In a recent post a commenter whose organization is not in line with me on IP nonetheless was kind enough to acknowledge what he called my "cogent and forceful advocacy on behalf of the principles in which you believe." I'm not sure I'm always cogent, but I do believe passionately in IP first principles, and it's nice to have that acknowledged by someone who has other views.

I was reflecting on this and something else during my ice-filled adventure drive to work this morning. The other thing was something I heard a smart woman in the content business say yesterday, namely that members of Congress recognize the economic engine that is our creative industries, an engine that creates jobs, boosts the GDP and boasts a favorable balance of trade. MPAA's The Business of Show Business highlighted that last week, and I listed some of those figures.

For a member of Congress, that's probably enough to recognize the value of IP. But as I work in an academic setting, I can take it one step further.

Continue reading "Assume Content" . . .

posted by Patrick Ross @ 11:45 AM | Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain , Comments from Readers , International , Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (5)

Cynthia Turner of the Illustrators' Partnership of America suggests an addition to my reading pile: Brad Holland, "First Things About Secondary Rights," in the Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts. Her synopsis: "Secondary rights, reprographic licensing, registries, orphan works and the future (?) of American illustration."

posted by James DeLong @ 9:03 AM | Comments from Readers

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

A reader provided good comments to a post where I addressed vague use of the term "open source ." To clarify a central point, when I refer to "open source" (or “free software”, “free culture”, or “free and open source software”), I mean the software industry movement. However, other items require elaboration...

Reader Comment: Don't confuse Open Source with business models that have sprung up around it. And don't confuse it with specific licensing agreements (such as the BSD or GPL).

“Open source” carries sufficient context within discourse on the modern technology industry to present an insular and unitary topic. The term "open source" stirs debate about software development practices, resides on a distinct set of licenses in the business environment, has an identifiable set of corporate business players and personalities, poses heated challenges against current intellectual property policy and even has an arguably cute penguin mascot. Even if "open source" carries more general form and meaning than my understanding, such connotations need not inform, and I argue, even distract, from discussion on technological innovation.

Continue reading The Software Industry Context for "What is Open Source" . . .

posted by Noel Le @ 11:49 AM | Comments from Readers , Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous writes:

Solveig, I have been reading your posts on the "Got Milk?" tops. Great stuff.

Just wanted to email a comment on the issue with eBay policing theirauction listings * this comes up a lot in the copyright context as well. Ebay's policy is sort of like Google's w.r.t. book search: they're going to use it/sell it until the right holder steps forward and tells them not to. Personally, I think this is another example of a situation

Continue reading More on Policing eBay . . .

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 1:48 PM | Comments from Readers , DMCA , Internet: P2P, Search Engines...

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

Posted with permission. From enigma_foundry:

Not A Frog, But A Horse

The discussion of the IP originating from a Frog and its potential to benefit a Tribe of Natives in the Amazon illustrates an extremely pernicious trend in corporate propaganda. First, a debate is created between two points of view that accepts, as a given, a whole set of very wrong and dangerous ideas. Because of the way the "debate" is framed, these ideas themselves are never really questioned. In fact, from the way the debate is framed, one would struggle to discern that the underpinning assumptions could be called into question. The post on the
Tree Frog is very instructive as an example of this corporate propaganda. For example:

". . . Brazil, like other developing nations, is trying to fight back against what it perceives as biopiracy, the theft of biological resources from the country's native habitats for commercial use."

From this statement, you would believe that someone is physicallygoing into the Amazon and taking some real property, for example some exotic hardwood trees, cutting them down, and removing them from the Amazon.
But this is where the idea that so called "Intellectual Property" is equivalent to real property is introduced, without question or acknowledgment that many consider this equivalency deeply flawed.
(See RMS postings at www.gnu.org on the subject). Of course nothing is being "stolen" at all, as we find out later:

"And they are questioning the rights of foreigners to exploit their locally derived products. At a United Nations gathering in the southern Brazilian city of Curitiba last month, delegates from developing nations called for changes to international law that would allow governments to block - or at least share profits from - foreign patents on biological resources found in their territory."

OK so this is about patents on traditional medical practices, that Big Pharma is trying to monopolize through the use (or mis-use, perhaps) of patent law. Never mind that these practices have been handed down presumably for generations, and would therefore be considered part of the public domain and therefore unpatentable. Of course anyone could then use this information-western Big Pharma or Third world generic manufacturers (of which there are many). Western Pharma could still use this information-but would be unable to obtain a legally enforceable
monopoly on the production of any medicines flowing from this information.

"The theory of biopiracy at its best would give alert indiginous [sic] peoples to the potential value of their knowledge and existing rights in medicinal compounds that they have discovered (or created), and,
especially, to trade that knowledge to parties in a better position to enhance the compounds into a commercially valuable product, so they do not give up valuable rights for a pittance."

So here we are with the Trojan Horse-accept the pittance that BigPharma would like to share with the government, which might even trickle down to those that shared the knowledge with Big Pharma in the first place,
and you have accepted the Patent regime which has sentenced many inthe Third World to premature death because of lack of medicines. How generous.

--
enigma_foundry
enigma_foundry@eml.cc

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 1:41 PM | Comments from Readers , International , Patents , Pharma

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

A couple thoughtful comments on my "tree frog" post yesterday. From Dennis Hamilton:

Iinteresting.

I think the objection is specifically to foreign patents on natural products.

The easy example is a US company telling Asian farmers that they can't continue to grow seed crops for a local staple because there is a US patent on that plant and cultivating fertile ones found in nature is an alleged infringement. I don't know how apocryphal the story is, but it is something that would certainly piss me off if I was a local and its government.

Without more details of the tree-frog case, it is hard to know whether and where that crosses the line. If foreign patents are used to penalize a traditional medicinal use as an infringement, I think we are in exactly the same case.

I'm not sure about the theft angle, unless a company's people start smuggling tree frogs. As for tit-for-tat, that sounds like a good idea.Have local researchers patent the dickens out of all the local folk medicine and uses of critters from native habitats. Protect indigenous use. Cross-license for favorable availability of non-native biologicals and pharmaceuticals. Form cartels. By all means.

In-so-far as the theory of bio-piracy is a defensive response to overbroad foreign patents being used to attack locals from doing what they have done for generations, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But my understanding

Continue reading Tree Frog Controversy Rages On: Comments and Responses . . .

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 10:56 AM | Comments from Readers , International , Pharma

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

Gary Jefferson sent a response to one of my posts on GPL3, thus.

I have just time for a quick comment in reply: I have no inherent objection to open source, or to developers licensing their code however they like. I do think, however, that when some advocates of a certain model present it as morally or functionally superior, however, it is worth taking a look at some of the trends and forces that help shape it. And I do think that a model that is not designed to respond to demand is worth noting. Firstly it is news to some folks in the policy world that ordinary "closed" source market transactions imply some measure of accountability of producer to consumer/user. But secondly to many people in the consumer world, this measure of accountability is quite taken for granted--they won't make note of its absence because they have never consciously realized it is there.

Continue reading Solveig Responds to Gary Jefferson . . .

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 7:16 AM | Comments from Readers , Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

Jim blogged about FOSS and the Content Industry here; Dennis Hamilton had some interesting thoughts in response. With apologies to Dennis for the delay (and the failure of our trackback feature, which we are trying to get working), here are the links:

On "Son of Grokster," "Open is Different from Stolen..." some commentary on free riders.

And then "Must DRM Go Away?" . Here's an excerpt:

With regard to the legal or socially-successful banning of DRM, I don’t find DeLong’s extrapolation of consequences to be compelling. I think the enforcement of a limited license and any payment mechanisms (e.g., rents) are more separable than that. I don’t see how markets are abolished, though I can see producers unwilling to deliver into a situation with 0–priced substitutes (including pirated replicas of their own product). But then, producers are as capable of finding substitute products as consumers are in a free-market situation.

And then finally "DRM As Destroyer of Markets." Another excerpt:

I can understand one fear of DRM that has nothing to do with free-riding. DRM is too temporary and fragile. It seems to be making a consumable out of what previously was a durable commodity (maybe not what an economist would call it, but that is what comes to mind).

But please do read all.

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 12:00 PM | Comments from Readers , DRM & Watermarks, etc. , Free Culture Movement , Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

Peter Detkin sent me the following commentary on James Bessen's comments:

I read Mr. Bessen's comments on my presentation with interest. While he and I can argue at the margins about some of the data (in fact, I understand he and my partner Nathan Myhrvold have had a number of such discussions), at bottom we are in fundamental agreement: the data shows clearly that trolls do not represent a substantial portion of litigation (contrary to the wild and unsupported assertions of many in DC). They do exist -- which is why I developed the term "patent troll" in the first place -- and are an issue to be dealt with, but we need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Continue reading Peter Detkin Replies to James Bessen Comments . . .

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 12:16 PM | Comments from Readers

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

James Bessen sent me a thoughtful note following my links to Peter Detkin's data, as follows:

Regarding your piece on patent litigation data, I suggest that you check out a summary of academic research on litigation data at http://www.researchoninnovation.org/WordPress/?p=65. Some of the conclusions are quite different than what Detkin and Myhrvold have been presenting, including:

Continue reading James Bessen Comments on Detkin Data . . .

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 8:02 AM | Comments from Readers , Patents

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 11:24 AM | Comments from Readers , Liberty and IP

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 3:20 PM | Comments from Readers , Liberty and IP

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 12:06 PM | Academia , Comments from Readers , Patents

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 8:59 AM | Comments from Readers , Tax-Funded IP

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 11:34 AM | Comments from Readers , Tax-Funded IP

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 1:59 PM | Comments from Readers , Tax-Funded IP

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment (0)