defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
There is no inconsistency, Patents != copyrights. While both are monopolies they are otherwise separate issues.
[Comment at 04/20/2010 08:51 AM by Anonymous]
Stephen, how could you? http://blog.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-sticky/
[Comment at 04/20/2010 12:48 PM by Samuel Hora]
Samuel: I do not understand your question.
[Comment at 04/20/2010 01:54 PM by Stephan Kinsella]
I assumed you question their consistency because they put the notice on their movie while you defended this practice as not hypocritical in your article. Did I misunderstood something?
[Comment at 04/21/2010 01:55 PM by Samuel Hora]
Samuel, I'm saying if you are anti-patent you should also be anti-copyright, and I doubt they are given that they put a copyright notice on the film instead of a creative commons license. They did this with the images. They could have put the same notice on the movie. That the put a copyright notice indicates that they intentionally chose not to release it from copyright shackles. A company making a documentary about the perils of patents--a type of IP--is sending a message that they don't condemn copyright, when they do this.
[Comment at 04/21/2010 02:18 PM by Stephan Kinsella]
I am still trying to wrap my arms around the comment that when the USCC and the CCPA were merged to form the CAFC the resulting court was taken over my patent lawyers. IIRC, at this point in time only 3 members of the court can accurately be referred to as patent lawyers. Clearly, they are in the distinct minority.
Merely as a historical observation, prior to formation of the CAFC appellate jurisdiction matters litigated under Title 35 were within the province of the circuit courts of appeal. Each circuit having its own unique "spin" re patents, forum shopping was the order of the day. For example, the 9th Circuit was generally known as being patent averse, and woe to the patentee bringing suit within its jurisdiction. In stark contrast, the 7th Circuit was seen as being more solicitous of patent rights. There a pantentee stood a fighting chance. Given that a patent is supposed to be national in scope, and given that a patent in one circuit was more likely to be struck down than in another circuit, I believe Congress was quite reasonable in determining that a single court was an appropriate means by which to bring stability to Title 35.
[Comment at 04/22/2010 12:51 PM by MLS]
"I'm saying if you are anti-patent you should also be anti-copyright"
Why? Unless they oppose patents because they are monopolies then there's no reason they must also oppose copyright.
[Comment at 04/22/2010 05:11 PM by Anonymous]
Most Recent Comments
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rerwerwerwer
at 07/08/2019 11:35 PM by WolfLarsen Larsen
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Thank you for this great
at 06/21/2019 02:13 PM by spam name
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser
at 05/11/2019 09:15 PM by Marcelo
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/
at 04/07/2019 11:22 PM by WolfLarsen
at 04/07/2019 11:21 PM by WolfLarsen
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre
at 04/07/2019 11:20 PM by WolfLarsen
at 02/05/2019 07:44 AM by Anonymous
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good
at 06/19/2018 10:36 PM by Michael Jones
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken