defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
According to some of the documents posted on Wikileaks, to lobby, nudge, pressure, threaten ... (I let you pick the right one) foreign governments into adopting stricter "IP" laws, in order to "protect" our "strategic interests" in their countries.
Wow. I don't think there's a single blog I regularly read that hasn't been touched in some way by Wikigate.
[Comment at 12/04/2010 01:16 AM by Nautilus]
I like the part where the dispatches keep pointing out that the greatest pressure in Spain is coming from local businesses, not the U.S. government. Always nice to see balanced reporting on this blog.
[Comment at 12/04/2010 06:41 AM by Anonymous]
As a long ago diplomat, I had the duty of pressing the Korean government to enforce our laws on copyright, patents, and trademarks. I personally drew the line when it involved poor and petty merchants selling running shoes and knockoffs of trademarked clothing near our military bases; we were just pushing little guys around for little benefit to our businessmen. Now of course, the Koreans want to enforce their IP--and they have some, unlike in my day.
I might have rebelled against this, but it was my duty. I imagine that most of our diplomats have no doubts about pushing for enforcing our law; they have little or no background on the other side of the issue and our businessmen expect them to.
[Comment at 12/04/2010 01:40 PM by John Bennett]
Boycott Amazon and Paypal! Long live leakers of State secrets!
[Comment at 12/04/2010 03:23 PM by Bill Stepp]
John Wrote: "Now of course, the Koreans want to enforce their IP". What we are attempting to do will only come back an hurt us in the end.
China Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S. The New York Times wrote: "And typically, research centers with large supercomputers are magnets for top scientific talent, adding significance to the presence of the machines well beyond just cranking through calculations."
What China Seeks in Chesapeake Shale Deal The New York Times wrote: "Like the other deals, China's investment in the Texas oil patch is not necessarily about securing oil and natural gas for its own people. ... This latest deal with China seems to be no exception. The Chinese will be able to learn the techniques used to find and exploit shale deposits on their own so they are not beholden to foreign energy companies operating on their soil. ... The deal could also be considered by some to be a security risk. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the interagency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of American corporations by foreign companies, could block the deal if the committee thinks it could harm national security. While the deal would not give China control of Chesapeake or even the shale project, the transfer of technology and the presence of the Chinese state in the American energy sector may be considered by the committee to be too risky to sign off on." (emphasis added)
The reason I highlighted "security risk", is that we need to realize that our orgy of deficit spending will mean that countries, such as China, could simply buy our so-called intellectual property that we vainly attempting to lock-up, In summary our attempts to lock-up so-called intellectual property is a losing proposition and self-damaging.
[Comment at 12/05/2010 05:45 AM by Steve R.]
Steve R. @12/05/2010 05:45 AM:
"In summary our attempts to lock-up so-called intellectual property is a losing proposition and self-damaging."
Absolutely. Rather than trying to slow the release of information, for example, about nuclear weapons, which has not worked (even though the U.S. maintains a near monopoly on most nuclear weapons types and only Russia has nearly the sophistication of U.S. weapons), we should publish everything we know about nuclear weapons so that any nation with the financial capability can produce both fission and fusion weapons. After all, we have only prevented most of the world from obtaining nuclear weapons for about 65 years. Obviously it is not working.
Oh, as for the self-damaging part, I am trying to figure that part out. It would seem that keeping, say, Iran from learning how to make sophisticated nuclear weapons would be beneficial to us, rather than self-damaging, but maybe I am missing something.
[Comment at 12/05/2010 08:53 AM by Ayn Rand Was Right]
John Bennett @12/04/2010 01:40 PM:
I have no idea how long ago you were a diplomat in South Korea. I was there from 1976-1977 when the Koreans were making cheap copies of whatever they could make. The quality was poor. American products were prized for their quality and innovation.
I was again in South Korea from 1987 to 1988. I worked closely with Korean manufacturer Daewoo. One of the things that the South Korean government said in the 1980s that struck a deep chord with me was regarding copying, innovation and invention. The South Korean government said that if their best capability was to copy the products of others, then South Korea would forever be lagging the rest of the world. The South Korean government believed that the best way to change from a country of copiers to a country of inventors was to place more emphasis on protection of intellectual property rights, specifically, patent rights.
I think we have seen the results. South Korea embraced intellectual property rights and South Korean companies, especially electronics companies, took over the invention lead from Japanese companies. Today Samsung is a world leader in invention and innovation and is given high marks against their former Japanese competition.
People seem to somehow think that the U.S. has "forced" many countries to accept stronger IP. That belief is generally true when it comes to copyrights and trademarks. Certainly South Korea was reluctant to accept stronger copyright laws and copyright enforcement in South Korea is still relatively weak. However, South Korea more than embraced patent laws because both the South Korean government and South Korean industry recognized that patent rights were one way to give inventors and inventing companies more incentive to invent rather than just make copies. South Korea was not "forced" into accepting stronger patent laws; they wanted them.
China is another country that took on patent laws quite willingly. The Chinese government laid the groundwork in the the 1970s when they said that government policy should find a way to reward invention because invention was critical to the future of China (FYI - China recognized the lack of invention and the need to get more of it than South Korea did, but China was much slower to create a patent system). Note that this groundwork was during the time that the only diplomatic contact the U.S. and China was to try and improve diplomatic relations. China reviewed the patent systems of the Asian tigers and realized that each time one of the Asian tigers adopted a patent system that invention exploded. China implemented a patent system in 1985 (because they wanted one, not because the U.S. "forced" them to accept one) and, surprise, invention exploded.
[Comment at 12/05/2010 09:10 AM by Ayn Rand Was Right]
The New York Times writes: "In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman suggested that the U.S. Department of Justice should charge Julian Assange with espionage and said that federal prosecutors should conduct a "very intensive inquiry" into the question of whether or not news organizations had committed a crime by publishing leaked documents obtained and distributed by WikiLeaks.
According to a transcript of the interview, Mr. Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee, was asked by the Fox anchor Jenna Lee, "are other media outlets that have posted what WikiLeaks has put out there also culpable in this, and could be charged with something?""
Lieberman seems to resurrecting McCarthyism. Soon we may have a "
[Comment at 12/07/2010 12:21 PM by Steve R.]
On a more personal and serious note, one of the charges alleges that Julian Assange had unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep. That hardly seems consensual. If the allegation is true, that seems pretty sleazy. Independent of his other activities, Julian Assange needs to answer these allegations.
[Comment at 12/08/2010 02:49 PM by Anonymous]
Most Recent Comments
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good
at 06/19/2018 10:36 PM by Michael Jones
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous
Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be
at 11/28/2013 05:03 PM by Stephanie Smith
at 11/28/2013 09:23 AM by Anonymous
at 11/28/2013 09:22 AM by Anonymous
Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you
at 11/24/2013 10:48 AM by SpaceCorp Technologies
at 11/20/2013 03:18 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since
at 11/02/2013 08:09 PM by Anonymous