Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

venkat2009 — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:00:19 -0000

Eminent Domain name Nice.If u want to create the Domain name U can Use this site http://www.tucktail.com/ For the Domain name Registration

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Don Marti — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:38:05 -0000

By the way, Tim, next time please patent your prose analogies so that advocates of patentability creep will have to license them in order to reply to you. (There's no fair use doctrine for patents.)

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Don Marti — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:31:21 -0000

Mark, patents aren't property, they're government-granted monopolies, like the old ICC trucking routes, or cable TV franchises, or sugar quotas.

Government is empowered to grant some kinds of monopolies, but needs to back off when a monopoly would interfere with actual property or other Constitutionally protected rights.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:17:08 -0000

“A real estate developer shouldn’t have to consult his city’s “master plan” before renovating an old house.”

However, he should have to consult the owner of the land before he starts building on it.

Tim, I think you have this analogy backwards, sideways, and even a bit upside down. As I wrote over at the The ACT Blog, the real parallel is between your friends in the anti-patent camp and these Soviet-style city planners.

Like the city players, the anti-patent forces also have a vision for a better neighborhood (software industry). It is beautiful: paved in gold, based on sharing and sharing alike, and devoid of any nasty software patents.

It’s such a beautiful vision, and the software industry now is so awful and blighted, they believe it justifies nuking the entire system of software patents.

They chant:

“Who cares about the thousands of companies around the world that own software patents!”

“We are smarter and can use those ideas better! I don’t care who owns them, let’s take them!”

“If we don’t have to worry about the property rights of others, just think of all the amazing things we could create!”

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

MikeT — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:45:11 -0000

Regarding the independent v politically entrenched battle Tim has introduced, well, thats life. Because we, in the US, are given some equality in the political process, many of us *expect* the same kind of equality in the creation of culture, influence on policy, and outcome of commercial activity- and those with more expectations are often the most disappointed by the reality that inquality of many sorts exists in a free market economy.

I would say that patent supporters in general try to impose a great deal of fairness. Tell me, Noel, where it is written in the universe that equality and fairness are part of life. While you can't defend taking away from someone what they have earned, you can easily defend someone making better use of another person's idea than they could themselves make.

My motivation for supporting a weak patent system is that I don't subscribe to a belief that life should be made fair. I fully support the right of a stronger, more intelligent person to expand on the work of a less capable person, without penalty provided they are expanding the idea and not products of the weaker person. Visceral competition was what made the IT industry strong, not the pay offs from getting the right patents.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Noel — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:34:44 -0000

MikeT, my excerpt was aimed at Tim's positioning of the software patent debate as David v Goliath. As Don pointed out, this was not Tim's main point, but I still see it as a constant theme he leverages.

I'd like Tim to explain whether the patent system has prevented any independent developers from entering a market in which they had some promising viability. My feelilng is that there are not many examples, and consequently little negative impact on innovating activity. Tim is, again, making mountains out of molehills.

Regarding the independent v politically entrenched battle Tim has introduced, well, thats life. Because we, in the US, are given some equality in the political process, many of us *expect* the same kind of equality in the creation of culture, influence on policy, and outcome of commercial activity- and those with more expectations are often the most disappointed by the reality that inquality of many sorts exists in a free market economy.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

MikeT — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:16:07 -0000

Thats funny, whenever an independent developer goes after a large firm, he's called a patent troll. Whenever a large firm goes after the small guy, he's called a bully. Sheeesshhh.

Sounds like a mark of consistency because both sides are being attacked. Some of us are principled opponents of software patents, favoring the chaos of a more pure free market system with fewer restrictions.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Don Marti — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:09:04 -0000

Noel, I think Tim's main point is not so much small vs. big, but politically well-connected vs. independent. If you're big enough you can buy the political connections. But what about bringing back the ICC? If the USPTO, and property rights in algorithms, is good for software, then the ICC, and property rights in trucking routes, ought to be good for transportation, right?

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Noel — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:29:16 -0000

Don, I was critiquing Tim's positioning of the patent debate as a battle between independent inventors v big firms.

By the way, I"ve bought (real) property in planned communities. Yes, the benefits of living in a free market, socio-economic mobility, the ability to enjoy the pleasures of economic freedom.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Don Marti — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:13 -0000

Noel, both small and large trucking firms profited under the old Interstate Commerce Commission system for regulating trucking. If USPTO's involvement brings so much to software, why not bring back the ICC for trucking?

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Noel — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:42:26 -0000

***a software developer shouldn’t be required to conduct a patent search before writing a new piece of software.***

Thats funny, whenever an independent developer goes after a large firm, he's called a patent troll. Whenever a large firm goes after the small guy, he's called a bully. Sheeesshhh.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:15:09 -0000

Eminent Domain has such a bad reputation in STL that I've seen new properties advertise that they were acquired without the use of eminent domain. It's very reminiscent of the way music sellers can gain a lot of support just for being DRM-free. In a sense, the "fair" businesses can gain respect from consumers by toting consumer rights.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Steve_R — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:24:09 -0000

Disney, which gave us the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is also active at stifling the free market when it comes to real estate. By way of a quick summary, it appears that Disney believes that it has a right to change the zoning laws to quash a proposed residential development that it does not like.

The New York Times reported on May 20, 2007 in "A Housing Plan Turns Disney Grumpy" that SunCal Companies, a developer based in Irvine, signed a contract to buy 26 acres of land to build 1,300 condominiums and 225 rental units on the site. Disney does not want a residential development next to its park since Disney believes that it will discourage tourism.

As with copyright, Disney believes that it can change(create), at will, laws that deprive a person/corporation of its rights for the sole purpose of protecting Disney's value. Free market systems work through competition not protectionist legislation.