On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:18:06 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

but if we stop compensating people who
create intellectual property, it will simply stop being created.

Hi Bob,

This assertion is untested by simple virtue of the extension of
copyright, and the continued abuse of patents. Being untested does
not mean that it defaults to being true.

Insofar as left/right/liberal/conservative politics go, Ben Franklin
was very much against patenting. In his era, plagiarism was rife, but
its penalty was weighed against purpose and claims and punished in the
form of opprobrium. You were far more likely to be sued for slander
than stealing ideas. Back then, if you couldn't pay the fine, they
threw you in the slammer.

But back to the assertion, there is every proof that this is simply
not the case. One of the chief contentions that America is shipping
its software jobs east (the far east, not Jersey) is that Asians will
soon crowd the field with better programmers (or simply more, cheaper
programmers) who will flood the capitalist market with their product.

Creativity being what it is, and what intellectuals do, such product
that is free and unencumbered has already washed the Asians out like a
tidal wave. I can point at one example of creativity that confounds
the monetary need for patent or copyright:
http://sourceforge.net/
where you and others may observe more than 98,000 software packages
are being offered for free (this is NOT crippleware) that are being
built by more than 1 Million designers (creative individuals). They
do ask for pledges, but this is not a condition of use.

The Chinese don't need more programmers to burn illegal copies of M$
Office, but neither do I need to fly to Shanghai to buy them. Instead
I can download Open Office for free (and certainly at less hazard to
asian infections). Do I breathlessly wait for the next iteration now
called Longhorn? That horse is so lame, M$ hasn't realized that the
field has left it behind. If a million Indian Engineers could put it
on wheels with a hemi under the hood, it still wouldn't pay their
wages in rice when it hits the market. M$ daily pays the cost for
exclusivity that eclipes copyright or patent. As far as creativity
go, copyright and patent offer abysmal return unless you are a one
note symphony composer.

The ONLY software I have ever purchased in the last 10 years was for
Agent (the newsreader I am now using to post to this forum) and
Outpost Firewall. Both items were to protect me from the third piece
of software I bought, M$ Win2K Pro which could now be easily replaced
with Linux (which I now build custom business systems on). Absolutely
every application that is mainstream can be replaced and upgraded to
for FREE.

In the spirit of compensation, not to the individual(s) who designed
Open Office, but to the community at large, I have contributed my own
Web Search Engines for FREE. My effort to produce them expended as
much time, but far less cash in my pursuit of 5 patents (ego
certificates).

If any want to argue that this is far different from Mickey Mouse
protection, I would offer that even if his copyright expired, there
would still be protection through Trade Mark, and Licensing
agreements. Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for
intimidation alone.

You can be sued for distributing the image of Moe Howard, but sky
through with Abraham Lincoln's mug on a T-shirt. This is not about
creativity, merit, or intellectual worth. It is simply about
government sanctioned monopoly (and again, manifestly and explicitly
so). As TR observed 100 years ago, expanded monopolies are bad for
America.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:15:34 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Absolutely every application that is mainstream can be replaced and upgraded to
for FREE.

Hi All,

In today's news, from the Seattle Times:
"'My belief is that open-source software is going to help drive
the acquisition cost of software down toward zero,' he said, a
shift that will require software companies to move 'over to a
maintenance and support model.'"
and this is a quote from Martin Taylor, Ballmer's chief of staff at
M$.

Now, taking that cue about future trends in protecting the rights of
those who create intellectual property, you may notice that patents
and copyright have ceased to have market leverage in an industry that
is content dominated. On the other hand, maintenance and support are
strictly labor centric. How long do you think 1million Chinese will
take to hone their mid-west accent? How long do you think it would
take you to brush up your Mandarin or Cantonese?

The economy of off-shoring is not found in how many calls the Chinese
Help Desk can answer, but in how many answers the Chinese Help Desk
can make understandable.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

If any want to argue that this is far different from Mickey Mouse
protection, I would offer that even if his copyright expired, there
would still be protection through Trade Mark, and Licensing
agreements.

Why would anyone pay to license something for which the copyright has
expired?

Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for
intimidation alone.

No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art,
and promote entepreneurism.

You can be sued for distributing the image of Moe Howard, but sky
through with Abraham Lincoln's mug on a T-shirt.

That's where the similarity ends. But where does it begin?

This is not about
creativity, merit, or intellectual worth. It is simply about
government sanctioned monopoly (and again, manifestly and explicitly
so). As TR observed 100 years ago, expanded monopolies are bad for
America.

The Truthspeak word for pessimist is realist.

ac6xg

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:57:52 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
Why would anyone pay to license something for which the copyright has
expired?

Hi Jim,

That is simply repetition. The extension of copyright makes that
moot. Can you name a single Disney product with copyright that was
not licensed as a trademark right? No one is seriously interested in
Little Mermaid knock-offs but the Chinese. And how many dozen are
Disney going to sell to Chinese at $20 a pop when they can only afford
25 cents?

When the capitalists go into China with Hammer and Tong over copyright
issues, they are not selling anything. And since the introduction of
Linux as a substantial option, the Chinese have shown even less
interest in M$. There's the payoff of investments in Hammer and Tongs
on a sliding scale.

Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for
intimidation alone.

No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art,
and promote entepreneurism.

This lies somewhere between misty-eyed dreaming and the soft-porn of
industry pleas. There is absolutely no grant nor entitlement, much
less funding that is vested into R&D by the government's supporting
monopoly. Copyrights and Patents are boldfacedly proclaimed as rights
of enforcement ONLY. No R&D lab I've been in had a legal department,
and most companies that did have a legal department, bought their R&D
and simply did the marketing. If ever there was a case study of this,
it is M$. Chairman Bill's dad was NOT a mathematician NOR a
scientist, he was a Lawyer. He couldn't care less about copyright of
DOS1 because by the time any issue made its way through the courts, no
one would be using it.

Can you name the writer of DOS1? So much the value of copyright for a
trillion dollar industry.

An entrepreneur is the other guy with the money, not the one with the
intellectual property. I've pitched against more than $100Million
worth of these types, and most of them would stare daggers at you if
you uttered you had Patent pending. They know how to do that
themselves, and they certainly don't want competition seeing their
names as assignees in public records.

Jim, you got any of your own patents? Ever copyright any substantial
work? How much did it tilt the balance ledger? There's reality.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:36:31 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:


Jim, you got any of your own patents? Ever copyright any substantial
work? How much did it tilt the balance ledger? There's reality.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

One example, the people whose names follow the "created by" credit on
a successful (and copyrighted) tv series have been known to make
mountains of money.

bob
k5qwg

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:36:31 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

When the capitalists go into China with Hammer and Tong over copyright
issues, they are not selling anything. And since the introduction of
Linux as a substantial option, the Chinese have shown even less
interest in M$. There's the payoff of investments in Hammer and Tongs
on a sliding scale.

Hi All,

Now a quote from IBM (today, just as M$ quote was from today):

"Earlier this year, I.B.M. made a broad gesture toward what it
called a new era in how it controls intellectual property. It
announced in January that it would make 500 patents - mainly for
software code that manages electronic commerce, storage, image
processing, data handling and Internet communications - freely
available to others.

"And it pledged that more such moves would follow.

"This month, the company said that all of its future patent
contributions to the largest standards group for electronic
commerce on the Web, the Organization for the Advancement of
Structured Information Standards, would be free.

"I.B.M. is at the forefront, but companies in industry after
industry are also reconsidering their strategies on intellectual
property: What do you share? What do you keep proprietary?"

In today's marketplace, the pampered notions and dreams spun into
vague platitudes about protection are no defense to global cut-throat
capitalism.

These recent events throws the musty notion of patents being necessary
to support R&D into a cocked hat.

Franklin pointed out these false illusions long ago.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:50:32 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

One example, the people whose names follow the "created by" credit on
a successful (and copyrighted) tv series have been known to make
mountains of money.

Hi Bob,

I dare say, if I paid attention to that (and I do, as it is part of my
work), that I would not find you or Jim's name there.

Ever see a copyright notice on a TV scroll? The more important mark
is the Screen Writer Guild's registration number. It's been 25 years,
but I've done this too.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

SO - did you steal somebody's idea for an antenna, or what ?
Go ahead and make it - we won't tell.

You are underhanded, subversive, and your manner is below one of minimal
human behavior--but I am positive--others have told you this--and obviously
with little affect...
Attacking me certainly does NOT endear your person to me. I am sure that
other thinking individuals recognise you for what you are and fear any
exchange with you, do you like to live in isolation?
What is it that you have found in my posts which you fear and are attempting
to divert attention away from? What has endangered you to the point of
reducing yourself to a such a level as to make a "gutter attack" on anothers
character?
Not only your lack of education and proper upbringing is showing--your very
lack of character is SCREAMING in agony!

John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
. ..
SO - did you steal somebody's idea for an antenna, or what ?
Go ahead and make it - we won't tell.

Richard Clark wrote:

Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for
intimidation alone.

No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art,
and promote entepreneurism.


This lies somewhere between misty-eyed dreaming and the soft-porn of
industry pleas.

I'm really just paraphrasing those laws we had been talking about.

There is absolutely no grant nor entitlement, much
less funding that is vested into R&D by the government's supporting
monopoly. Copyrights and Patents are boldfacedly proclaimed as rights
of enforcement ONLY. No R&D lab I've been in had a legal department,
and most companies that did have a legal department, bought their R&D
and simply did the marketing.

Always with the negative waves, Mr. Clark.

Jim, you got any of your own patents? Ever copyright any substantial
work? How much did it tilt the balance ledger? There's reality.

Yes, I have and it is. But apparently my expectations were more
realistic than yours, and I somehow managed to avoid becoming a bitter
and pessimistic 'victim' of the big mean government men. Buck-up a
little fer cryin' out loud.

ac6xg