5 ms·

I think what he's trying to express is that patent law shouldn't be bound up in concerns of party policy. Once something becomes part of the polarization, it's

by slphil 8y ago

I think what he's trying to express is that patent law shouldn't be bound up in concerns of party policy. Once something becomes part of the polarization, it's over.

bdowling 8y ago
Patent reform is fundamentally about business interests, which are non-partisan. Some business want more patent protections, others want fewer. None of them care whether it is a Democrat or a Republican who makes their desired reforms. Groups like the EFF try to make patent law into a civil rights issue. They'll regularly frame the issues as being about big corporations misusing patents against "the little guy", often a sympathetic figure like the activist and language learning site admin here. They try to get ordinary people riled up about what patent law should be, often by misconstruing facts and simplifying current patent law, which can be quite nuanced. Actual patent disputes are always between businesses and always concern financial interests. There is always one party who doesn't want to pay licensing fees or wants to do something that the other party doesn't want to license. The businesses could negotiate a deal where they would all make money, or the allegedly-infringing party could "invent around" the patent, but for whatever reason they can't agree on how much money each of them should make and they decide that a lawsuit is a better course of action. In any case, some businesses will give money to the EFF and the EFF is happy to present views that are compatible with those businesses' interests. Everyone else is just taken for a ride.
- alsetmusic 8y ago
  It sounds like you’re accusing EFF of having pretty loose ethics. Can you provide references to back up your position?
  - bdowling 8y ago
    I did not intend to accuse the EFF of anything unethical. Just because their positions on patent law are aligned with those of certain corporate sponsors does not mean that their views are influenced by those corporate sponsors. I assume that their association is merely one based on common beliefs.
- taeric 8y ago
  Business interests are non partisan? This is close to claiming national interests are non partisan. Which just feels laughable. Political parties are made up of members. Some members will benefit from some policies. Many because their business interests will benefit from said policies. To claim they are unrelated seems fishy, at best. Now, you are probably right that nobody cares at high level whether it is a Democrat or a Republican policy that is benefiting them. I would wager the odds are good that businesses frequently get benefits from one more than the other, though.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Though (commercial?) business interests can be partisan, I’d like to see the EFF just mind the law (legal) aspect of things, rather than get into politics. What I mean is act more like a non partisan judge who puersues justice rather than an entity that evolves into a political entity which becomes activist in pursuit of its own goals.
    - taeric 8y ago
      This honestly sounds like you just disagree with them. They are literally a political organization. They are, ideally, not just a front for democrats or republicans. However, if they were just a front for the law, they would be unnecessary. Since, well, the law should already be a front for the law. :)
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  Patents are absolutely not just about business interests. Patents affect individuals and open source projects just as much as they affect commercial businesses. Take for example the Makerbot patent on the Thing-O-Matic, a conveyor belt add on for 3D printers. Makerbot patented the concept, then discontinued the product. Hobbyists who designed upgrades to share freely openly expressed frustration for years about this. Many people wanted the device but community members regularly expressed in online communities that they feared legal action if they designed an open source replacement for the defunct patented product. Finally recently some hobbyists have found a way to work around the patent by designing a printer where the print head is not parallel to the build plate (a key claim of the patent in question). However printing this way has some major limitations, and the original process would be simpler. The 3D printing community was held back for 5-10 years in sequential printing technology because of this patent. When a free group of people are prohibited from sharing ideas with each other due to fear from state intervention, it absolutely becomes a civil rights issue. Is it fair for the government to prevent individuals from freely exchanging information because a third party has laid claim to that idea? Is it even a legitimate claim that one entity can own an idea that they formed through the integration of preexisting ideas? From a practical perspective does the legal artifice of intellectual property even serve the oft-cited purpose of improving the general welfare? Should we continue to support this notion? These are questions we all should ask ourselves and debate amongst each other. We invented intellectual property and created laws that enforce it. We must continue to discuss if such an extreme limit on human behavior is rational or fair in the modern world. Billions of people are prohibited from accessing information that could help them thrive. We can now copy information at almost no cost, but our legal system prevents us from doing so for the bulk of the world’s knowledge. Is this just? Is it sensible?
  - consp 8y ago
    > feared legal action if they designed an open source replacement for the defunct patented product. As far as I know you can make it as the patent expression (not patent itself) had been invalidated by pulling the patented product from the market and providing no alternative. It's a bit different from trolls as there was a product and it was pulled.
  - 8y ago
taeric 8y ago
This is naive to the point of self defeating. Since one can easily polarize pretty much any topic. I mean, I think I get what you want to mean. But you would be hard pressed to encode it in any actual rules. Unless you are just going to constantly appeal to the spirit of the rules.

by slphil 8y ago

I think what he's trying to express is that patent law shouldn't be bound up in concerns of party policy. Once something becomes part of the polarization, it's over.

bdowling 8y ago

Patent reform is fundamentally about business interests, which are non-partisan. Some business want more patent protections, others want fewer. None of them care whether it is a Democrat or a Republican who makes their desired reforms. Groups like the EFF try to make patent law into a civil rights issue. They'll regularly frame the issues as being about big corporations misusing patents against "the little guy", often a sympathetic figure like the activist and language learning site admin here. They try to get ordinary people riled up about what patent law should be, often by misconstruing facts and simplifying current patent law, which can be quite nuanced. Actual patent disputes are always between businesses and always concern financial interests. There is always one party who doesn't want to pay licensing fees or wants to do something that the other party doesn't want to license. The businesses could negotiate a deal where they would all make money, or the allegedly-infringing party could "invent around" the patent, but for whatever reason they can't agree on how much money each of them should make and they decide that a lawsuit is a better course of action. In any case, some businesses will give money to the EFF and the EFF is happy to present views that are compatible with those businesses' interests. Everyone else is just taken for a ride.

alsetmusic 8y ago
It sounds like you’re accusing EFF of having pretty loose ethics. Can you provide references to back up your position?
- bdowling 8y ago
  I did not intend to accuse the EFF of anything unethical. Just because their positions on patent law are aligned with those of certain corporate sponsors does not mean that their views are influenced by those corporate sponsors. I assume that their association is merely one based on common beliefs.
taeric 8y ago
Business interests are non partisan? This is close to claiming national interests are non partisan. Which just feels laughable. Political parties are made up of members. Some members will benefit from some policies. Many because their business interests will benefit from said policies. To claim they are unrelated seems fishy, at best. Now, you are probably right that nobody cares at high level whether it is a Democrat or a Republican policy that is benefiting them. I would wager the odds are good that businesses frequently get benefits from one more than the other, though.
- mc32 8y ago
  Though (commercial?) business interests can be partisan, I’d like to see the EFF just mind the law (legal) aspect of things, rather than get into politics. What I mean is act more like a non partisan judge who puersues justice rather than an entity that evolves into a political entity which becomes activist in pursuit of its own goals.
  - taeric 8y ago
    This honestly sounds like you just disagree with them. They are literally a political organization. They are, ideally, not just a front for democrats or republicans. However, if they were just a front for the law, they would be unnecessary. Since, well, the law should already be a front for the law. :)
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Patents are absolutely not just about business interests. Patents affect individuals and open source projects just as much as they affect commercial businesses. Take for example the Makerbot patent on the Thing-O-Matic, a conveyor belt add on for 3D printers. Makerbot patented the concept, then discontinued the product. Hobbyists who designed upgrades to share freely openly expressed frustration for years about this. Many people wanted the device but community members regularly expressed in online communities that they feared legal action if they designed an open source replacement for the defunct patented product. Finally recently some hobbyists have found a way to work around the patent by designing a printer where the print head is not parallel to the build plate (a key claim of the patent in question). However printing this way has some major limitations, and the original process would be simpler. The 3D printing community was held back for 5-10 years in sequential printing technology because of this patent. When a free group of people are prohibited from sharing ideas with each other due to fear from state intervention, it absolutely becomes a civil rights issue. Is it fair for the government to prevent individuals from freely exchanging information because a third party has laid claim to that idea? Is it even a legitimate claim that one entity can own an idea that they formed through the integration of preexisting ideas? From a practical perspective does the legal artifice of intellectual property even serve the oft-cited purpose of improving the general welfare? Should we continue to support this notion? These are questions we all should ask ourselves and debate amongst each other. We invented intellectual property and created laws that enforce it. We must continue to discuss if such an extreme limit on human behavior is rational or fair in the modern world. Billions of people are prohibited from accessing information that could help them thrive. We can now copy information at almost no cost, but our legal system prevents us from doing so for the bulk of the world’s knowledge. Is this just? Is it sensible?
- consp 8y ago
  > feared legal action if they designed an open source replacement for the defunct patented product. As far as I know you can make it as the patent expression (not patent itself) had been invalidated by pulling the patented product from the market and providing no alternative. It's a bit different from trolls as there was a product and it was pulled.
- 8y ago

taeric 8y ago

This is naive to the point of self defeating. Since one can easily polarize pretty much any topic. I mean, I think I get what you want to mean. But you would be hard pressed to encode it in any actual rules. Unless you are just going to constantly appeal to the spirit of the rules.