![]() |
Against Monopolydefending 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. |
|
current posts | more recent posts | earlier posts Levi's the Lawsuit King Some investment advice: when a companies main business is filing lawsuits - sell short. Apparently
the stitching on the pocket of your jeans is a trademark. Who knew. [Posted at 01/29/2007 09:43 AM by William Stepp on IP in the News Are They Complete Idiots Department? At the risk of being somewhat off topic: over on slashdot they are claiming that you won't be able to upgrade (or reinstall) windows Vista unless you already have some other version of windows installed...Vista already seems to be deep in the colossal blunders department. Have to wonder at this point how many people are going to try upgrading to this. The price is right - and you don't need to have old windows installation disks lying around to try it out. [Posted at 01/28/2007 06:11 PM by David K. Levine on DRM Gene patents attacked DENISE CARUSO enters the lists on biotech patents for genes (NY Times link here), questioning the whole set of legalisms that have built up around them.
Unlike product patents which can be improved on, "there is no analog to this network of obligations for a patent holder. As Tim Hubbard, a Human Genome Project researcher, noted at a 2001 conference: 'If you have a patent on a mousetrap, rivals can still make a better mousetrap. This isn't true in the case of genomics. If someone patents a gene, they have a real monopoly.'"
“This monopoly gives patent holders total control over patented genetic materials for any use whatsoever whether for basic research, a diagnostic test, as a test for the efficacy of a drug or the production of therapies.” Several examples are cited in the article to suggest how against the public interest these patents can be. In one case cited, "Patient groups filed suit in 2000, contending misappropriation of trade secrets by using their children's DNA without consent to obtain a patent. It took until 2003 for the parties to reach a confidential settlement; it allows certain laboratories to continue collecting royalties but lets institutions, doctors and scientists use the patented gene sequences without paying." Dismal story. Read the rest. [Posted at 01/28/2007 09:00 AM by John Bennett on IP in the News DVD security hacked--again Hackers are reported to have broken the encryption on DVDs by "stealing" the "title keys" to decrypt "high-definition DVDs through flaws in DVD player software" (yahoo link here). Title keys and some decrypted films have been posted on peer-to-peer Web sites for downloading. "The hackers did not attack the AACS encryption system itself, but stole the keys as they were exchanged between the DVD and the player to strip the encryption from the film." The high cost of writable hi-definition discs make large-scale copying of high-definition DVDs impractical, it is asserted. Both Sony's Blu-Ray and Toshiba's HD DVD are affected.
We'll see how long it is before the discs are widely reproduced. And to term the loss of keys as "stealing" is really a euphemism for the insecurity of the industry's so-called security. This was how elections may have been stolen in states using electronic voting machines. [Posted at 01/25/2007 06:40 PM by John Bennett on IP in the News It's Happening From the NY Times:
As even digital music revenue growth falters because of rampant file-sharing by consumers, the major record labels are moving closer to releasing music on the Internet with no copying restrictions a step they once vowed never to take. [Posted at 01/23/2007 04:04 PM by William Stepp on Was Napster Right? Against Intellectual Monopoly As some reader may know, Michele Boldrin and I have been working on a book about intellectual property, titled "Against Intellectual Monopoly." There we make the case that without the artificial protection of patent and copyright competition functions best, and that patent and copyright do little or nothing to increase innovation and creation. Since they do plenty of other harm: we conclude that it would be best to do away with the entire mess. If you are interested in the details, we've just released the latest version on line at http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm.
The book is to be published (yes under copyright...but under our contract there will continue to be a free version available online) by Cambridge University Press - probably to appear in about a year's time. [Posted at 01/23/2007 11:16 AM by David K. Levine on Against Monopoly Having Your Cake and Eating it Too? There is a NY Times article on the mixtape controversy. Apparently many label executives and officials at the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major music companies, say the mixtape is contributing to the problem. They argue that sales are ultimately undermined when the mixtape leaps from promotional giveaway item to replacement for an artist's official label-distributed album. [Posted at 01/23/2007 11:07 AM by William Stepp on Was Napster Right? Cut ISP service to music file sharers Techdirt informs us that the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) wants the power to take down ISP service to anyone it claims might be sharing copyrighted music (link here). It is currently pushing the ISPs to accede that right in a move similar to what YouTube lets copyright holders do take down a video simply based on the copyright holders assertion.
Due process? What's that? [Posted at 01/20/2007 06:26 PM by John Bennett on IP in the News Colossal Blunders Department I previously posted on
an article by security researcher Peter Gutmann
about DRM in Windows Vista in which he argues that Microsoft has chosen to degrade in important and significant ways the performance and capability of their operating system to protect "premium content." Microsoft has
posted a response
denying all charges. Unfortunately, reading the details of the denial, it appears that everything Gutmann said is true. [Posted at 01/20/2007 06:26 PM by David K. Levine on DRM Encryption at risk? Slashdot sends us to a Chinese site reporting that Associate professor Wang Xiaoyun of Beijing's Tsinghua University has cracked the prize encryption algorithm in wide current use (Slashdot link here). The Chinese website (Chinese article here) claims are without confirmation and it sounds like some other overreaching past claims, but if true, it is going to put a lot of government and commercial practices at risk. In other words, big news, if true. [Posted at 01/20/2007 05:17 PM by John Bennett on IP in the News |
|
Most Recent Comments at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 08:18 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 04:57 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 03:02 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 03:02 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 03:02 AM by Anonymous
at 07/29/2026 03:02 AM by Anonymous
|