Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 18:12 UTC
Legal "Nothing is original, says Kirby Ferguson, creator of Everything is a Remix. From Bob Dylan to Steve Jobs, he says our most celebrated creators borrow, steal and transform. Kirby Ferguson explores creativity in a world where 'everything is a remix'." In 9 minutes and 42 seconds, Ferguson explains in plain English why patent and copyright law is fundamentally broken.
Thread beginning with comment 535522
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: This is blasphemy
by linux-lover on Mon 17th Sep 2012 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is blasphemy"
linux-lover
Member since:
2011-04-25

I just don't get the point of this. Is the argument that because everything is connected to what came before that there is no such thing as intellectual property? Because if so it's a pretty silly position to take.

If there is a such a thing as IP then the question becomes trickier - where to draw the line.


It's pathetic we have to draw lines to prevent patents like "Searching for Goods on the Internet" or Pinch to Zoom and slide to unlock.
Yes, Searching for goods on the internet is patented.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8214342?dq=Meirsonne+,+Michael%...
Read the overview on that link.

Now, that patent was granted this year.


I can only conceive of 2 logical explanations:
1) That patent office is filled with uninformed, people with little to zero knowledge in the field regarding the patent. ESPECIALLY so for Software. They also never seem to check for prior art.

2) Bribery

Another example would be: http://www.google.com/patents/US6339780
A patent clerk in 1996 might not even know what a web browser was. The name "Micrsoft" probably added some legitimacy to the patent application too.

Another thing I have found, is nobody can seem to agree on what should be classified as "obvious".

Then again, software patents should not even be legitimate. Software in it's primal form is really mathematics and logic. Neither of those are patent-able.

Software is written and writing is protected by copyright, not patents. Software only needs a copyright for protection.

See the thing I have found, is nobody can seem to agree on what should be classified as "obvious".

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: This is blasphemy
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Sep 2012 00:24 in reply to "RE[3]: This is blasphemy"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yes, Searching for goods on the internet is patented.


Heh, I read that just for fun and ...holy crap.
This is the first "claim":
A method to identify a supplier of goods or services over the Internet comprising: accessing a home page stored on a server and accessible to a user via the Internet wherein the home page comprises at least one link to a directory Web site for a class of goods or services having a directory Web site address wherein a portion of the directory Web site address textually describes the class of goods or services for the directory Web site; selecting a class of goods or services having a link to a selected directory Web site corresponding to the selected class of goods or services; activating the link to a selected directory Web site corresponding to the selected class of goods or services, wherein a portion of the directory Web site address of the selected directory Web site defines the selected class of goods or services; and receiving a display of the selected directory Web site, wherein the selected directory Web site contains a plurality of supplier links individually corresponding to and linking to a supplier's Web site wherein the corresponding supplier offers the goods or services of the selected class of goods or services and a rollover window that individually displays information corresponding to more than one of the suppliers corresponding to the plurality of supplier links in the same rollover window and wherein the rollover window does not obscure other content on the directory Web site; the rollover window is positioned proximate at least one of the plurality of supplier links; the rollover window displays information about a first pre-selected supplier when a user pre-selects a first supplier link; and the same rollover window displays information about a second pre-selected supplier when a user pre-selects a second supplier link.

Yes, it's all in ONE sentence and I have no idea what the hell it is trying to claim.
What, if you write long enough sentence that no-one understands they'll just grant your patent out of exhaustion?
I kinda gave up when reaching claim 10, which is another marathon sentence, but from I can gather this patent is utterly retarded and should never have been granted.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: This is blasphemy
by tanzam75 on Tue 18th Sep 2012 20:23 in reply to "RE[4]: This is blasphemy"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Yes, it's all in ONE sentence and I have no idea what the hell it is trying to claim. What, if you write long enough sentence that no-one understands they'll just grant your patent out of exhaustion?


Patent claims are written entirely by lawyers. These are the type of people who never pass up a chance to write two words where one would do.

The description section tends to be slightly better than the claims section, because the lawyer will usually start from the description supplied by the original inventor. Because the lawyer didn't write the whole thing, you can occasionally see some English poke through.

Lawyers like to make the law seem difficult, so that people feel that they can't tackle legal affairs without them. Just as an example, the legal documents in the Nolo books are much shorter and simpler than the typical document produced by American lawyer:

Nolo: "I, name, of City, State, declare that this is my will. I revoke all wills that I have previously made."

Typical lawyer: "I, Name, of City, State, being of sound and disposing mind, do hereby make, publish, and declare the following to be my Last Will and Testament, revoking all previous wills and codicils made by me."

Both are equally valid, and both have been tested in court. But one of them is loaded with useless language that has absolutely no legal effect.

(For example, declaring that you're "of sound and disposing mind" doesn't make you so -- and it doesn't help if someone challenges your will in court on the basis of insanity.)

Edited 2012-09-18 20:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: This is blasphemy
by smashIt on Tue 18th Sep 2012 09:56 in reply to "RE[3]: This is blasphemy"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

1) That patent office is filled with uninformed, people with little to zero knowledge in the field regarding the patent. ESPECIALLY so for Software. They also never seem to check for prior art.

2) Bribery


you forgot 3
aspecially the USPTO earns its money through granting a patent
so they are very motivated to do a bad job with their reviews

Reply Parent Score: 6