Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2012 19:34 UTC
Legal Yesterday, we were treated to another preliminary injunction on a product due to patent trolling. Over the past few years, some companies have resorted to patent trolling instead of competing on merit, using frivolous and obvious software and design patents to block competitors - even though this obviously shouldn't be legal. The fact that this is, in fact, legal, is baffling, and up until a few months ago, a regular topic here on OSNews. At some point - I stopped reporting on the matter. The reason for this is simple: I realised that intellectual property law exists outside of regular democratic processes and is, in fact, wholly and utterly totalitarian. What's the point in reporting on something we can't change via legal means?
Permalink for comment 524726
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: A questions for Thom
by The1stImmortal on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A questions for Thom"
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

Thom, your last statement (question actually) in your "article" was "What's the point in reporting on something we can't change via legal means?".

Wel, you generally don't change laws via the legal process, but via the legislative process which is the domain of politicians. IP law exists because lawmakers made it so.

Perhaps in this instance, Thom means legal as opposed to illegal, rather than legal as in court?

As far as I am aware, most countries' legislative bodies are sovereign, i.e. they can legislate whatever they want.

Unless they voluntarily give up such sovereignty, through the signing of treaties.
As the US civil war (amongst others) demonstrated, the giving up of sovereignty can be done irrevocably.
And it appears that in this case it's only revocable through departure from the WTO, which is economic suicide.

The fact of the matter is that the public is not clamouring for a change in IP laws, therefore what is happening is completely democratic. If the vast majority of people want IP laws to change, then they should vote in people who pledge to change them. However, we all know most people aren't bothered about IP law, therefore it is entirely democratic that the law, as it stands, is applied. By not voting for change the public is voting for the status quo.

Popular apathy in itself does not mean that the status quo is democratic. It just means the issue hasn't received enough publicity recently to test its democratic support.

Reply Parent Score: 2