actual members of the seal teams or the US Navy who sponsors them getting any credit or profit.

The proper response at the patent and trade mark office to this should be a hearty laugh followed immediately by a denial, however under current law that so favors large corporations they have a very real chance of winning their claim and getting the trademark which would mean that the Navy couldn't even use the name in their recruiting ads without paying tribute to Disney.

verytwistedmind.livejournal.com

If you ever want to make the “®” it’s alt + 174. Now don’t say I never taught you anything.

There have been two interesting articles regarding copy right I want to discuss.

Article 1:

The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.

ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.

The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations."

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130763-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names-

Copyright infringement is a crime. There is no arguing that. However, is this the job of Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Why are they doing this?

Article 2:

Americans for Limited Government is calling on the U.S. Justice Department to take action against a liberal think tank for using seal of the American President on a new policy publication.

In general, commercial use of the seal is prohibited by 18 USC 713^[6] of the United States Code, and further defined by Executive Orders 11916 and 11649. The United States Secret Service is authorized to use the seal in conjunction to fund raising sales for its charitable benefit fund

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, reportedly sent a letter to White House counsel Bob Bauer asking if the Obama administration had granted a special exception for CAP’s “The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change,” a policy publication which offers suggestions for President Obama to pursue the progressive agenda through executive orders in lieu of legislative initiatives.

The Center for American Progress has since responded, claiming the organization purchased a photograph of the seal from the Associated Press, offering no further clarification on its use of the seal on its publication.

In response, Manning said, “They’re admitting they did not get permission. So the operating question is: Is the White House going to take action to protect the seal because it violates the statute?” .

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/can-the-center-for-american-progress-really-use-the-presidential-seal-in-self-promotion/

This also appears to be a crime. However, ICE has not put the impressive: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations." on the link for the Think Progressive use of the Presidential Seal. Isn't the unpermitted use of the Presidential Seal more dangerous to Home Land Security than someone selling Proda g-strings?

Why do we have metaphoric black helicopters closing down websites selling knockoff goods but laissez-faire use of the Presidential Seal? Is the lack of uproar about the use of the Presidential Seal on a Progressive think tank’s a double standard? What do you think the motivation is behind ICE’s new power to seize websites? Have you ever purhchased a cheap knockoff product or pirated music or movies?

allhatnocattle.livejournal.com

I dunno

talk_politics community standards but plagiarism shouldn't be acceptable.

I'm not going to call anyone out, not directly. But it was pointed out that an entry with over 100 comments is a lightly edited version of one by a profession pundit. Frankly I agree.

In a private conversation, another opinion stated that, It's more than "lightly edited," it's the same story rephrased completely differently using the same videos. and later explained, We consistently have long posts that ipaste liberally from news reports and such, so there'd be no issue even then. Perhaps this is true, but I don't like it.

Let me tell you an story. We used to have a great reporter here who used to climb up into the rafters of CityHall to eavesdrop in on the closed door sessions and reported what was going on. Later this reporter was elected Mayor and eventually Premier of the Province. People didn't always like what he did or what he had to say, but he was never caught in a lie. Ralph Klein was perhaps one of the only honest politicians. This not only made him a great Premier, loved by many, but also made him hated and the target of much criticism.

Well shortly before Ralph Klein retired as Premier an investigative journalist accused him of plagiarizing an essay on Chile for his degree in communications. It wasn't so much that he copy/pasted whole paragraphs, but that he failed to cite his internet sources. The university cleared him, saying the infraction was relatively minor, but still his critics, never willing to let a grudge go, never fail to bring this up whenever he makes the news.

This community is just for fun. I don't mean to place too much importance on it's importance, if you catch my drift. But really, how hard is it to cite a source? I mean if somebody is going to copy/paste/lightly edit somebody else's work, the only reason to do so it to disguise the origin and pass it off as your own. It's probably better find something so completely obscure that it can't be found in a simple google search of the text you used.

Better yet, why not just write your own piece? For myself it's often amazing to discover my own opinions that are only revealed to myself through my writing. I have learned that the process of writing is the process of forming my perspectives on subjects.

featherwizard.livejournal.com

If You Believe in IP, How Can You Teach Others?

I propose Wizard's Law: People are absurd to the limit of their legal ability.

& Coda: People are absurd to the limit of their likely ability to evade legal consequences.

EDIT: Alright, I'm updating this article with a basic overview & history behind copyright and general property laws.

1) People haven't always been able to own property legally. In fact, for most of history they couldn't. Capitalism, a new theory which holds that everyone has an equal right to the ability to own property (not to actually own property, but to be able to), has drastically expanded what people can view as 'theirs'.

2) Property law is based on the idea that one can have property, and that losing the property damages the owner. This is obvious for most physical objects: If you steal my car, I have lost access to and control over the car. I can no longer transform the car into money (ie, sell it) if I need to.

3) IP is different from regular property because one can take it without causing the owner to lose it. This causes all kinds of wrinkles. Ex: You have a picture of the car. I make a copy of your picture, and now also own an identical picture of a car. But you still have the picture and can convert it to cash, so by regular-property standards I haven't damaged you. If your picture is very rare and worth a lot of money I might be able to sell it as an original, but you still aren't damaged. If I managed to convince people that your picture is a fake and mine is real, you're damaged, but only because I'm perpetrating fraud. Which is different from taking property, and a separate offence for which you can sue me.

This is the most basic area of difference between regular property and IP (not the only one, but the most central).

Main points of US copyright law, and most international copyright laws that I'm aware of include:
1) You can only copyright a specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself. This is important for music, books, software, science, etc. Basically any field dependent on creating ideas and turning them into products. I actually can't think of any area of human life that this isn't important for.

Frivolous and yet Scary Ex: If we had copyright on ideas, Tolkien could have copyrighted his elves, & no one else would be able create elves. This would significantly reduce the amount of recreational reading material available today, along with almost every computer game that uses elves, most role-playing systems, figurines, etc. Huge devastating effect on cultural vibrancy. Same thing applies for physical laws, computer algorithms, the process of weaving, making fire...

2) You can patent idea-like things in the process in inventing them, but it's a multi-year & very expensive process, usually used for specific products and physical creations. The US Supreme Court is in the process of likely striking down attempts to patent business methods (ie, ideas), which means that the Stanford professors couldn't patent the ideas they are teaching either.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
The Scramble for Resources

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with intellectual property

New World Order, Inc.

National Intelligence

Nature vs Myriad Genetics

The Politics of Neuromania: The Impotence of Vision‏

The Enterprises Strike Back

Welcome to the Jungle/Oligarchy/Plutocracy/Corporatocracy!

Thanks, SOPA/PIPA Opponents

Cracking down on piracy, and what's the result?

Assessing IP

Minus 451 Fahrenheit

Clash of the Enterprise Titans

SOPA and Protect IP acts

Watch Out Mommar, Mickey Mouse may be gunning for you

Copy Rights ® vs Homeland Security

Plagiarism

If You Believe in IP, How Can You Teach Others?

Credits & Style Info

Links

May 2025

Summary