

Against Intellectual Monopoly - Jach
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

======
PythonicAlpha
Interesting book and good title.

The problem is really that so called Intellectual Property is just a new form
of monopolizing new areas of human living. The result is, that intellectual
work will be also dominated by those that have monopolized already the other
things in the world: the rich.

After money was cached in the hand of view, after land has been sold, after
everything has its price-tag -- the last thing, how some people can change
their faith and also can get some piece of the pie, their ideas, shall also be
monopolized.

That's all it is about.

Without patents, some can have a good idea, invent something and become rich.
But with full patent enforcement in place, the durability of IP (copyright and
patents) enhanced to the max, you can not have any ideas any longer, since
every idea you will have, will infringe on some patent. You can not even sing
"Happy Birthday" without paying to somebody.

The big companies already want, that patents, copyrights and the sort are
coming to new areas, like film-making. So every idea can be owned, by the big
companies and thus by those that own the most shares of them.

~~~
amirmc
_" Without patents, some can have a good idea, invent something and become
rich."_

Equally, they could have a good idea, invent something and then have an
existing, larger company just copy it outright (with no legal recourse for the
inventor).

~~~
ronaldx
This is what happens currently anyway, no?

The only people who can afford to deal with patent/IP law properly are
existing, larger companies.

I claim the opposite of you: that current law exclusively helps the existing,
larger companies.

~~~
amirmc
> _" I claim the opposite of you: that current law exclusively helps the
> existing, larger companies."_

I'm trying to point out that it's driven by whoever is bigger and has deeper
pockets. Either for patent fees or for the lawyers who litigate or for the
resources to duplicate.

In other words, the 'little guy' is going to get screwed either way so I'm
arguing against the specific statement I quoted in my earlier comment (i.e
that without patents, someone can invent something and get rich).

I'm not claiming that the current system is ok (far from it), but I do see the
benefits of a properly functioning patent system -- (but excluding software
patents, they make no sense to me).

~~~
ronaldx
My argument goes as follows:

1\. If you invent something, a larger company has the opportunity to copy you.
This is inevitable: as an independent inventor, IP law (as it exists) does not
help you because you typically would not have the resources to use it
effectively against a lawyer-readied corporation.

2\. If you execute your invention in a way which the larger company cannot
easily copy, you can become independently successful.

3\. In cases where (2) takes profits away from the larger company, they will
use IP law to prevent you from doing so. This is the primary use case of IP
law.

So we're agreed that the little guy gets screwed either way, but I think IP
law gives the big guy an extra round of ammunition.

~~~
amirmc
I guess we're taking different viewpoints on this. I'm considering the ability
of a new player to protect and exploit their invention (defensive), whereas
you're thinking of an existing player using the same system to prevent others
encroaching on their market (offensive). Both are valid.

I'm not disagreeing with your argument. I'm specifically disagreeing with the
fourth paragraph of the top post. It presumes that everything is already
'invented', which I disagree with. What he/she is really saying is that
'whoever has the most lawyers will win'. It's not even about IP law at that
point.

Edit: Yes, the way things work now IP can simply work as ammunition for BigCo.
However, even if we did away with it, BigCo's boots/fists/whatever are still
bigger than yours (so the "Without patents" part does not hold up).

------
Fuxy
I always wondered if you can own/copyright and idea can i patent a word.

A word basically represents an idea and when we say that word we all
understand what it represents however it is an abstract concept that is why
certain words have different meanings for different people.

It would be hilarious if I could sue publishers for using certain words in
their books.

~~~
anon4
I don't know about patents, but unique words are absolutely copyrightable.
Tolkien's son still holds the copyright on "Hobbit", for example, which is why
everybody who copied from The Lord of the Rings, in particular D&D, used
"halfling".

