Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2012 19:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 524644
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-11
"The end result is simple. Even if a majority of voters in a country want a drastic reduction in IP rights to modernise IP law and adapt it to modern times, it simply cannot be implemented. This effectively means that copyright law, patent law, trademark law, and all other associated laws, exist in a protected legal bubble over which we, as voters, have zero democratic control. In other words, current IP law exists entirely outside of the democratic process - effectively making it totalitarian."
Isn't that the main point of the article? The perceived futility of altering processes out of our reach? Shouldn't we be worried about how to change the status quo to a more equitable arrangement? Yet, the discussion from some is devolving into some kind of brand war amongst their proponents. "My favorite brand is better than yours because mine is less of a patent troll!"
Geez, no wonder the world's in such a mess. I'm glad Thom posted this kind of 'technocrat merges with social consciousness' article. I wasn't aware of some of what he wrote about. Kudos, Thom.