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 525784
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: copying is anti innovation
by zima on Sat 7th Jul 2012 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: copying is anti innovation"
Member since:

Copyright lasts way too long. After the author's death? Why? How come people who had nothing to do with the work in question are entitled to royalties? My great-grandchildren won't get a penny from my current employer, and that's how it should be. Imagine if all companies had an obligation to pay your salary to your grandchildren, 70 years after you are gone. Plus extensions. And also in that time, nobody would be allowed to fill your job (OK, this last one is not entirely accurate).

It's not so simple; this kind of argument can be easily struck down (or at least, it has a not bad counterargument).

Our descendants can (and usually do, yours most likely will) benefit from physical inherited property, or from virtual, really, financial assets (just some data entries in a database somewhere) - how come people who had nothing to do with the work (in broader sense) in question are entitled to benefits from its results?

So why not for continuing benefits of work which produced "intellectual property"?

Reply Parent Score: 2