Comments on: AP v. AHN Case Settled but “Hot News” Doctrine Still Alive

By: GERARD

GERARD — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:25:12 +0000

CheapTabletsOnline.Com. Canadian Health&Care.Best quality drugs.No prescription online pharmacy.Special Internet Prices. High quality pills. Order drugs online…

Buy:Buspar.Zocor.Ventolin.Lipothin.Acomplia.Amoxicillin.Benicar.Female Cialis.Nymphomax.SleepWell.Prozac.Wellbutrin SR.Female Pink Viagra.Seroquel.Advair.Lipitor.Aricept.Zetia.Lasix.Cozaar….

By: jimbarrows

jimbarrows — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:01:03 +0000

Actually, the copyright on the reproduction of a 400 year old book isn't keeping me from knowing more. It's keeping me from making th e book more valuable by increasing exposure to it. You can make the exact same claim to any piece of copyrighted material. The only real copyright law we need is don't plagiarize, aka the Creative Commons license.
As to copy rights in software, Open Source software, and the licensing underneath is allowing an incredible boom in creativity. Linux, Open Office, SQL Ledger, Open For Business, My SQL run the gamut in excellent Open Source Software that's available for businesses to use. Firefox of course is well known. I can right now start any business off with enterprise class software for any area it needs. Free.
Websites like Freshbooks, Facebook and other are heavily dependent on Open Source for their core features. As a Software Developer, I find that most of the commercial, heavily copyrighted libraries, are more painful to use, and usually less useful then any Open Source library.
More commercially consider that the RIAA, and it's members made more money during the heyday of Napster, then at any other time in it's history. They claim the contrary but their members own stock filings say otherwise. More importantly they (more importantly, their lawyers)have declared DRM dead just recently.
Company's like Microsoft and IBM have war chests full patents, and they use them to restrict innovation ( I mean competition of course). Company's like SCO also use them to restrict competition, and make a buck. There are many company's whose only purpose in life is to patent everything, and then sue other company's for violating those patents. MS and IBM at least, typically only pull out there patent war chests when they get sued for infringement themselves.
I can point to many more examples of how so called Intellectual Property rights don't actually stimulate innovation. In fact, it's easier to prove that they restrict innovation by there very nature. Every IP law says "You can't use this, or only in the ways that I allow". Innovation by it's very nature says that you can't predict how something can be used. The small garage inventor can rarely afford the fees, and by the time they find out about the patent, the penalties put them out of business.
If you want to know more, go search patent, patent office and patent troll on slashdot.org sometime. While slashdot is a geek community, it's also very aware of the legal implications of IP laws. There's a lot of articles there.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:46:22 +0000

jimbarrows,

Thank you for your thoughtful response and excellent article reference. Although the article brings up several good points regarding Patent law that can effectively be argued for most other types of IP law; I have to disagree that the end analysis is that patent law restricts innovation. I think the article's main point is that CURRENT patent law restricts innovation. Particularly in cases where technological advances build upon each other and patents can impede subsequent innovations. Your situation is a perfect example of how one seemingly unrelated patent is keeping you from expanding your knowledge. Have you contacted the owner/company that owns the patent to the high res scans?

Personally I think that US patent laws are not flexible enough to address many 21st century technologies...mainly IT. Blanket patents, patent categories and exclusivity time periods may diminish innovation in computer sciences but may continue to enhance competitive innovation in pharmaceuticals. Perhaps patent statutes need to be more specific to different industries and caveats created for patents that effect upstream technologies. Further, the fine line of preventing overly powerful monopolies should also be addressed, particularly in the case of pharmaceuticals.

At the end of the day, some type of IP protection is needed for inventors; the question is do current policies effectively protect innovators and encourage innovation? The answer is looking more like...NO.

By: jimbarrows

jimbarrows — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:04:44 +0000

Here's a rather interesting simulation regarding patent law and innovation: http://academiccommons.columbia.edu:8080/ac/bit...
Essentially they conclude that patent law restricts innovation, not enhances it. I wonder if the same is true of copyright law. I'm running into an issue that is definitely stifling my innovation.
There is a sword manual written by Fiore, that's sitting in the Getty musuem. However, because I don't have the proper credentials, I can't paw at it. Even worse, I can't use the high-res scans of it in a website on learning fiore's system of fighting with the long sword. Why? Because while the manuscript itself isn't copyrightable, the scans apparently are.
So, the effect is that I can't use a copy of the original to help stimulate interest in the long dead authors book, and make the Getty's copy even more valuable. Because they've copyright the snot out of it.
Anyway, just something to think about…….