Member 2664
108 entries
503368 views

 RSS
(M)
US
Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
mad-scientist and computer programmer looking for something more interesting than most people accept as their future
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    BenRayfield’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    A musical mindstorm on the nature of sound, light, space and subjective experience powered by locally produced energy, heralding the ending of the...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From BenRayfield's personal cargo

    Copyrights Cause More Piracy Than File Sharing


    The leading cause of death is birth, and the leading cause of piracy is copyrights and patents, but the difference is more good things than bad happen if we get rid of patents and copyrights.

    This thread is not about who deserves what or who owns what. The future is much more important than the past. Theoretically, if a majority of the 7 billion people agreed to change something that benefits more people on average than not changing it, then that is enough permission to do it. Or as its said on Star Trek, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

    There are some organizations each named "pirate party" which advocate legalizing piracy (ending patents and/or copyrights etc), but I don't know the details. Their strategy is too confrontational and will not work.

    Instead, think about the greed and short sightedness of governments and others with power.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
    If a frog is in room temperature water and nothing else disturbs it, it will probably stay there. If the water very slowly increases temperature eventually boiling, the frog usually does not notice the temperature changing and stays there until it dies.

    When thinking about the future of the Human species, most people have a lot in common with frogs. We can use that.

    Similarly, if we make the process of ending copyrights and patents very slow and gradual enough that you can take a calculus derivative (slope of a line) on it, and if we give those in power a reason to start the process, then they will be greedy enough to take the short-term benefits in exchange for everybody's long-term freedom.

    Those in power would extremely oppose a change at any 1 time that decreased the power or duration of patents or copyrights, regardless of how small the change is.

    Instead, what if we made patents and copyrights STRONGER instantly and gradually made them weaker until they didn't exist? Those in power would go for it because they personally would make a lot of money before the gradual change affected them much.

    For example as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent  says some patents last 20 years. We could change that so all new patents of that type would last 40 years, and over the next 10 years, decrease that CONTINUOUSLY from 40 to 0 as the years CONTINUOUSLY change from 0 to 10 years from now, only affecting the duration granted to new patents, not changing the duration of any patent previously granted.

    It would be to the selfish advantage of most of those in power to accept the offer, and after 10 years, no new patents or copyrights would ever be granted again, and some years after that, all patents and copyrights would expire (unless people see how well things work without patents and decide to get rid of them before the 40 years. Governments change the rules on us all the time, so theres nothing wrong with us doing the same after most of the patents/copyrights are gone, if we can).

    There would be no 1 time that any significant fraction of the patents expire. It would happen gradually because new patents granted would each be granted for a little shorter time than the last patent. No sudden changes. No riots. No excuses of not having time to prepare. Complete destruction of the intellectual property system globally, without breaking any laws. Checkmate.

    Like a moth to a flame. Its a trap those in power can't resist, even if they know its a trap. Don't mess with a Sun Tzu strategist.

    QUESTION TO EVERYONE: After the gradual confusion and inefficiency becomes freedom for everyone to build anything, and after some people go without certain things until they figure out they need to reorganize society to build them different ways, what would society eventually become?

    Fri, Dec 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: copyright, patent, piracy, gradual
      RSS for this post
    2 comments
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    CoCreatr     Sat, Dec 4, 2010  Permanent link
    Thanks, Ben, this looks like a god idea to achieve what Josef Hasslberger wrote in 1989


    THE INVENTOR AND SOCIETY

    It has been suggested in a recent publication, that once an inventor makes an invention, it becomes public property. This is an interesting assertion and leads to a new view of the relationship between inventor and society, as presently regulated by patent and related laws. These laws as they exist in most countries today are woefully inadequate to protect the interests of the inventor on the one side and the interests of society on the other.

    The interests of the inventor

    Our patent laws, although made with good intent, have proven to be inadequate to provide any kind of acceptable protection for the inventor. For one thing, the laws are too complicated and the procedures for examining an invention and granting a patent too arbitrary, put into the hands of "patent examiners" that may or may not comprehend the essential newness of an invention and so reject it with the conception that "it cannot possibly work".

    Inventors often spend years of their life and huge amounts of money to get an invention patented, only to finally give up in resignation and disgust at the barriers that an efficient bureaucracy can put in the way of anything new. Small wonder that some inventors in their embitterment decide that mankind is really not yet ready for their invention, and that many a good invention instead of being used to the benefit of all dies with the inventor, the secret being taken into the grave to be buried forever.

    And if the inventor by sheer persistence manages to patent his invention, he then has to either sell or license the use of his patent. And there are many cases of inventors trying to collect what is due to them from powerful industrial societies who have at their disposal the best lawyers and who rarely pay without legal action. An uneven match to say the least.

    The interest of society
    Our patent laws also do not protect the interest of society, which is an interest in seeing that inventions once made actually get applied. Patents do not give an assurance of this, although some countries have regulations to force licensing of patents or production of the things patented. But in the face of commercial reluctance to use certain new procedures that would make yesterday's investments worthless, these regulations are quite inadequate.

    How often have patents been bought by powerful financial/industrial interests and have been put away in a deep drawer, never to be heard of anymore. I am sure some inventors would have stories to tell.

    It can certainly not be in the interest of society that an invention that is of potential benefit to the society can be bought and its use effectively prevented, using the very patent laws that should assure the invention getting into the hands of the public. In this way, the best of a society's intelligence is abused and suppressed, resulting in an artificially prolonged use of backward technological solutions, witness the state of our high-pollution energy production and car industries.

    I have purposely refrained from citing specific cases of suppression of inventions and/or inventors, because there exist books of well researched cases that are available to the interested reader and for certain further cases will appear in the course of debate of my suggestions.

    But what about our patent laws?
    Inventors in a way are very similar to artists. Theirs is a creative intelligence able to envision things that escape the notice of us mortals. They are the cream of society and their creations determine whether we will be able to live better in the future.

    Their inventions, once they are made become public property but the inventors, for making the invention, should be adequately recompensed. The compensation should be in line with the value of the invention, as expressed by its success in commerce.

    All inventions should be freely available to anyone to produce and put into commerce, save only the duty to pay a small percentage of the end-price to the inventor. The inventor's royalty thus becomes a part of the cost of the item. The inventor himself should not be taxed on royalties collected, given the intrinsic value of his creative work to society.

    There are of course some changes that would have to be made to the present patent laws. For one thing, Patent offices should have only these duties:

    * filing (against a small administrative charge) in chronological order, of all inventions.
    * conducting searches (again for a nominal fee) of existing inventions and advising the inventor who has filed an invention, if another has filed the same invention before, giving details about the previous filing.
    * deciding, in case of disputes, who is the rightful inventor of an invention based solely on chronological precedence of filing.
    * publishing all filings received in its official publication.


    The patent office should not issue or approve in any way a patent. No criteria may prevent the filing of an invention with the patent office, not even the previous filing of the same or a similar invention by another. No longer should there be an exclusive use of an invention granted to anyone. The inventions, after all, are public property.

    In order to collect the inventors' royalties, an association representing the inventors' interests should be established and affiliated to the patent offices. This would be an association similar to the associations that collect royalties for musical performances and pay these to the composers.

    The association of inventors would have as its main purpose the individuation of products on the market that utilize inventions which have been filed at the patent office, and the collection of a percentage of the sales-price, to be turned over to the inventor, minus a small charge to cover administrative costs.

    Disputes about the chronological precedence of inventions or the amount of royalty due should be resolved by a commission composed of both inventors and industrialists, attached to but independent from the patent office. Failing resolution of the dispute, the matter could then be taken to the normal courts.

    Thus we would have a new situation where all inventions would be freely available for commercial realization. The inventors would be recompensed for inventions that are actually being produced, in proportion to the usefulness of the invention as measured by its commercial success.

    Also, inventors would be free to make further inventions, instead of having to engage in court battles to get compensation for their work already completed.

    One could say: But what happens to all the inventions that are being made by the inevitable madman that are of no use to anyone? Don't they have to be eliminated by some process of selection as we know it from the present system of patent approval?

    No. They will simply be filed, published and then forgotten, because there will be no further interest in them, and at least no industrialist will be found to produce them.

    And if one of them gets produced anyway?
    Well, maybe then it wasn't such a bad invention after all.

    Josef Hasslberger
    Rome, Italy
    1989
    BenRayfield     Sat, Dec 4, 2010  Permanent link
    CoCreatr, that writing you quoted makes some good points about what patents were for and how they're failing to do that, but this thread is about something much more extreme: The fastest strategic way to get rid of patents and copyrights completely, and how society could be reorganized to produce things without patents and copyrights.

    As proven by the success of open-source software, and some of the new hardware that is being designed without patents/copyrights, people will continue to invent things if patents and copyrights don't exist.

    If there starts to be a food shortage, for example, people would reorganize society to continue to invent and mass-produce farming equipment and bio engineering tools that farmers use. Compare that to how things are now: People get rich from patents and let many millions of people starve each year. If those starving people build factories to solve their food problems, they go to jail for violating patents on various parts of the factory.
     
          Cancel