Patents

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home2/yojoaorg/public_html/yenom/drupal/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

Lovely Lies - Damn Lies - and I.P.

Title-animation

Confusing the intangible with the tangible

Commenting on my post of December 12 ,2007 — What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

Alan wrote, “I believe the core argument in this post is: "Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression." Without commenting on the rest of the post (which I mostly agree with), I feel this main point needs rebuttal.
    While the post in question concerned various (largely laudable) observations concerning the GNU General Public License, Alan did identify the single sentence that best captures my primary core argument. It could consequently be argued that this terribly belated response should follow Alan's comment under my original provocative post. I have, instead elected to create a new main (root level) post for the following reasons:
      1) Alan's comments far exceeds the scope of the main post.
      2) It's my unwary way of dignifying all my brutish ape-like chest pounding that has preceded this event.


Alan, graciously continues, “First, let me point out the extreme irony in this idea. It is no doubt that Mr. Z. Clark is strongly of the libertarian persuasion (as I am), sharing the two most important core beliefs of abhorrence from unnecessary force, and utmost respect for (physical) property rights. Yet, this is an argument over an abhorrence for intellectual property (IP) rights.
    Thanks, a better lead-in would be hard to come by. A no doubt conclusion (accusation) of my strong libertarian persuasion merits a few shared reflections however. I wonder if said persuasion is evident from this blog's contents or has more to do with personal knowledge of say the fact I ran against D. Gephardt as a Libertarian. In any event, the average libertarian may well cringe at any Z.Clark associations. If I had the stomach to investigate such things, Libertarians would likely still prove to be the least offensive political party in the US. But like the GPL, the mere exercise of either lends credence to a system which is ill founded at base. It's quaint at best to hope Libertarians can improve/salvage what the ‘Founding Fathers’ could not (i.e. the morbid transition from confederacy, to republic, to democracy on to socialism is systemic in nature and is fated to unfold as such despite the bloody patriot's best intentions). A flattering distinction for the GPL is that it hopefully sets a precedence (wittingly or not) of binding the machine against itself.
    To more directly contest the issue however, Alan apparently considers my inability to equate the “physical” horse in my front yard to the “intellectual” unicorn in Danny's imagination as “extreme irony” ... hmmm. All are invited to rephrase the foregoing to more advantageously reflect their perspective. Nevertheless the real crux of the problem I see lies in first 1) inventing then 2) claiming and finally 3) protecting ‘rights’ in the first place.

World's Most Powerful Business Method Patent Proposal!

sws.org

PATENT Left – Taking the Patent to it's ultimate logical end

I apologize up front for inserting an extra post in ahead of my long over due thrashing of Intellectual Property theory. However, there's this hot idea that came to me while finishing up “WHY I.P.??” and it just can't wait. In fact, it's probably unwise to have delayed as long as I have – as some like-minded jerk could swoop in and steal all the glory.

Anyway, even yours truly has been bitten by the patent bug now. One can only imagine how the prospects of fame & envy serves to motivate an ill defined ego. So without further ado, here is the patent to end all patents:

  A business method wherein profits are realized from acquiring patents and then suing infringers.

Don't worry if the beauty of this doesn't exactly jump out at you (as that should help prove non-obviousness). Also note that acquiring any patents (other than the Power Patent just defined) is not necessary. You just need to find plaintiffs with patent infringement suits; then they in-turn become intrinsic defendants for infringing on your patented business method. A jolly-good bonus for anyone lacking friends is that such a patent would make you adored by thousands of attorneys.

It'd be dandy if someone could better express this concept in patent legalese. And anybody wanting to push my plan into some sort of fruition is welcomed to do so. In the event of actually filing a patent on this, one could even use me as the “Inventor” as this very post records the original idea. I don't even know what part of any profits I'd want to control, except to say that the initial candidate for receiving my share would be Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. The two reasons for this are: 1) it would be apt pay-back for the wonderful contributions rms & FSF have made to the world I love, and 2) the whole concept is just a basic rip-off of copyleft anyway — transforming patent rights to patents left powerless (to thwart innovation as they normally do).

____________________________


Syndicate content