Re: Song Copyrights and Patents

Professional audio recording and studio engineering, post #46,595
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Mark
 2008-07-18 14:06:27
 Re: Song Copyrights and Patents
On Jul 18, 4:38 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The reason patents have 20 years (USA) is that the slowness of the
> > > > patent office had gotten really bad and patents were extended by 3
> > > > years to compensate for the delay. Patents not long ago had only 17
> > > > years. And when you have to file for your patent within one year of
> > > > disclosure and yet the complete development of the idea to become
> > > > marketable make take years, one can easily argue that even 20 is not
> > > > enough. Many drugs require 5 years of testing to come to market. This
> > > > eats up a good chunk of the 20 years!
>
> > > I understand about drugs, but not about other inventions. Delay in
> > > issuing is to the inventor's benefit. A patent's life begins when it
> > > issues, not when it is filed. If a patent took three years from filing
> > > to issue, that was three years of "Pat. Pending" protection in addition
> > > to the statuary 17. Now, inventions get 23 years of protection.
>
> > Drugs are of course the easy example. But there are other issues.
> > Stating your product is patent pending only allows you to sue for
> > infringment after your patent is issued. I know of some situations
> > where the you put out a product and then quickly the imitators, using
> > your idea, follow you to the market and by the time the patent is
> > issued the market is gone. Yes at this point you can sue the infringer
> > or even sue the purchasers of the infringing product, but by this time
> > the money will be gone.  To reduce the time delay, when you file, you
> > plunk down the money for an expedited application. This is where the
> > costs go up significantly for your patent since you now have to pay an
> > attorney to do a proper patent search. Most little guys can't afford
> > this process. Where I work now, we can't afford the delay and
> > therefore ante up the money for the faster method.
>
> > Certainly for most of what we are doing 20 years is likely more than
> > enough for us to consume the market. But other things such as
> > Seaborg's patent for Americium (assigned to U Cal in Berkely) likely
> > didn't make any money because the commercial application for Am did'nt
> > come around for many years after the invention of the element itself -
> > its current main use is in smoke detectors. His patent has one of the
> > tersest claims I've seen. He simply claims the element!
>
> > Similar scenarios (long delay from invention to product) occur with
> > plant patents (i.e., farming) and now the commercial fruits (pardon
> > the pun) for recombinant DND take many years to mature qafter the
> > genesis of the basic techniques.
>
> > So the proper number of years, I would say, is quite nebulus and
> > highly dependent on the invention itself.  This is not unlike the
> > problems with static speedlimits on highways without regard to weather
> > and time of day and other traffic safety affecting conditions.
>
> > Clay
>
> I just feel that what is good for musical scores should also apply to
> patents - nothing more. If you write an excellent piece of software
> for example why should the owner not benefit to his/her death just as
> the musician? I am looking for equality only.You cannot put one above
> the other. It's not as if these composers are short of a bob or two in
> any case.
>
> K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

crossposting to rec.audio.pro
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Richard Corfield
 2008-07-19 08:22:11
 Re: Song Copyrights and Patents
On 2008-07-18, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 4:38 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I just feel that what is good for musical scores should also apply to
>> patents - nothing more. If you write an excellent piece of software
>> for example why should the owner not benefit to his/her death just as
>> the musician? I am looking for equality only.You cannot put one above
>> the other. It's not as if these composers are short of a bob or two in
>> any case.
>>
> crossposting to rec.audio.pro

Why should any of them benefit to their deaths? If I were a plumber and
plumbed a very good kitchen sink do I expect to be paid until my death?
A car mechanic? Any other type of job really? If I could be paid until
death for a month's work rather than having to work another month for
another month's pay....

What does paying people up to their death gain for society that the
original 15 year limit did not? Doesn't it hinder society? After all
the copyright was just an incentive, considered a fair trade for society
to give control over the art work for a LIMITED time. The phrasing of
the American original definitions of copyright and patent recognised
that society was giving up something that was its right rather than that
ownership of an idea was a fundamental right. The whole discussion has
become so twisted.

So what of patents? In the software world that has gone mad because
patents are more abstract. A piece of software is covered by copyright
and currently does have the very long term. That protects the source
code and the object code. It does not protect the basic idea or things
like the file format. Not long ago it was not possible to patent such
things and that was good for the industry. Companies could compete with
each other. They could work to read each other's file formats allowing
users a migration path. Now thanks to file format patents that is being
blocked.

Software patents are like patenting the abstract concept of opening a
bottle of wine. In the hardware world you can patent your individual
corkscrew, but that doesn't stop someone else making a different
corkscrew. Hardware patents for corkscrews are more like copyright
but shorter lived. The ability to own an abstract idea like "opening a
bottle of wine", the kinds of things we see in the software world, prevent
anyone else even approaching the problem. Software patents are so broad
that the software patent equivalent of opening a bottle of wine would
probably even stop someone smashing the top off against a wall. The cost
of arguing that in court is prohibitive making such patents a nuisance.

Bill Gates once said

"If software patents existed 20 years ago there would be no Microsoft.
We'd have not been able to even start to enter the market."

The Internet, Newsgroups, all this we are using only exist because they
were open shared formats without patents. They are free for anyone to
use. Some of the other technology at the time was technically superior,
but proprietary interests prevented it being widely used. If the core
technologies of the internet had been patented we'd have no internet
today.

I believe it's clear that software patents harm society.

- Richard
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Don Pearce
 2008-07-19 09:34:52
 Re: Song Copyrights and Patents
Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2008-07-18, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 4:38 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> I just feel that what is good for musical scores should also apply to
>>> patents - nothing more. If you write an excellent piece of software
>>> for example why should the owner not benefit to his/her death just as
>>> the musician? I am looking for equality only.You cannot put one above
>>> the other. It's not as if these composers are short of a bob or two in
>>> any case.
>>>
>> crossposting to rec.audio.pro
>
> Why should any of them benefit to their deaths? If I were a plumber and
> plumbed a very good kitchen sink do I expect to be paid until my death?
> A car mechanic? Any other type of job really? If I could be paid until
> death for a month's work rather than having to work another month for
> another month's pay....
>
> What does paying people up to their death gain for society that the
> original 15 year limit did not? Doesn't it hinder society? After all
> the copyright was just an incentive, considered a fair trade for society
> to give control over the art work for a LIMITED time. The phrasing of
> the American original definitions of copyright and patent recognised
> that society was giving up something that was its right rather than that
> ownership of an idea was a fundamental right. The whole discussion has
> become so twisted.
>
> So what of patents? In the software world that has gone mad because
> patents are more abstract. A piece of software is covered by copyright
> and currently does have the very long term. That protects the source
> code and the object code. It does not protect the basic idea or things
> like the file format. Not long ago it was not possible to patent such
> things and that was good for the industry. Companies could compete with
> each other. They could work to read each other's file formats allowing
> users a migration path. Now thanks to file format patents that is being
> blocked.
>
> Software patents are like patenting the abstract concept of opening a
> bottle of wine. In the hardware world you can patent your individual
> corkscrew, but that doesn't stop someone else making a different
> corkscrew. Hardware patents for corkscrews are more like copyright
> but shorter lived. The ability to own an abstract idea like "opening a
> bottle of wine", the kinds of things we see in the software world, prevent
> anyone else even approaching the problem. Software patents are so broad
> that the software patent equivalent of opening a bottle of wine would
> probably even stop someone smashing the top off against a wall. The cost
> of arguing that in court is prohibitive making such patents a nuisance.
>
> Bill Gates once said
>
> "If software patents existed 20 years ago there would be no Microsoft.
> We'd have not been able to even start to enter the market."
>
> The Internet, Newsgroups, all this we are using only exist because they
> were open shared formats without patents. They are free for anyone to
> use. Some of the other technology at the time was technically superior,
> but proprietary interests prevented it being widely used. If the core
> technologies of the internet had been patented we'd have no internet
> today.
>
> I believe it's clear that software patents harm society.
>
> - Richard
>

Suppose you were not a plumber, but made baths. Someone could pay you
for the first bath you made, but after that you would be expected to
send them to people for nothing. That would be nice.

d