A new documentary is out, Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system
Patent Absurdity explores the case of software patents and the history of judicial activism that led to their rise, and the harm being done to software developers and the wider economy. The film is based on a series of interviews conducted during the Supreme Court's review of in re Bilski a case that could have profound implications for the patenting of software. The Court's decision is due soon...
With interviews from Eben Moglen, Dan Bricklin, Karen Sandler, Richard Stallman and others...
I discuss Bilski
in Supreme Skepticism Toward Method Patents
and The Arbitrariness of Patent Law
, and Moglen and Stallman in Leftist Attacks on the Google Book Settlement
and Eben Moglen and Leftist Opposition to Intellectual Property
. The film is worth watching.
But interestingly, the site for a film about patent absurdity contains this notice: "Movie copyright © 2010 Luca Lucarini."
[Posted at 04/19/2010 08:08 PM by Stephan Kinsella on IP Hypocrites comments(7)]
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]