Intellectual property rights: You can't have it both ways
Have you ever, I mean ever, copied software, a CD, a DVD, or a video tape without permission or paying? How about downloading music, video, pictures, or art?
If you answered yes, congratulations, you're just like everybody else.
On the other hand, you probably also think U.S. screenwriters are being screwed by the studios. And that China and other countries shouldn't be illegally copying and selling material copyrighted in the U.S.
That, my friend, is called a double standard.
Something else to consider:
Did you read this post about Trend Micro suing Barracuda Networks for patent infringement. Do you agree with the blogger? Do you think companies like Qualcomm, Rambus, or Trend Micro are patent trolls that unjustly enrich their shareholders at the expense of consumers?
If you answered yes, did you know that companies like IBM and Texas Instruments derive significant revenue from patent licensing? And how do you think Microsoft earns a living? Do you think the company's $14 billion in annual profits are derived from selling plastic, cardboard, and paper?
And how do you feel about companies in China and other countries incorporating U.S. patented technology into their products without compensating the inventors? Ask virtually any U.S. technology company if its technology--its intellectual property--has been stolen and sold for profit overseas. The aggregate lost profits are staggering.
If that bugs you, that's also a double standard.
Sure, there are patent trolls--companies that aggregate patents and sue potential violators--but Qualcomm, Rambus, Trend Micro, IBM, Texas Instruments, and Microsoft are not them.
By definition, a patent, a copyright, or a trademark--intellectual property--entitles the owner to reasonable compensation for its use by others. It's the law. If you don't agree, you can always challenge it in court; that's what our legal system is for.
We are a nation of laws. Without them, I doubt we would have the quality of life we have. And without intellectual property rights, I doubt we'd have technology-enriched lives. It's not a perfect system, but it works pretty well. You either buy into that or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
Steve Tobak is managing partner of Invisor Consulting LLC. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
- Topics:
-
Rants,
-
intellectual property
- Tags:
-
intellectual property,
-
patents,
-
copyrights,
-
Qualcomm,
-
Rambus,
-
Trend Micro
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
The RIAA doesn't give a damn about copyright, either, they're worried about their business model failing as they lose control of distribution channels. They're middlemen. I couldn't care less about their well-being because they produce *nothing* of value. Let them die out and a direct artist-to-listener model be born. THEN you can ***** about copyright violation as the people doing the actual work are the ones being harmed.
As for large patent holders with products on the market, like MS and IBM? They have so many crosslicensed patents that you'd need a supercomputer just to plot the tangled web. The purpose isn't to promote innovation, rather, it is to create barriers to market entry and stop any *unauthorized* innovation from occurring. IBM holds patents on things as basic as on-screen menus, and is so large that anyone doing *real* innovation would not be able to defend themselves, even against a false patent claim.
The fact is, IP law gives large companies disproportionate amounts of power for far too long, it stifles innovation, and it encourages companies to behave like patent trolls rather than actually producing anything. Complaining about individuals copying CDs and movies is entirely the wrong place to start the argument.
You seem to believe that the copyrights of musical artists should be respected?
You should know that in many cases the artist does own a percentage of the copyright, and/or receives some form of royalties based on unit sales of their work. When you steal music you are stealing from the artist.
In fact some major artists own their publishing rights outright. If you steal these artists music you are only stealing from them. But do you know what publishing ownership each artist has, so you can be sure you are only ripping-off the evil corporations?
By the way, the RIAA is a trade group that represents copyright holders. They make no money from royalties themselves.
If you believe that record labels add nothing of value, you know very little about the music industry. the direct artist to consumer model almost works for established acts (its interesting that Radiohead pulled their free download and when back to selling products)
But for new, unknown, artists labels provide funding (in the form of an advance) that enables them to quit their day jobs and focus on creating, and marketing/publicity services and tour support which they would not be able to afford on their own.
That doesn't mean there isn't a place for artists that want to go it alone, but if an artist chooses to sign with a label, it shouldn't make them fair game for ripping off.
With regard to patents, you should realise that even when a company like IBM or MS owns a patent, it was probably invented by an employee, who is compensated for their work, and probably owns stock in the company. So when you steal the IP you are harming the people who did the work.
It may sound cool to say "screw the evil corporations" but the reality is that many ordinary people depend on corporations for their livelihood.
In any case the point of the article is that in society of laws we don't have the luxury of choosing which ones to follow or when. Stealing is stealing regardless of what you steal or form whom
Finally, if China is such an offender, why do the studios go the extra mile to get into their market when something new is released? They won't go after china because that's not where the paid off politicians are.
The current IP laws are proof that we have the best gov't money can buy.
Simplistic, shallow analysis?
IP law is broken. Period. Fair use doctrine, which was a significant right granted to licensees of IP has been completely trashed by organizations like the RIAA and MPAA, and it's biting them in the keester.... and it's gonna get MUCH worse before it gets better.
The real problem is that intermediaries (read "RIAA lawyers") have created an adversarial climate between producers of IP (used to be "artists") and consumers (used to be "fans"). Hint: this isn't the way to create a healthy environment which benefits both the artists and their fans, and it's going to be the artists who ultimately suffer.
Too bad...
Nobody is protecting your patent if you are a small company. The legal fees to defend in suits will run you at least 6 figures per year if not more if you have problems. All that paperwork did was say you John Doe developed the device and can claim ownership to the creation to it in legal conflicts. Yet you still have to spend money and time away from the office defending this.
There is the other way to go... Don't bother to file a patent. Keep record of your developments on paper, and if it ever goes to court you can prove that you developed it and were making it since date 19xx. The same goes for Name use (artists). I knew of a band that filled paperwork for a band name, it had not been "trademarked" yet. However a band had been using it for a handful of years. They were forced to change names even though they legally had claim to the name.
http://gnuosphere.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/steve-tobak-argues-for-intellectual-property/