Copyright Turns 300 Today
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Apr 2010 21:19 UTC
Legal Happy birthday to you... Happy birthday to you... Happy birthday dear copyright law... Yeah, it's April 10, the birthday of copyright (thanks, Arnoud). In 1710, 300 years ago, England enacted the very first copyright law, cutely named the Statute of Anne, after then-reigning Queen Anne. When reading about those early days of copyright, one can't help but hope we will return to those days - the Statute of Anne has little to nothing to do with modern copyright.
E-mail Print r 5   · Read More · 28 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/huq
Thread beginning with comment 418510
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

How long does patents and copyrights last? Should they be monopolistic or always licensensable? How broad can they be? What can be patented or copyrighted? We work on global markets yet patents and copyrights aren't, why?


1) A patent application should always be accompanied by a fully working prototype. Ideas are not patentable; working products are. A drawing is not a product. A description is not a product. If you want to patent a wireless blowjob dispenser, you better show us a working prototype.

2) A patent term should be no longer than 7 years. If you can't market an idea and profit from it within seven years, then the idea is probably a dud anyway, or you are bad salesman. Let someone else take a stab at it. This also ensure that people do not coast endlessly off one invention, stifling innovation; a short patent term forces people to come up with new things to ensure revenue streams.

3) A patent should only be held by people (not companies).

4) Tied to that: patents should be non-transferable, and tied to the original inventor(s). This prevents patent hoarding and patent trolling. How can you treat an idea in your brain as something tangible? It's fcuking retarded.

5) Software cannot be patented. Software is already protected by copyright.

Just some random musings. This isn't rocket science, politicians. Any retard can come up with a more effective patent system.

Reply Parent Score: 5

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Seriously, in all the years that I've been reading OSNews, this is the best comment I've ever seen by you.

Wireless blowjob dispenser indeed!

By the way, I recently learned that pharmaceutical companies can renew their patent if they start testing a medication on a new group!

The medication called Serequel was supposed to run out of it's patent, but it was renewed because they are now testing to see whether or not it helps children. So that means no generic!

When I found that out, I was seriously pissed off. Only in the pharmaceutical industry can they do that (as far as I can tell) Talk about bullshit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

3) A patent should only be held by people (not companies).


I agree, first of all, but I have given this some thought and I don't see much benefit of making this a requirement. It would be extremely risky if patents were non-transferable and if they were transferable it would lead to a "patent holder" job title--someone in whose name the patents are held, which changes when he leaves the company.

4) Tied to that: patents should be non-transferable, and tied to the original inventor(s). This prevents patent hoarding and patent trolling. How can you treat an idea in your brain as something tangible? It's fucking retarded.


And this relates to the previous. There are people who invent things but would never be interested in using them. The genius in the lab may invent a fantastic new process for building widgets every month or so; he should have the right to sell each invention to a company (or employee of a company) so that he can keep on inventing things and not need to worry about building/marketing/selling/etc.

I am firmly against software patents and for extremely short patent terms, etc., but I must warn you that ideas like this are not as obviously correct as first blush might make them appear.

I have no good answers, but I have some ideas. Perhaps a transferred patent is non-renewable and a non-transferred patent may be renewed once. Perhaps a transferred patent loses some of its duration on each transfer (say, two years) thus reducing the value of buying them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I would also agree that a fix for the patent system would be more about the first two points, and less about the latter two. The really big problems with the patent system as it exist now, to my mind, are the ridiculously long terms of modern patents and copyrights -- to the point that it's starting to look like a copyright can be strung out indefinitely with a little effort -- and the enormously high potential damages for violating a patent or copyright. And, well, as a third point, that you can patent any damned thing, including earth-shakingly obvious "inventions."

Reply Parent Score: 2

Feanor Member since:
2006-12-21

There are people who invent things but would never be interested in using them. The genius in the lab may invent a fantastic new process for building widgets every month or so; he should have the right to sell each invention to a company (or employee of a company) so that he can keep on inventing things and not need to worry about building/marketing/selling/etc.


That is what a patent license is for. The Inventor can license his patent to a company or individual. This allows the Inventor to focus on inventing while still making a profit from the license, while at the same time keeping the patent under his name.

Reply Parent Score: 1