Microsoft claims that free open-source software like Linux violates over 200 of its patents. No - that's not a typo. 200.

In a rational world, this would be a joke. But our patent system is clearly at odds with a rational world. At least it exposes the lie of free market competition in the U.S. There can't be any when society allows litigation based on the insecurities of business executives over what the competition is doing.

South Korea has announced that it has created "a private fund as a weapon to protect Korean intellectual property rights overseas" link here. It will "profit from filing suits against foreign companies accused of infringing Korean trademarks and patents." The fund has partnered with a research institute created by the Ministry of Science and Technology, to act as its proxy in overseas patent suits. The Ministry will receive half of any royalties and private investors, the balance. Currently the research institute has wireless technology patents that it thinks are being infringed overseas by cell phone makers Motorola, Sanyo, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and Siemens; by wireless service providers Verizon, Sprint, and Cingular and by chip makers Qualcomm and Freescale Semiconductor.

The news article suggests that this is a way to fight back against US patent trolls. It particularly refers to Inter Digital, a U.S. company, which filed a lawsuit of more than US$300 million against Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics for allegedly violating patent rights.

Comment: This may be a response to the Free Trade Agreement recently negotiated with the US which extends IPR to Korea as well as the aggressive behavior of US patent trolls. Consider this the creation of a "national" troll--it creates a troll to beat one.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt link here sends us to the New Yorker to read Exporting I.P. by James Surowiecki link here. The article notes that Free Trade Agreements also promote trade restrictions like the one negotiated with South Korea. "Instead, it requires South Korea to rewrite its rules on intellectual property, or I.P. the rules that deal with patents, copyright, and so on. South Korea will now have to adopt the U.S. and E.U. definition of copyright extending it to seventy years after the death of the author. South Korea will also have to change its rules on patents, and may have to change its national-health-care policy of reimbursing patients only for certain drugs. All these changes will give current patent and copyright holders stronger protection for longer. Recent free-trade agreements with Peru and Colombia insisted on much the same terms."

Note Masnick's criticism of the piece for tumbling to the argument that IP is essential to promote innovation.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Mickey Mouse is being adopted as a de facto symbol of Palestinian politics.

This poses some interesting questions and possibilities. Regardless of how the Disney Corporation may react or object to this, if the Palestinians are routinely using Mickey's image, then it would clearly become appropriate for people in the U.S. to be able to use Mickey's image as well as a matter of fair use political speech regarding the situation in the Middle East.

Would people really suggest that Hamas should be able to use Mickey's image at will, but that American's wishing to respond in the same language must first get permission from the Walt Disney Company? I doubt that even hardcore copyright apologists would try to argue for such a perverse scenario.

If Disney chooses to do nothing here (or finds that it is simply unable to do anything), then Mickey will eventually become a de facto public domain figure throughout the Middle East. That would potentially lead to a de facto public domain status in the U.S. as well since to enforce a strict copyright on Mickey would then intrude into core political speech.

Perhaps a terrorist organization like Hamas may actually end up doing what our corrupt Congress has failed to do - Free Mickey!

Quote of the day from Robert W. McChesney, responding to Glenn Reynolds:

Our media system is not a "free market" because it is built largely upon extraordinary government subsidies. The government has been in the middle of building our media system from the beginning. Perhaps no other industry this size has anywhere near as much direct and indirect government support and involvement. Consider the value of monopoly licenses to radio and TV channels or monopoly cable TV franchises. Or consider the value of copyright protection, a government created monopoly privilege. We are talking tens of billions of dollars in annual subsidies. The list goes on and on.

I am not opposed to government subsidies. I think they are unavoidable. Like Madison and Jefferson, who instituted enormous printing and postal subsidies to spawn a vibrant press, I believe they are the price of building a democratic media culture. The problem in recent times is that the policymaking process has gotten so corrupt that the giants firms that dominate media and telecommunication give back very little in exchange for the bounty bestowed upon them. We hear a lot of PR hokum about brilliant entrepreneurs and free markets. But huge corporations like AT&T and Comcast were created based on government monopoly licenses. Their "competitive advantage" comes with owning politicians and regulators, not serving consumers. They are doing everything they can to use their domination of politicians to lock in control over the Internet, and make it their private fiefdom. They want to terminate the egalitarian genius of the Internet, Glenn, which captivates both of us. These firms would not know a free market if it kicked them in the butt.

The modern police state will not be ushered in by government, but rather by media conglomerates intent on destroying civil rights in the name of protecting intellectual property.

First it was the deceased Marilyn Monroe, now it is the alive and kicking Andy Griffith.

The so-called 'right of publicity' has the potential to mutate into another form of speech-stifling monopoly. Glad to see that the courts are getting it right in these instances.

Andy Griffith's trademark claims were also appropriately shot down. If reasonable people were actually confused that the television star was running for office, then I'd reconsider.

Former President Bill Clinton has just made a deal to get affordable generic AIDS drugs to patients in Third World countries. Kudos there.

Clinton said, "I believe in intellectual property and ensuring that manufacturers earn the profit margins they need to keep the discovery and supply of AIDS drugs sustainable. But that shouldn't prevent us from getting essential life-saving medicines to those who need them in low and middle-income countries alike."

If that's the case then he should be in favor of more robust IP/patent reform. In order to sustain his goals, he can still believe in some forms of intellectual property restraints, but it is impossible to support the current IP system as presently constituted in order to maximize both innovation and distribution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of freeing Mickey Mouse into the public domain and having a robust fair use of his image. But if Disney is going to insist on bribing Congress to extend copyright terms in order to keep Mickey under copyright, and if they are going to bully casual Internet users over the unauthorized use of Mickey's image, why are they not suing Hamas over their own use of Mickey?

If I were to make my own video using Donald Duck to convince people to divest themselves from organizations connected to Hamas, am I to assume now that Disney would have nothing to say about that either??

A New York federal judge has ruled that Marilyn Monroe's right of publicity died when she did in 1962, paving the way for family members of the late photographer Sam Shaw to continue selling and licensing images of the icon, including the photo of her standing above a subway gate.

Complete story here.