I don't think I will ever understand how groups with a private interest in an outcome can continue to expect the public to accept the most outrageous arguments for their position. Mike Masnick has been a consistent popper of such arguments, and he has another now on some in the fashion industry who again want to copyright their designs link here. How many inches above or below the knee can a hemline be? Are they going to copyright that? Take the next step. How many inches can a skirt flair? How many pleats? How wide each pleat? How many colors? How high the waistline? I'd love to be the lawyer defending a copyright infringement case in court. Ask the plaintiff what distinguishes his design. How can he answer?

It gets only slightly better when one considers the example of pretty obvious knockoffs. But big-name fashion houses aren't going to produce them. So now we are in the realm low-end fashion. Isn't the copied better off accepting the emulation as what high-end fashion is all about? The design is obviously widely admired. The original must be worth several times what the knockoffs have to sell for. And why worry? The next season will bring a whole new set of fashions. That is the definition of fashion.

Copyrighting fashion is a contradiction in terms. It will kill innovation (and profit) in the industry. Like so much else with intellectual property protection.

Rare good news link here. The Canadian Patent Appeal Board ruled against business method patents in a case involving Amazon's one-click patent. Usually, US patent holders with the support of our federal government are able to muscle other countries into applying similar legal standards.

The ruling included this statement, "since patenting business methods would involve a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and since the patentability of such methods is a highly contentious matter, clear and unequivocal legislation is required for business methods to be patentable."

The Canadian ruling comes at a time when the US Supreme Court has accepted a case on the same basic question. The Canadian ruling is important for opponents of such patents because it will be harder for the US to rule differently. I do not go into the merits of the patent as it raises all the usual questions about prior art and obviousness to which so many take exception--just not the courts and the patent owners.

Hi over there!

I guess with the speed of news at internet you already know what happend - we got 7.1% of the total result and probably two mandates when the Lissabon treaty goes into effect.

We did it. Now it´s time to start the race for the national parliament - we need 4 % next year to get in. But with the current result - we will have the finances and the organisation in place to get that done. That I am sure of.

Sincerely yours

Mika

Via Steve Silberstein the story of Clarence Saunders. He invented the self-service grocery store - a valuable and important innovation. Amazingly enough after it was successful he seems to have patented the idea. I can't find any evidence the patent had any effect for good or ill - although it doesn't seem to have kept Saunders out of bankruptcy.

Swedish Pirate Party headed to Brussels. Yet another miscalculation by the IP Monopolists - support for the Pirate Party shot up after the corrupt trial of the Pirate Bay. Corrupting judges and politicians works only as long as it is secret.

I highly recommend Kevin Carson's "'Intellectual Property': A Libertarian Critique," published by the Center for a Stateless Society. It is first-rate. So-called intellectual property is not just about rock bands "protecting" recordings. It's about big dinosaur corporations attempting to subordinate people through the control of ideas. This big issue will only get bigger in the near future, and much is at stake. Whether one realizes it or not, defense of patents and copyrights puts one on the side of the opponents of liberty.

via Mika Sjoeman the latest polling numbers. Check it for the Swedish election results in English.

The post Animal Abuse mentions the state's use of "DVD-sniffing anti-piracy dogs."

Res ipsa loquitur.

Four more days to the European Parliamentary Elections, and the Pirate Party in Sweden looks set to get at least one seat, possibly two, out of Sweden's total share of 18 seats.

It should be said, though, that the opinion polls are notoriously unreliable. In one opinion poll, 45.6% said they had not decided which party they would vote for. Some have also argued that the Pirate Party numbers are inflated since the party is supported mainly by young men, who typically don't vote to the same extent as others. On the other hand, the Pirate Party's supporters may be more motivated than others to vote in this election.

The Pirate Party's main proposals are shorter copyright lengths, abolished patents, and increased privacy protection.

Joe Mullin lists the reasons to be relatively optimistic that the Supreme Court will do the right thing in helping to reign in the abuse of patent law by at least a smidge.

Read it here.