Google's Print Project

[The Jade Knight]

I've already specified what I feel is "adequate".  Granted, it's certainly not "legalese", but for a basic sense…

However, after looking it over, I feel that there are some things I generalize too much over.

By "characters or worlds", I mean pretty much anything you can call a "proper noun".  This includes named races, religions, nations etc.  This is to prevent people from writing a book with your character doing things you really don't want your character doing, and also to help authors keep world-consistency (without fear that others will publish popular events in the world that the creator dislikes).

My comment about "ideas" is also primarily to avoid plagiarism.

[Skar]

Yes.  It was a rherotical question meant to invoke the vast disagreement that would result were you to ask said question of any two groups of people.  Even assuming they were all private citizens.

[The Jade Knight]

Obviously.

So, here's a question:  Were protections adequate 300 years ago?  200?  100?  20?

Are they adequate now?


I already pointed out that there would be disagreement on the issue.  I find your own post superfluous.


The real issue is, I guess, at what point do we sacrifice "protections" for Free Culture, and at what point do we sacrifice Free Culture for "protections"?

The only things I see that need to be protected are:
Name control (for reasons mentioned)
Plagiarism (or the prevention of it)
Direct copies (keeping in mind strong "Fair Use" protections)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

One of the big problems between the "little man" and the "big corporation" is copyright law - only a copyright lawyer can do well with it, and the poor absolutely cannot afford to hire copyright lawyers.  Having the court provide both with equal lawyers (for free) would level the playing field considerably.  Having the goverment actively hunting down copyright violators and prosecuting them would do the exact opposite of what I want (that is, to encourage Free Culture).

Ah, yes. Now I follow. That makes much more sense. I shall mull it over, for I'm not sure what my opinion is.

My point about trying to define "more" and "less" control is that it doesn't paint a valid picture. But more control can also be exactly what you said for "less" but with one more stipulation. "less" is not inherantly better than "more," it depends entirely on what the starting point is. It just wasnt' an effective means of showing what you mean, is all.

As for how much was adequate, more controls are necessary now than were before.

To go back to Jefferson, he envisioned the US as a loose collective of nearly autonomous states, where the primary factor was the gentleman farmer, and where land was THE primary commodity for most businesses of any type.

Little of that is true these days. The states aren't even what you can call "semi-autonomous." They have independent powers, but those are superceded by a central federal government. There are very few privately held farms anymore, and even if you stretch that to "small business owners" you're stretching a description of our modern society. Most people work for someone else and do well that way. The laborer is a more significant voting block when they actively participate. And land isn't nearly as precious. Many, many business don't own ANY land or real estate. They rent their location and do extremely well with it. Their primary commodity is intellectual property -- to wit, in most cases, the data on their hard drives. Thus we need more protection of that property than 200 years ago.

Now, this doesn't do anything to the previous discussion: are we adequate now or too harsh. All it does is give my response on that one question: protections 200 years ago are not sufficient for today's society. I would probably extend the same argument to 100 or even 50 years ago. In my opinion, the demands of IP protection 20 years ago are what they are now. NOt knowing exactly when laws changed though, I'm not ready to defend or decry the differences in protection then and now -- I suspect that some aspects are better and others worse.

[Firemeboy]

I hardly find it naive to look at how ideas are treated in the world: and they're treated as properties. That's what patents are all about.

 A patent isn't for ideas, it's for an object.  It's a design of a tangible thing.  Copyright is copyrighting a piece of work.  But a true 'idea' is not something you can patent.  

I'm currently in a session called, "The Google Library Digitization Project: For the Good of the World or for Google?"

I'll try to get the powerpoint if anybody is interested.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

uhm... no, the object itself isn't patented. Or else the other objects wouldn't be protected. THe patent is on the DESIGN. WHich is an idea.

[Firemeboy]

No, the patent is on a design of a product you plan to build.  You are patenting a product that stems from an idea.

Let me ask you a question.  Assume that we live in a neighborhood that doesn't know that salt melts ice.  We all struggle through the winter slipping and sliding on our sidewalks.  I decide that there has to be something and start to experiment.  After much work, trial and error, I come upon the idea to put salt on the sidewalk.  Sure enough, the ice melts.  

Now, everybody has salt, everybody has ice.  I ask you, can I patent this idea?  If so, what do I patent?  The salt?  The action of putting ice on the sidewalk?

I can patent a salt spreader that gives nice spread.  Or I can patent a trademark of 'Uncle Willies Ice Melt', but surely you can't argue I can patent the 'idea' of putting salt on ice.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

That's a little simplistic, don't you think?

Ideas, INFORMATION is negotiable. People will buy and sell information. They will write contracts, at great expense, to control the flow of information. sharing some information is criminal. Yet you want to treat this information as not being possessed.
The patent, frankly, is on the IDEA of HOW TO BUILD the object. It is not on the object itself.

Frankly, that's a semantic point, a relevant one, but one that ultimately comes down to opinion.

[The Jade Knight]

Or I can patent a trademark of 'Uncle Willies Ice Melt', but surely you can't argue I can patent the 'idea' of putting salt on ice.

Smuckers patented making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a certain way (with peanut butter on both sides).  How ridiculous is that?

And Bell.ca tried to register "the net" as a trademark.  Thank goodness the Canadians had enough sense to reject that request.

[Firemeboy]

Frankly, that's a semantic point, a relevant one, but one that ultimately comes down to opinion.

 It is a semantic point, but a crucial one.  And it's not opinion.  The law is incredibly clear on the subject.  You can't copyright an idea.  To do so would bring all progress to a grinding halt.  I could say something like, If I could patent the idea of harnessing the power of the sun, I could preclude anybody anywhere from working on anything related to solar power.    It's the product, or design of a product, that can be copyrighted or patented (or trademarked), not the idea.

If we can agree on nothing else, I think this point is something we should be able to agree on, since the law is clear on the matter, and you have to admit that tying up an idea just isn't a good thing to do.

[Eric James Stone]

You can patent a process.  A product or device is not necessary.

To use the salt on ice example, if nobody knew that spreading salt on roads helped melt ice until you discovered that, you could patent that.  You'd call it "A Process for Decreasing Ice on Roads Through the Spreading of Salt."

[The Jade Knight]

It'd be a moronic patent, mind you, but you could still patent it.

And hopefully if you sued someone over the patent you'd lose.

[Firemeboy]

Here is a link that states you cannot patent an idea.

http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/p120010.htm

And yes, you could patent a process, but you can't patent the idea.  They are two separate things.  So in the salt case you could patent the process of pouring salt onto a road using machine X, or method Y, but you couldn't stop anybody from changing the process with the same result, that of getting salt on the ice.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#whatpat

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Your definition of "idea" is far too narrow, imo. A process is an conceptualization -- an idea.

That doesn't mean ALL ideas can be patented, but some categories of ideas CAN.

[Firemeboy]

This, in my opinion, is where the discussion gets pointless for both of us.  I've provided links to several sites, including the patent office that states ideas cannot be copyrighted.  It's common sense.  If you think ideas should be copyrighted, that is fine, but that is not the law, nor does it make any sense.  All I'm trying to do is get us on the same page, of accepting that processes, designs or objects, etc. can be patented, but ideas cannot.  Instead we are arguing over a settled point.

What would have happened if Edgar Allen Poe had patent 'idea' of writing a story that presents a mystery to the reader.  He was the first to write such a story.  Had he been able to 'patent' that idea, we would have missed out on Sherlock Holmes, Poirot, and a thousand other such characters and stories that have enriched our lives.