Have we become too accustomed to the bizarre realities of intellectual property licensing? What if physical property were subject to similar terms and conditions? A conceptual art piece explores these themes in the form of a chair that grants the user a license to sit, and then deploys spikes when the license has expired.
I think this says everything about the direction of this sue-happy society that I could have written in volumes.
Patent it!
That something similar will happen in the food industry. That you have a 3 hour license, and after that you have to throw up what’s left of it…
Gross example, point taken. Compairing this contraption to rights to protecting IP rights is well…stupid.
> Gross example, point taken. Compairing this contraption to
> rights to protecting IP rights is well…stupid.
Stupid? Care to elaborate?
<<RE:a chair that grants the user a license to sit, and then deploys spikes when the license has expired.>>
if that became a reality i think i would go to the lumber yard and build my own GNU/Chair…
This was very funny, thanks for bringing that up, but it does show the possibilities of what patents can do.
I am very strongly towards the protection of software, and copyrights protects software very well, whilst allowing competition and innovation. I am against software patents because it reduces free-market competition, innovation and invention.
As this link points out:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/An-Uncommon-Commons-39732.html
“Patents do not convey the right to do anything. Patents merely grant the legal right to stop others from doing something.”
For example…beer. You don’t buy it, you rent it!
aahh… licence to “sit”.. i read it as something else… now that would have summed up the patent/licence debacle completely!
For example…beer. You don’t buy it, you rent it!
Yeah, but it’s not re-usable as in other rentable items.
Advertisements on the montitor would have given the Ad-based programs a good kick in the pants. Besides, no one gives you something for free, even if it’s encumbered with a 1000 page license. Maybe the device could have taken your information from your card swipe and signed up you for tons of mailing lists.
come on, punch the monkey.
There is no company out there that will threaten someone with physical violence for violating a license agreement. They just want you to pay for a license, which is a perfectly reasonable requirement. Sitting is not at a premium – there are free seats everywhere. Also, there is not free, full-featured, widely compatible spreadsheet software everywhere, which is why it is okay to charge for it. That is why this is stupid.
I also have to strongly disagree with the person who said patents reduce free-market competition, innovation and invention. Having had the oppurtunity to raise money for several start-up companies, I can tell you we would not have been able to raise a dollar (to hire programmers, to develop the product) if the investors had not been comfortable that there money was going to be protected by patents. While I agree that frivilous patents are a problem (more thorough examination by more skilled patenet examiners is the only solution) to say that all patents are bad is patently ridiculous.
“Also, there is not free, full-featured, widely compatible spreadsheet software everywhere, which is why it is okay to charge for it. That is why this is stupid.”
Really? Then what have I been using?
Also, there is not free, full-featured, widely compatible spreadsheet software everywhere, which is why it is okay to charge for it. That is why this is stupid.
Surely you’ve heard of OpenOffice??
(more thorough examination by more skilled patenet examiners is the only solution)
…
Unfortunately, this is not what seems to happen at the US Patent Office.
There is no company out there that will threaten someone with physical violence for violating a license agreement.
*** How about revoking a license and have your server being brought down. Its an analogy*****
They just want you to pay for a license, which is a perfectly reasonable requirement. Sitting is not at a premium – there are free seats everywhere. Also, there is not free, full-featured, widely compatible spreadsheet software everywhere, which is why it is okay to charge for it. That is why this is stupid.
*** You forget about OpenOffice.org. Yes, its more than exceptible to charge for a product; however, a resonable price would be appreciated. It addition, having file formats that are documented so that you are not locked into 1 vendor. Open / Documented formats allow for competition. May the product with the best features win.*****
I also have to strongly disagree with the person who said patents reduce free-market competition, innovation and invention. Having had the oppurtunity to raise money for several start-up companies, I can tell you we would not have been able to raise a dollar (to hire programmers, to develop the product) if the investors had not been comfortable that there money was going to be protected by patents. While I agree that frivilous patents are a problem (more thorough examination by more skilled patenet examiners is the only solution) to say that all patents are bad is patently ridiculous.
**** I do concur with your points. However, frivilous patens seem to be the norm. Some ridiculous patents include:
1) Double clicked (MS)
2) Scroll bars (don’t remember, EU based, I think)
3) Trash can on the desktop (Apple)
4) Click though payments on a web page. (Amazon).
Building an IP portfolio based on what has been in existance for decades seems to be more of a regular occurance. How about someone patent something like:
TCP/IP, HTML, I bet it would go through with some creative wording.
Just MHO.
This is a pretty bad example of what (in my opinion) is the problem with licensing. I agree with copyrights, since I believe that they ultimately benefit society (by allowing people to make a living solely producing “intellectual property”). The problem of licensing is that it allows compainies to add arbitrary restrictions to how you use the software (they don’t need these restrictions to make money, that’s the whole point of copyrights).
A better example would be an SUV that came with a license that only allowed 3 passangers at one time. This is analogous to the Windows XP Pro license which only allows a certain max amount of remote connections at one time (10 I think). The point being that the restrinction is not based on any technical resoning, an SUV can safly hold more than 3 people, and Windows XP can handle more than 10 connections.
Sitting is not at a premium – there are free seats everywhere.
I didn’t see any other seats near THAT one though. Looks to me like the owner of the rent-a-seat found a lucrative market segment where free alternatives are not available, like many proprietary software makers have.
The only difference is that in the “seat market”, there is no rediculous law that prevents someone from assembling their own seat and sitting on it. Of course the rent-a-seat itself can be offered under whatever terms the owner desires. Its his creation and no other person has the right to make use of it without his permission, like a copyrighted work for instance. Isn’t that protection enough?
There is no company out there that will threaten someone with physical violence for violating a license agreement.
It’s *performance art* man, don’t you get it? It highlights the absurdity of how IP rights are handled by transferring it to the physical world. This includes the consequences of violating the agreement. I think that the spikes in the chair are an accurate physical portrayal of what many companies–most notably Microsoft–do to enforce their IP license agreements. That is, violators are threatened with financial violence in the form of audits that must be funded by the user should even *one* unlicensed application on *one machine* is identified, whether the violation was intentional or not. With patents it’s worse–a companies very existence can be erased over patent litigation (the physical representation might be a retractable blade in the seat’s backrest).
Sitting is not at a premium – there are free seats everywhere.
I could also say “productivity software is not at a premium–there are free alternatives everywhere” and that is as truthful a fact as your statement. Despite the fact that Microsoft Office is not rocket science nor particularly unique, Microsoft takes enforcement of its Office licenses very seriously.
Also, there is not free, full-featured, widely compatible spreadsheet software everywhere, which is why it is okay to charge for it.
It’s fine to charge for any software, unique or not. That isn’t the point of *Libre*-Free software. The point is freedom form restrictions of use. Monetary freedom is of secondary importance. The MS Chair lets you sit on it for a pre-determined amount of time and asks you to register with every use. The GNU Chair lets you sit on it whenever you want, plus stand on it to reach a top shelf, paint it a different colour, make 3 more matching copies of it to put around a dining table, etc.
But in any case the statement about the spreadsheet is completely false. Gnumeric is a free, full-featured and very compatible spreadsheet and it is free. So is OpenOffice.Org. There have been non-Free alternatives as well (Lotus 123, Quattro Pro, etc). Microsoft did not invent the spreadsheet, and Excel was not the first nor the best one out there. Hell, it wasn’t even *Microsoft’s* first spreadsheet (that would be Multiplan, the first application Microsoft ever wrote that wasn’t a language or an OS).
I also have to strongly disagree with the person who said patents reduce free-market competition, innovation and invention.
Sorry, that is the WHOLE POINT of patents. Patents are issued to inventors for the primary purpose of legally eliminating competition for a set period of time. If you are not the patent holder for a certain technology and you use that technology and the patent holder finds out, the patent holder can take legal measures ranging from demanding a royalty to shutting you (the competition) down completely. The patent holder can do this even if you have *invented* something *innovative* to improve upon the original idea.
Back in the day when all sort’s of *physical* inventions were being made, this legislated, limited-time monopoly was established to give incentive to inventors to manufacture and widely distribute new inventions. I agree that we cannot eliminate patents entirely, but the whole patent system needs an overhaul for the 21st century. In particular, patents are NOT suitable for software, mathematic algorithms, etc and never will be. That is what copyright is for. Why are ALL software patents bad? Because among many other things, there is no physical manefestation of software (it is mre like literary works and music)–the engineering costs might be high but distribution costs are near zero. The game is different than the one played in manufacturing, and that demands different rules.
As for holding patents to raise money for development: such investors are short sighted (as a matter of fact I’d say that the vast majority of venture capitalists fall into this category). Of course investors like to see patent ownership because that means you have a license to monopolise for awhile. Also, the way the system is set up now, holding a patent means you can (ab)use it in the courts and generate revenue without any real productivity. Also, this power of monopoly gives the patent a monetary worth–investors view that as an asset against which they can secure their investment.
This doesn’t mean that you must have patents to succeed–at least you don’t always have to. Apple might hold many patents now and be one of the bigger IP rights abusers out there, but they didn’t succeed in the beginning that way. When the Steves secured investment to professionally launch the Apple II, they had no patent, and the schematics for their first product (on which the Apple II was heavily based) were quite public. Sometimes the best way to succeed is to continually innovate and effecively design, manufacture and market those innovations. I think that relying on patents to protect your invention can potentially make you complacent and unable to cope when your patent runs out or when you are out-classed by another innovator.
My post seems to have struck a nerve with some people.
First let me address those who say there are viable free alternatives to Excel: You are wrong. Most people are not in the technology business. While what I do has a lot to do with technology, if I had to label my business I would call it private equity. Much of my time is spent making financial models in excel. Not complex stuff – no macros, vba, any of that stuff. The only things I care about being compatible are very basic formulas (addition, subtraction, pmt) and formatting. I’ve used OOo, neoffice, staroffice, gnumeric, and lots of others, and none of them EASILY translate to an excel spreadsheet I would not be embarrassed to send out to business partners. If I spend a lot of time, can I make it look acceptable? Yes. However I think my time is far more valuable than the ~$200 I pay every other year for the newest version of excel.
I think most of the people on here agree that frivilous patents/copyrights (IP) are a problem, but that some IP is good and necessary. For those who disagree totally, I would say you are very lucky to have a boss who understands the way capitalism works.
Doesn’t have anything to do with patents, I don’t think. It’s a comment on DRM schemes, which infringe your fair use rights by allowing you to use the media you purchase only how the copyright owner sees fit…want to copy your iTunes to your iRiver player, sir? Sorry, no can do.
Ah a “/.” style story.
Well here’s some “IP” examples.
[Stan Lee’s Spidey Score Settled]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=794&e=3&u=/eo/20050…
[Blue LED Inventor Nakamura Awarded $8.1 Million]
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/12/1723249&tid=123…
People who’s living is based on “IP”.
I agree with copyrights, since I believe that they ultimately benefit society (by allowing people to make a living solely producing “intellectual property”).
I’m not sure why normal people would agree with this. Most people work for their money as wage slaves and never get a chance to “earn a living” from “intellectual property” (I’m sick of that term).
Whether it be software, music or films I really disagree with people “earning” rediculous amounts of money like this. They may deserve something but millions is just insane. They do not really earn it. They do not work harder than the next person, in fact they work much less. They are just lucky to have a massive audience which will give them a little each.
PacBell (SBC Park) in San Francisco sold seat licenses to season ticket holders when the new stadium was built. It helped fund the project in fact. Basically you bought the right to buy season tickets for your seat or seats which were extra. I believe Gillette Stadium in Foxboro does this as well for Patriots games. The Red Sox owners discussed doing this for Fenway Park as well.
“Patents do not convey the right to do anything. Patents merely grant the legal right to stop others from doing something.”
It’s worth noting that exactly the same applies to copyright. They do, after all, work on the same principle – enforcing artificial scarcity to create value.
“Whether it be software, music or films I really disagree with people “earning” rediculous amounts of money like this. They may deserve something but millions is just insane. They do not really earn it. They do not work harder than the next person, in fact they work much less. They are just lucky to have a massive audience which will give them a little each.”
[Jeff Johnson in GUI Bloopers.]
“Good graphic design work is not cheap. You get what you pay for. Graphic artists are like musicians: you’re not really paying them for the time they are working for you; you’re paying them for all the time they spent developing their skills, prorated to the time they are working for you.”
Also I’d recommend reading “The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century’s On-Line Pioneers.”
In short while some abuse the system (name a system that can’t be abused), but people who do work with IP do “work” just as hard as someone pounding big rocks into little ones.
“Good graphic design work is not cheap. You get what you pay for. Graphic artists are like musicians: you’re not really paying them for the time they are working for you; you’re paying them for all the time they spent developing their skills, prorated to the time they are working for you.”
Those artists work and don’t earn insane amounts for a long time for just one of their. Grandparent was talking about people who just do a little bit, and live a long time from the continuing revenue.
“Those artists work and don’t earn insane amounts for a long time for just one of their. Grandparent was talking about people who just do a little bit, and live a long time from the continuing revenue.”
How do you know they did a “litte bit”? Some TV show? How do you know that they’re not continuing to “earn their keep”? Quite frankly I’m not convinced that either side has a clue about the other.
“ “Patents do not convey the right to do anything. Patents merely grant the legal right to stop others from doing something.”
“It’s worth noting that exactly the same applies to copyright. They do, after all, work on the same principle – enforcing artificial scarcity to create value.” ”
It’s actually worth noting that the same principles do not apply to copyrights. Actually patents are a very different beast than copyrights. With copyrights, if you go and create a work seperately and independently then copyright allows you to then go and use/sell that creation. Similarity is just coincidence and doesn’t hinder competition in the market place.
Patents on the other hand stop others from using somthing that you have a patent on even if that persons thing was independently invented and even if its not exactly the same but even just similar. The person/company with the patent then has stopped all competition and needn’t do anything with that idea in the marketplace for a very long time.
It’s actually worth noting that the same principles do not apply to copyrights.
But they do, in the context of the quote I was commenting on:
“Patents do not convey the right to do anything. Patents merely grant the legal right to stop others from doing something.”
This is what copyright does. It does not “convey the right to do anything”, it just grants the copyright holder the legal right stop others from doing something.
Added to that, the same basic philosophy underlies both copyrights and patents – for something to be valuable, it must be scarce. Since “knowledge” is any but scarce – and trivial to disseminate and reproduce – it must be made artifically scarce via the law. Hence, we have copyrights and patents.
“Added to that, the same basic philosophy underlies both copyrights and patents – for something to be valuable, it must be scarce. Since “knowledge” is any but scarce – and trivial to disseminate and reproduce – it must be made artifically scarce via the law. Hence, we have copyrights and patents.”
Well someone first has to “discover” ideas. Second the “scarce” part may not be the “ideas” part (the everyone has them argument). But putting them into a practical form (the part that IP rewards).* Then comes the “trivial to disseminate and reproduce ” part (reproduce, and dissiminate what?).
*So at best IP law recognizes that particular “scarcity” and encourages it, by lowering natural barriers.
Well here’s some “IP” examples.
[Stan Lee’s Spidey Score Settled]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=794&e=3&…
[Blue LED Inventor Nakamura Awarded $8.1 Million]
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/12/1723249&tid…
People who’s living is based on “IP”.
Slashdot indeed. This is a typical slashdot style comment. Since when did being against IP abuse become the same thing as being against ALL IP? With out any IP at all, megacorps would steal everything in a hearbeat and the little guy with the great idea would be screwed every time. Nobody wants that.
We just want IP laws and enforcement to be sane and benefit All society, IP owner included.
In short while some abuse the system (name a system that can’t be abused), but people who do work with IP do “work” just as hard as someone pounding big rocks into little ones.
You NEVER pounded big rocks into little ones, do you? Why the hell you feel competent enough to write rubbish like that?
I understand the need to discuss these issues on here, but does it really require linking to a site/piece of art that’s a few years old?
“We just want IP laws and enforcement to be sane and benefit All society, IP owner included.”
Good. You got my point.
[Anonymous (IP: —.eemagine.com)]
“You NEVER pounded big rocks into little ones, do you? Why the hell you feel competent enough to write rubbish like that?”
Well considering you know nothing about me. What makes you think your qualified to criticize?
You also missed the point too.
Well considering you know nothing about me. What makes you think your qualified to criticize?
I don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to guess it. Your statement undervalues the labor and is obviously made by a person which does a brain work. Try pondering stones for a month or two and than come back and tell me if it’s comparable to the musician’s job.
You also missed the point too.
Indeed. I was just upset with your analogy because it compares apples and oranges. And because you speak of things about which you don’t have any clue.
“I don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to guess it. Your statement undervalues the labor and is obviously made by a person which does a brain work. Try pondering stones for a month or two and than come back and tell me if it’s comparable to the musician’s job. ”
They’re both work, smart guy. Artistic work can be everything from someone composing music (brain work with some physical labour) all the way to a sculptor who is using his/her brain and a lot of labour (work them stones). Brain work can even be someone working in a medical lab (lots of brain with some physical labour) discovering a new drug (IP). To a scientist doing field research in the Congo (labour and brains). So no I haven’t devalued anyone’s labour. The point you missed, and I was correcting is the attitude that using your brain somehow isn’t considered work. And weither you believe it or not, brain work can be hard on the physical body.
“Indeed. I was just upset with your analogy because it compares apples and oranges. And because you speak of things about which you don’t have any clue.”
Or maybe you just plain forgot that both halves affect each other. Maybe you need some experience in the side that you dismiss?