Intellectual property concepts. Your thoughts?

[liveforphysics]

Let's discuss thoughts on the concept of intellectual property rights.

First, I will start with some definitions of the term, to clarify the meaning of the expression, as it wasn't even in common use in the USA prior to ~1980s.


intangible property that is the result of creativity (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights)

Intellectual property (IP) are legal property rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law

Any product of someone's intellect that has commercial value, especially copyrighted material, patents, and trademarks

A form of creative endeavour that can be protected through a copyright, trademark, patent, industrial design or integrated circuit topography.

Intellectual Property, or IP, is the group of legal rights to things people create or invent. Intellectual property rights typically include patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret rights.




My personal feelings can be best summed up by Thomas Jefferson in this quote:

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
—Thomas Jefferson, to Isaac McPherson 13 Aug. 1813 Writings 13:333--35[17]"




Do you guys think IPR is something that helps the world?

Do you think IPR aids or hinders mankind?

Do you think the world would be a better place to live with no IPR?


There are a lot of very sharp folks on this board with a lot of life experiences. I would love to hear some thoughts.

 

[vanilla ice]

If there was no cash money profit incentive for coming up with some of the cool products we have today, got to wonder how much of it would be here..

 

[jag]

I large agree with Jefferson and you (Luke) on this. IP protection as implemented now is more of a hindrance than help. In practice individuals have a difficult time defending their IP rights, while big companies or universities can hire the lawyers to extract maximum profit from any IP they can grab.

Here is a concrete example:
The students and researchers at my university wants the freedom to designate software and other IP we produce open source under e.g. GPL or similar.

The university wants to have the right to keep it closed source and to sell it to the highest bidder. From time to time the university present us with forms to sign to give our IP rights to the university. Most obediently sign. I refused; was nearly brought down on my knees, but now have support from the companies who fund the research (and wants it open source), the grant agency and finally lawyers on my side. It has been an energy draining fight for two years and will come to a final in the next two months.

 

[Jeremy Harris]

IPR is a bit of a can of worms, really. The concept is great, and I can't dispute the content of that great quote by Jefferson, but there is, or seems to be, a massive gulf between the pure concept of IPR and its application.

The best example I can think of is the human genome. A concious decision was made by all nations that joined the human genome project to collaborate freely and share their findings. The idea was sound, many countries working together stand a better chance of cracking the problem in a shorter time. However, many companies have since gone on to file patents on parts of the human genome. How the heck can this be right? Surely the constituent parts of our genes belong to us, the human race, not some drug company that wants to stitch up the market, don't they?

Another good example is the restrictive trade practices that IPR allows. Nickel Metal Hydride batteries can be made in any size you like, but in practice you won't find large capacity ones that could be used in bigger EVs on the market. Ever wondered why that is? The answer is because a US auto manufacturer bought up the patent rights and then just wouldn't licence the technology. The reason? My guess is that they just didn't want EVs being manufactured that might damage the sales of gas guzzlers.

So, in principle I think that IPR is a good concept. If I invent something and want to market it, I don't want my R&D investment short-circuited by a copycat company that just buys one of my products and reverse engineers it.

The big problem is that there doesn't seem to be a way to allow the inventor to get back his R&D investment and prevent unscrupulous companies from twisting the law to suit their own ends.

Jeremy

 

[liveforphysics]

If there was no cash money profit incentive for coming up with some of the cool products we have today, got to wonder how much of it would be here..

With no IPR law, would there be no cash money incentive for coming up with cool new products? Or is that the thinking the lawyers like to add to the kool-aid.



Anything potentially useful I develop will be immediately and freely given to open-source use. I actually would never work as hard to develop for my employer as I would for open-source free distribution of something that can make a positive impact on the world.

 

[liveforphysics]

Thank you for sharing your input Jeremy and Jag.

I'm trying to decide if I'm missing some giant piece of the pro-IPR argument, or if IPR really is as it seems in my mind, an inherently immoral and unethical illusion conceived to transfer power away from where it belongs (and make loads of lawyers rich in the process.)

 

[FeralDog]

A classic dilema.
To maybe benefit all Humanity, and thus suffer poverty?
Or do a Bill Gates/ J.D. Rockefeller version of pirate then budget a Public Relations Firm to sanction one's sainthood.

Quo Vino Veritas version of Tesla versus Edison says a lot on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uovi9R7tIc

 

[vanilla ice]

Hehehe thats great. I guess I'm with the asshole Edison on this one. Sometimes r&d takes loads of time and money, and sometimes it is easy for competitors to copy.

With no IPR law, would there be no cash money incentive for coming up with cool new products? Or is that the thinking the lawyers like to add to the kool-aid.

Well, I should have said "not as much cash money incentive.." Sure having nothing would work better than having our current badly broken patent system, but it'd be even better IMO if there were a good, working, reasonably fair system in place. I'm not saying that is something easy to get to.. and for sure I don't know how to do it. But just because what we got happens to suck royally doesn't mean that our only other option is having nothing.

 

[Lessss]

Copyright IPR patents are now just plain evil. They are used not to protect and make a profit but instead to retard technological advancement and protect monopolies. There are assholes out there trying to patent the concept of a mouse click!

 

[vanilla ice]

So just because some assholes screwed up what the system and laws are supposed to be.. You would rather just scrap the whole enchilada instead of get things back to the way they are supposed to work?

 

[alan]

There are assholes out there trying to patent the concept of a mouse click!

There is a difference between trying to do something, and doing something. A "mouse click" is not novel, and therefore is not patentable. To be patentable, an idea/invention must be novel/new/previously unknown, and it must be non-obvious to those familiar with the subject area (and have other attributes, like it must have usefulness).

Even if someone got a patent for a mouse click, that would not be an argument against intellectual property law, but an argument against a broken/corrupt/dysfunctional patent office. Such a patent is not going to be awarded, nor would it stand up in court.

-- Alan

 

[spinningmagnets]

A while back, a patent on anything wouldv'e lasted just seven years or so. This would allow a clever inventor toget some profit from his invention or idea, and establish a foothold with the new product before he had to deal with competition. It was also the incentive for companies and even individuals to invest time and money in the first place.

If you came up with a great idea, what good would it do to try and make it for sale, when large companies could immediately copy it for sale? (with mass production and bulk material purchases helping the "big guys").

Now, it seems patents "should" only last 3 years with how fast things move today, but instead, they are continuously renewed. This has led to a situation where large corporations will patent every possible variation of any new idea. A shotgun approach to profiting from new inventions.

I didn't used to be a believer in "conspiracy theories" until i read about how TEXACO bought a controlling interest in Cobasys, who owns the rights to "large format" NiMH batteries. They are the type that are found in most EVs and the Prius (grandfathered in). Try to buy one....

Its been a few years now, TEXACO should "use it or lose it"

 

[Jeremy Harris]

If ever there was an argument for patent law reform, the NiMH battery story should be the main supporting pillar. I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but the Wikipedia entry here sums up the way that NiMH was strangled by the auto industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

Toyota have said that their choice of battery for the Prius was affected by this. Because they weren't allowed access to large capacity NiMH cell technology (hardly surprising when the US auto industry controlled it), they had to devise a pack with hundreds of small cells and then overcome the battery management challenges this choice presented. It's to their credit that they managed to pull it off successfully, but I'm sure it really pissed off the US auto manufacturers, big time.

I still think that the EV1, had it gone into full production with big NiMH cells, would have been a pretty good car that would have met a lot of commuter needs. My guess is that GM thought the same, but didn't actually want an EV to be successful.

Jeremy

 

[swbluto]

Well, remember the historic context.

Gas was only like $1-2 / gallon back then (i.e. cheap) and people generally didn't care about "global warming" and "being green" and environmentalists were definitely on "the fringe". So, in essence, the EV-1 had limited appeal back then and people generally weren't going to pay more for essentially less.

Oh, and good news, from the same wikipedia article:

On July 28, 2009, Automotive News reported that Cobasys would be bought from Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices by battery maker SB LiMotive, a joint venture of Bosch and Samsung.[21] At the time of the 2009 Cobasys sale, control of NiMH battery technology transferred back to ECD Ovonics.[22] In October 2009, ECD Ovonics announced that their next-generation NiMH batteries will provide specific energy and power that are comparable to those of lithium ion batteries at a cost that is significantly lower than the cost of lithium ion batteries.[23] It is unclear whether ECD Ovonics will continue to adhere to Cobasys' prohibitive minimum order sales policy.

 

[Lessss]

the EV-1 had limited appeal back then

An absolute complete lie.
The advertisements for the car were confusing as hell, they refused to sell them. You could only lease them. They had to threaten legal action against some people to get them back at the end of their leases. The REAL battle was against the California air emission standards. They won that battle by bribing the chair with a big salaried job.

 

[Malcolm]

For practical reasons I think the answer differs depending on who is trying to protect intellectual property.

For a big corporation it obviously makes sense to protect IP since huge sums of money may have gone into R&D and many people's jobs rest on the company's survival.

For an individual, without corporate backing, the legal means to defend your rights are likely to be out of reach, so I would take a practical approach and publish online in a wide-reaching forum such as this (maybe combined with formal design registration). This would establish the date of "creation" of your intellectual property, so anyone copying that idea would either have to acknowledge your contribution or take the risk of being seen as a cheap imitator. Clearly that won't deter everyone, but hopefully you will establish enough kudos as the originator of the idea that some people will choose to buy from you, even at a premium.

The decision must be much more difficult for small businesses that don't have the financial clout to protect IP, or can afford the high level of risk that an individual can take in saying "publish and be damned".

 

[Lessss]

Not all technology is in the public domain. That which is (patented) horrifically slows down technological development, makes products much more expensive, and generates monopoly and less innovation.

 

[swbluto]

the EV-1 had limited appeal back then

An absolute complete lie.
The advertisements for the car were confusing as hell, they refused to sell them. You could only lease them. They had to threaten legal action against some people to get them back at the end of their leases. The REAL battle was against the California air emission standards. They won that battle by bribing the chair with a big salaried job.

The EV-1 had limited appeal back then. I didn't say no appeal.

What kind of appeal would a tiny funny-looking two-seater with a price tag at least $10,000 higher that got less range and top speed than typical gas cars? Oh, and let's not forget, gas was cheap as dirt. That's right, limited. Sure, they would've had clientele among the well-to-do in Los Angeles, but it's not enough to take advantage of mass production to compete with other cars even in the luxury class let alone the proletariat.

 

[John in CR]

Luke, put me firmly in the boat with you and Jefferson on this one. The concept of open source is one of the great things forwarded by the internet generation, though as evidenced by your TJ quote, it's not a new one. Here on ES we see countless examples of how sharing benefits us all, and it also demonstrates how the motive of profit can coexist with sharing ideas. If you have an idea, simply make and sell your product, just like I plan to try with several of my EV ideas (boat, board, and SUV ebike). That doesn't stop me from sharing the ideas.

Whether it's drugs that are over priced, or good batteries that aren't allowed in large enough formats to be useful in plug-in vehicles, I believe any IPR whose protection is not in the public good should be struck down. While you're at it, go and look at everything that lawyers do, and I'm sure way over 90% of whatever creates that work should be eliminated. IPRs to me come under the classification of things invented by lawyers to create work for themselves.

That's my 2 pesos anyway.

John

 

[TylerDurden]

Not all technology is in the public domain. That which is (patented) horrifically slows down technological development, makes products much more expensive, and generates monopoly and less innovation.

Quite the opposite.

The majority of patents bring innovation into the public realm, but with protections in return for disclosure.

Imagine yourself an inventor wanting to bring a product to the market: The moment it begins production, you risk having it knocked-off by a competitor with deeper pockets. A patent gives you some measure of recourse for when it happens.

One hitch is the encumbrance factor, which could be resolved with some kind of Use-it-or-loose-it policy.

Another hitch is the lack of adequate review, which is simply a resource issue... the tea-bagger retards don't want to pay for more big-government USPTO staff.

 

[spinningmagnets]

The Wright brothers and Glen Curtiss were in a years-long court battle over how much of Curtisses successful planes infringed on the Wrights airplane patents. Then WW-one happened (1914-1918), and the president stepped in and asked them to put their differences aside and get back to making planes, as there was a huge demand for planes of every type.

I don't recall how much of it was threat or request, but today....I hardly expect the president or congress to get Texaco to sell large-format NiMH's at a normal 20% over production cost price. As much as I dislike much about the Chinese government, I can actually buy LiFePO4 from them. Perhaps not enough for a car, but at least enough for an E-bike/E-scoot/E-motorcycle...

I wonder how much of Recumpence and Fechters great work has been patentable? (whether they feel like its actually worth doing that or not)