The future of IP

[Ns1]

"
Instead, you would lease it from our company. Your lease fee would depend upon what you used it to make. You make a hammer, you owe a small fee. You make a house or a jet aircraft, be prepared to pay big bucks.
"

you do work in the software industry? lol

 

[CLite]

I think the timeline for expiration of patents/etc. is stuck from days bygone. The rapid pace of innovation means we turnover in 1 year now what might have taken 15 years in the early 1900's. I think innovators should get richly rewarded for their ideas, as innovation spurs growth and economic expansion. However, long-term patents can likewise gridlock growth and economic expansion. I hear all the major tech companies have tens of thousands of patents for MAD (mutual assured destruction) warfare to keep other companies from suing. I'm sure this is killing start-ups and it's quite disheartening.

 

[BoberFett]

First, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, the future makes "intellectual property owner kings".

I would posit that we don't want kings of any kind, political, physical, intellectual or otherwise.

Actually, it's not the "future". Before the rise of the PC and internet the richest people I ever met/heard of still were developers of IP (most had developed patents).

E.g., I've seen or heard of people like the guy (or actually his decedents) that patented the galvanization process or created a fabric 'loop' in use by the textile industry. Mega wealthy.

But these are patents, not copyrights.

Patents are less of an issue however. They are currently fairly limited. Probably still too long, but they're better than copyright.

I'm not sure why that's bad, or why a (time) limited monopoly of an idea you developed is bad. (See comment below.)

It's not necessarily bad, but copyright law has to be looked at as a whole. Changing the game with laws like DMCA and ACTA and SOPA might be reasonable when looked at by themselves, but when paired to eternal copyright it looks different.

It's hard to comment on your question(s) because copyright/patent law is complicated and there are variables I suspect you may not have imagined.

Quite the opposite, I've been involved in copyright discussions for most of my professional career, initially because I was right in the middle of it, and now it has simply become kind of a passion of mine. It started when the tiny company I was working for (I was their first employee, and created one of the very first CD based legal research sytem) had to fight West Publishing because West claimed a copyright on federal caselaw based on the "creativity" of arranging the caselaw in their Federal Reporter volumes. Yep, they claimed copyright on page numbers. They claimed that scanning their books amounted to copyright violation, and that if people wanted to publish those old cases they'd have to get them directly from the court system. Yeah, good luck getting prints of decisions from 1880. At one point, to be in compliance, before scanning we were putting stickers over every page number so it never made it into RAM as an image. So trust me, I'm no stranger to the bizarre edges of copyright.

E.g., you pose your question as though the "3D" printer/machine that can create these tangible items (homes etc) is owned by the person. I can tell you that if the inventor of that 3D machine were my client it would never be sold outright. Never (at least not while the patent/copyright was in force.)

Instead, you would lease it from our company. Your lease fee would depend upon what you used it to make. You make a hammer, you owe a small fee. You make a house or a jet aircraft, be prepared to pay big bucks.

I.e., the 'business model' needs to be taken into account.

And it doesn't strike you as odd that an invention of such magnitude should not only make the inventor money, or even lots of money, but obscene amounts of money. On top of obscene amounts of money. For many, many years. Or outright locked up so that nobody can use it.

I can also imagine a long chain of people taking their cut. Most 'customers' of the 3D machine would be utterly incapable of programming it create anything complex. Therefore the people who set-up the programs for a house, a car, a plane or basically anything with moving parts would probably charge the inventor of the 3D machine a royalty too.

Most 'customers' wouldn't need to program anything. They could rent the machine, buy some of the consumables, go up to 3DPrintTorrents.com and make anything their hearts desired.

(For the "see below" comment.) I have no problem with patents being 20 yrs. That may actually be a bit short. However, I checked out the period for copyrights and it is well over a 100 yrs, I think too long in most all cases.

Fern

And as I said, I have less of a problem with patents (though they have their own serious problems, see: Software Patents). But would printable 3D templates be patented or copyrighted? If it's not an invention, it wouldn't be patented. Maybe it's just a hula hoop, long past any possible patent. But somebody had to create the file, and that means copyright. And just like I can't write a book about Larry Kotter the child magician without being sued out of existence, will the "owner" of the first hula hoop template shut down any and all future hula hoop templates as derivative works? Or shut down any website that tells you how to make your own hula hoop template?

 

[Fern]

Patents are less of an issue however. They are currently fairly limited. Probably still too long, but they're better than copyright.

I'm not all that familiar with copyright law. I don't really have a problem with a book's copyright enjoying a long life. I can't see how that really prevents anybody from doing anything in terms of 'further development'. I feel similarly about music and movies.

However, and I can't articulate this well, it seems to be a real problem with coding/apps. I suppose that's because we want data transferred between platforms, or want to enhance an existing app and cannot do so without running into copyright problems.

Quite the opposite, I've been involved in copyright discussions for most of my professional career, initially because I was right in the middle of it, and now it has simply become kind of a passion of mine.

I wasn't clear enough. I was not saying or implying anything about copyright/patent law. I was thinking of the 'business model' type stuff.

And it doesn't strike you as odd that an invention of such magnitude should not only make the inventor money, or even lots of money, but obscene amounts of money. On top of obscene amounts of money. For many, many years. Or outright locked up so that nobody can use it.

No, it doesn't strike me as odd the inventor would make obscene amounts of money. IMO, if you bring something of enormous value to the table, you should receive an enormous reward. I'm thinking of a 'meritocracy'.

Can the concept be taken to extremes and abused? I suppose so, pretty much everything can.

Fern

 

[Ns1]

And it doesn't strike you as odd that an invention of such magnitude should not only make the inventor money, or even lots of money, but obscene amounts of money. On top of obscene amounts of money. For many, many years. Or outright locked up so that nobody can use it.

Well if the inventor had to spend 500million dollars to get to that point...I believe the investor has a right to recoup their investment.

Without a monetary incentive there is little incentive to spend tons of money on R&D.

 

[RabidMongoose]

But would printable 3D templates be patented or copyrighted? If it's not an invention, it wouldn't be patented. Maybe it's just a hula hoop, long past any possible patent.

It would depend. Software code itself is copyrightable, but the software algorithm can be patented. So the 3D template may be copyrightable and various algorithms or methods related to it may be patentable. It depends on what these templates exactly are. Moreover, in the case of 3D templates, say that the template itself is only copyright-able. But the product that happens to be made from the using of the template may have one or more patents associated with it.

 

[BoberFett]

Well if the inventor had to spend 500million dollars to get to that point...I believe the investor has a right to recoup their investment.

Without a monetary incentive there is little incentive to spend tons of money on R&D.

Creating a torus in a CAD program requires $500M? Initial investment has no bearing on copyright law. Are you saying it should? If you're going to stand by your claim that spending $500M to create something means you deserve to recoup your investment plus make a profit, then conversely spending $5 to create something means you should only entitled to recoup $5 plus the same percentage profit. Digital photos hardly cost anything to create. I guess they should have less protection than a movie, if you're using investment as the basis for your defense.

 

[BoberFett]

The insanity continues, this time from the UK...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case

"You took a very similar photo, that's copyright infringement."

Things are going to get very ugly.

Edit: In fact, I'm probably violating copyright with this post. The above link is one I took from a summary on Slashdot. That means that somebody at Slashdot thought this was a worthy topic to post about and linked to the above article. For me to copy his idea about this being a worthy article to comment on could be determined by some ignorant judge to be a violation of copyright.

We're going to reach absurd depths of copyright very soon.

 

[Fern]

The insanity continues, this time from the UK...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case

"You took a very similar photo, that's copyright infringement."

Things are going to get very ugly.

WTH?

That strikes me as insane.

---------------------

A bit OT, but I'm thinking the hypothetical 3D machine you described would likely destroy the world, and economy as we know it.

If you 'download' items of food, why ever go to the grocery store? Likewise with clothing, auto parts etc. Hookers and repair techs for the 3D machine are about all I can imagine still being employed.

Imagine some dumbazz 'downloading' some uranium 232 or ricin?

I'd be on my machine like a monkey hitting a button for a banana, except I'd be downloading porterhouse steaks, bourbon and some sticky bud. My wife would probably leave me within the first week of getting the thing.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

Hookers? I would be making hookers all day long in my 3d machine.

 

[Fern]

Hookers? I would be making hookers all day long in my 3d machine.

Fvck!

I'm all in if you can d/l hookers.

(I'll need to edit my above post to say my wife would leave me within in 5 seconds of getting a 3D machine.)

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

if you can make a porterhouse steak you can make a hooker. Not so different when you think about it.

 

[JSt0rm]

come to think of it we need a machine that disintegrates shit when you are done with it.

I cant be dealing with a pile of old hookers.

 

[BoberFett]

come to think of it we need a machine that disintegrates shit when you are done with it.

I cant be dealing with a pile of old hookers.

OK, I laughed.

 

[Fern]

come to think of it we need a machine that disintegrates shit when you are done with it.

I cant be dealing with a pile of old hookers.

OK, I laughed.

Me too.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

A bit OT, but I'm thinking the hypothetical 3D machine you described would likely destroy the world, and economy as we know it.

If you 'download' items of food, why ever go to the grocery store? Likewise with clothing, auto parts etc. Hookers and repair techs for the 3D machine are about all I can imagine still being employed.

Imagine some dumbazz 'downloading' some uranium 232 or ricin?

I'd be on my machine like a monkey hitting a button for a banana, except I'd be downloading porterhouse steaks, bourbon and some sticky bud. My wife would probably leave me within the first week of getting the thing.

Fern

That's entirely possible. But isn't that the case right now with digital media? It takes time to create the original work, but once that is complete, an unlimited number of copies can be created with almost zero effort.

Now one can argue that movies and games are not required for life, and therefore downloading them for free is just being greedy and not giving the original creator their due.

But what about textbooks? In the first world, we seem to have agreed that everyone has the right to an education. But textbooks are still covered by copyright, and are quite expensive. Why should impoverished children around the world not be allowed to download textbooks for free on the village computer, just because some textbook company in the US needs to make next quarters numbers?

Society is going to have to figure this out, and probably sooner than you might think.

 

[zubbs1]

First post here at anandtech, and I usually don't stray from the harware forum side, but this caught my eye:


These discussion always seem limited by the belief that our economic system must be maintained for civilization to exist and thrive. Our economic system has existed for centuries simply because of one thing, chasing a scarcity of resources. To eliminate this you need free energy. All other things can be derived from that. Granted it isn't totally free, as the sun has a finite amount of energy, but practically speaking its endless.

So arguing over intellectual property rights is necessary and proper but only to a point, and that point is quickly approaching. Would artists stop producing melodies and paintings simply because they weren't paid for it? History seems to think they wouldn't. Its maslow's hiearchy. Free energy elevates all to a higher base from which to start. The rest is up to each individual. Sure many will simply 'give' themselves over to the matrix, while others will stick to traditional roles.

The need to create the next best widget so as to create consumer demand, so as to create need for credit to purchase said widget only to further our archaic monetary existence will cease to matter.

Cheers.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

blah blah blah more justification. Man up, admit you're stealing, and call it a day.

(your other choice is to not watch the program in question)

Yeah, there are crazies out there who don't get that while i might watch it, or not watch it, either way i'll pay the same amount and that is final.

I really hope the movie industry is smarter than this though, if i could get a new release via voddler i'd pay for it.

But they are stuck in their release schedule milking the consumer greed state and they'll rather remove freedom from the constitution than to actually change their ways.

Good luck and go fuck yourself, i'll download what i want and the likes of you are pathetic people that should be out of all business.

 

[Munky]

Cuz someone dropped 200 million to make a product and deserve to get paid for it?

I disagree with the whole "deserve" mentality. I could make a $200 million product that no one wants, does that mean I deserve to get paid? Or if I make a product that can easily be replicated, does that mean I deserve to get paid for every copy out there?

In business, there's always the risk of failure, and if your business based on a 50-year-old distribution model can't keep up with the digital age, then it's your own damn fault. Looking at the millions of dollars the entertainment industry is spending at lobbying politicians, it's clear that they'd rather bribe those in power to bend the law in their favor than innovate and keep up with the times.

 

[daishi5]

WTH?

That strikes me as insane.

---------------------

A bit OT, but I'm thinking the hypothetical 3D machine you described would likely destroy the world, and economy as we know it.

If you 'download' items of food, why ever go to the grocery store? Likewise with clothing, auto parts etc. Hookers and repair techs for the 3D machine are about all I can imagine still being employed.

Imagine some dumbazz 'downloading' some uranium 232 or ricin?

I'd be on my machine like a monkey hitting a button for a banana, except I'd be downloading porterhouse steaks, bourbon and some sticky bud. My wife would probably leave me within the first week of getting the thing.

Fern

Maybe some people are not aware, but 3d printing is a real thing, and it is improving quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing You can only print in a few different types of materials, so you can't print food or elements, but if it can be made out of plastic you can print it. Some places can print things out of steel, its not the strongest steel, but it can be done. Some printers are almost able to print replicas of themselves.

 

[zubbs1]

I disagree with the whole "deserve" mentality. I could make a $200 million product that no one wants, does that mean I deserve to get paid? Or if I make a product that can easily be replicated, does that mean I deserve to get paid for every copy out there?

In business, there's always the risk of failure, and if your business based on a 50-year-old distribution model can't keep up with the digital age, then it's your own damn fault. Looking at the millions of dollars the entertainment industry is spending at lobbying politicians, it's clear that they'd rather bribe those in power to bend the law in their favor than innovate and keep up with the times.

Look no further than Apple and how successful they have been with the applestore offering songs for $0.99. Obviously most consumers are happy to pay this level for a high quality digital song, so it is profitable by large volume rather than large per unit price. If the movie industry made their blue ray quality, uncompressed movie available for download and charged say $3.99 then they would make a killing.

 

[her209]

If you knew that spending 1000 hours creating something new meant you would not get paid for it because people could simply legally take what you created, would you bother to create it?

Like freeware?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Fvck!

I'm all in if you can d/l hookers.

(I'll need to edit my above post to say my wife would leave me within in 5 seconds of getting a 3D machine.)

Fern

Wouldn't that be awesome, disposable women, it's not like women are really human beings, right? LMAO, can you imagine if women actually were someones daughter... that would be too much, TOO MUCH i tell ya...

I am not in the least bit surprised to see you arguing for disposable women though, i am just glad i don't live in the sheithole of a nation where men are raised to think of women as disposable.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I disagree with the whole "deserve" mentality. I could make a $200 million product that no one wants, does that mean I deserve to get paid? Or if I make a product that can easily be replicated, does that mean I deserve to get paid for every copy out there?

In business, there's always the risk of failure, and if your business based on a 50-year-old distribution model can't keep up with the digital age, then it's your own damn fault. Looking at the millions of dollars the entertainment industry is spending at lobbying politicians, it's clear that they'd rather bribe those in power to bend the law in their favor than innovate and keep up with the times.

You'll never get a reply for this post, there is no proper reply because you are completely correct.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Three specific types of possession that should be treated differently: People’s bodies, physical property, and intellectual property.

The biggest difference between digital and the physical is that digital content can be duplicated easily without affecting the original.We may have been able to return a CD if we were dissatisfied with the quality of the content. With the digital stuff you have no choice. Payment for digital content should be optional, if not voluntary. License should not be restricted to a particular format or platform and should be for life. If you have a reasonable price and licensing model, most people will buy it.

The music industry has historically had a way of selling licenses to their content on one hand, while attaching it to the medium e.g. CD and treating the combination like a product. If the medium is lost or damaged you then had to buy the content again.

Trying to translate this model of charging for every physical incarnation to the digital world is driving us to illegality by being greedy.