Try Fedboard.com, it has more topic :)

http://www.fedboard.com

Well, Jock, we meet again, and on interesting grounds. I do believe that you have put your finger on the essential function of government, that is, the creation of a level playing field through legislation and regulation. In every area that we have suspended effective regulation, Lord Acton comes to remind us of the corruption of unchecked power. When Reagan de-regulated the S&L's, we payed half a trillion to cover it all, and almost no one went to jail except the usual black and poor doing whatever it is that they were doing in that present to insulate themselves from their reality. Since then, we've tossed a whole lot of crack users into jail for long periods of time, while patting at the hands of powder cocaine users. Must not discipline too closely the powerful. The Limbaugh's and Bill Bennett's of this world need understanding and a break or two. Now, we have the various corporate and stock market problems coming out of the gutting of SEC authority. The first set of stock market defrauders got by with civil fines...what did Dirksen say..."a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you have real money"... or something like that. Now, we have a whole new set on the mutual funds. Maybe two or three of them will go to jail, but then again, maybe not. Of all the corporate greedsters that played the same type of games that Enron folks did, maybe 10 will do any real time and I've yet to see any evidence that Bush friend Ken Lay will be doing any of it. Always steal millions or billions, it's a lot cheaper on jail time than stealing 50 bucks down at the corner store.

You're absolutely correct on the copyright issue. Of course, what we have now is no longer copyright. There is no right of use to any part of a work with the current protection schemes, and I really don't know how to describe DRM(digital rights management) and it's ambition to control every digital recording medium. The prohibiition against prior restraint has lost all meaning in the current legal atmosphere. All are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Then, we add to the overweening ambitions of what passes for copyright but ought to be called the "keep Mickey Mouse for Disney" law the latest interpetrations of patent law. Now, we not only have software patents, which are a completely incorrect concept, we are handing out patents for concepts rather than specific implementations. In this atmosphere, Special and General Relativity would be patented and all that came from them would be considered subsidiary works. What's worse, the possessor of the patent can sit by and wait until the technology is thoroughly embedded in a whole industry and then lay claim. Copyright at least must be defended or lost. Look at what the RIMM boys almost got away with in the RAM arena, and look now at what SCO is attempting. There is no responsibility that either patent or copyright be defended in any reasonable frame, even by the possessor, as evidenced by the actions of SCO. They subscribed to the GPL and linux until it suited them to attack the legitimacy. In any sane court, their case would not only be immediately ejected, but they would be put under order to issue no further such.

Microsoft should also be fined and punished for materially supporting a gambit designed to further effect their existing monopoly. They can have no real exposure to licensing of SCO's intellectual property, though it is fairly clear that they have used elements of BSD without providing any respect to that well established copyright. Of course, it is difficult to know what Microsoft may or may not have "borrowed", because no one has had the legal opportunity to examine their source code and it's history.

Patents should be limited to implementations of ideas, and technology patents should have fairly short lives within the US, and longer lives internationally except where there is full reciprocity, to leverage our patent and research pool value. Copyrights for non-fiction should be limited to a very short span. Fiction should span the life of the author or 25 years from the first publishing, before or after the death of the author.

We have almost ceased to contribute to the commons, which was a concept very important to those who established copyright and patent law in the US. Open source is the extension of the commons to build an open playing field. If SCO in it's conflicts is allowed to defeat the GPL and the LGPL, or even to seriously damage them, much more will be lost than the code and the hours spent on it. If the GPL and the LGPL are consistently challenged on late claimed patents or copyrights by corporations with deep pockets, it will be destroyed because of the lack of a revenue stream to defend it. If that is allowed, then we will all lose what has built the internet and the enormous commerce, both economic and of ideas, that it enables.

muckdog,

An interesting question is what is a "Free Market"? Footbal, Tennis, Basseball etc all are played with referees and umpires, ie a set of rules.

Birds flock using a set of rules. What should be the minimum set of rules that defines a "free market"?

For example, how do we compete fairly agianst economies with very cheap labor and that do not abide by even reasonable Intellectual Property rules? Can we form a strong enough coalition to "enforce" a fair and balanced IP policy around the globe? Or must we give up on IP altogether?

I for one am perfectly happy with the copyright laws as envisioned by the Founders. I reject the nasty habit of extending copyright ad infinitum with the result that nothing has entered the public domain in the US for many decades.

If we use copyright to quash innovation and to protect incumbents unreasonably, we also lock the emerging markets into permanent poverty. How do we get back to a fair and balanced IP regime that works for all the countries of the world?

Thanks for commenting.

Regards,

Jock

Interesting. In any case, the issue with any and all of your points is that the Free Market will eventually determine the success or failure of each. The affordability, in a globally competitive environment, is ultimately the issue. Whether we can afford a strong military, a level playing field, infrastructure, et al, will not be determined by hope or issues of fairness, but by economic realities.

The major one being, that the US is an expensive place to do business. Hot growth and cheap labor are overseas now. We are seeing the loss of high-wage jobs in the US and an eroding of our status as Economic Superpower.

http://thelearningcurve.blogspot.com/