Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Patents Government Politics

WIPO Wants Your Feedback 195

Christian Engstrom writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is hosting an online discussion about 'Intellectual Property in the Information Society' from June 1 to 15, 2005. The conclusions of the Online Forum will form part of WIPO's contribution to the WSIS Tunis Summit. There are 10 different themes for discussion, including 'Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?' and 'Enforcement of IP Rights'. If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO Wants Your Feedback

Comments Filter:
  • by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @06:26PM (#12731308) Homepage Journal
    My feeling is that the "feedback" many people want to give WIPO, consists not so much of text, as a graphical representation of a middle finger. I hope their survey is prepared to deal with that kind of input.
    • Well, if they're accepting text-only, maybe it's time to brush off our ASCII-art skills!
    • Patented (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mfh ( 56 )
      The use of a third-party middle finger is currently patent-pending, and therefore we must notify you that we are unable to accept your patent-infringing useage of this method of expression. Please fill in this form, in triplicate and then we might ignore your request for up to six years, while we stay busy stealing ideas from trusting fools.

      Have a nice day.
    • by ImaLamer ( 260199 )
      My feedback will be in the form of a letter which can only be read 3 times. Afterward the paper and ink dissolves into your bloodstream. If you ever discuss the contents of the letter you will die of exsanguination. It affects your DNA and is present for three generations. The only thing you can do is purchase another compaint from me if you want to share it. A small fee of $17,814.72 in the form of a check will allow you to show the letter to one other person once.

      An unlimited license is not available at
    • by tacocat ( 527354 )

      Don't be a jerk.

      They have asked for an open debate. If you express your side of the debate in a realisticly reasonable manner then there might actually be a chance someone will consider your point.

      If you approach them with the ravings of a lunatic then you get zero points in the debate.

      It would be more fruitful if we considered this a legitimate forum with real listeners then a bitch-blog. The more mature approach will have more impact.

      • If you express your side of the debate in a realisticly reasonable manner then there might actually be a chance someone will consider your point.

        And if they don't like my well laid out point?

        You guessed it - I'm a loonie! A crazy lefty, or some other smear.

  • Not for us (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @06:27PM (#12731315)
    Right... just like our feedback would have any effect.
    They have a very strong agenda, and they are the bad guys. The forum is supposed to give them advice about ways to enforce "intellectual property", and this means removing fair use rights, not protecting them.
    • Re:Not for us (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @06:59PM (#12731510) Homepage Journal
      Its an organization for money, supported by organizations with money. They are in the business of taking rights and making money from it. We are not welcome.
    • I'm sure this whole thing is just a stunt designed to placate us. They want to make us think that we can have some input, thereby lessening opposition to WIPO. My guess is that they won't do anything with the results. Maybe we'll get a few tiny concessions if we're lucky.
    • Re:Not for us (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mazarin5 ( 309432 )
      I see it as a way of collecting the common protests of one of the most vocal group in opposition to them. Then they run it through the spin machine and come up with pleasantly worded counterarguments that preempt any rational discussion in public forums.
  • WIPO implies IP patents and lawyers. Need I say more?

    5 jackbooted toes in their backside is my feedback.
    • Re:Feedback? easy. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Everybody hates lawyers, until they need one. Lawyers are preety much the only thing that stands between politicians and absolute power.
      • Re:Feedback? easy. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @10:05PM (#12732466)
        Everybody hates lawyers, until they need one. Lawyers are preety much the only thing that stands between politicians and absolute power.

        Of course, about the only reason anyone would ever *need* a lawyer is to deal with another lawyer, and the self-reinforcing system of complexity they have built around themselves.

        • Re:Feedback? easy. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Of course, about the only reason anyone would ever *need* a lawyer is to deal with another lawyer

          My god, you're right!

          imagines a world without lawyers
        • This is BS.

          Modern civilization without constant war would basically be impossible without complex laws. Witness the prerequisite legal system to any historically successful nation or empire.

          By the way, it's lawyers, not the government or the courts, who have put forth the most effort to SIMPLIFY the law, e.g., with restatements, uniform codes, etc.

          It is the interacting influences of democracy itself in legislation, the complexity of modern society, and the attempts of courts to do equity, that make law
          • This is BS.

            Really ? Can you give some examples where complexity in law is *required* and not the end result of generations of lawyers investing in job security ?

            By the way, it's lawyers, not the government or the courts, who have put forth the most effort to SIMPLIFY the law, e.g., with restatements, uniform codes, etc.

            At least where I come from, the majority of "government" and "the courts" _are_ lawyers, used to be lawyers, or would have been lawyers.

    • No IP, no GPL. True, no IP no legal recourse to companies wanting to keep their stuff closed, but then they'd just turn to technological methods instead. Not fool-proof, but then nor are the laws...
  • Sounds to me like it will be the biggest flamewar ever seen.
  • For one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05, 2005 @06:32PM (#12731358)
    Make it so that the penality for downloading a movie is less than the penality for mugging someone on the street and buying a legal DVD with the money.
    • Re:For one (Score:3, Insightful)

      See though, mugging someone is not as bad, because the studio still gets their money. So with the mugging, less harm is being done...
    • I agree that the penalty is disproportionate to the crime, especially when compared with other crimes.

      However, the idea is that when the expected risk of being caught performing an illegal action is low, the only way to create a legal deterrence is to impose a significant penalty. That's why the penalties for copyright infringement are so ludicrously high - becuase it's ludicrously easy to get away with it. Mugging, on the other hand, is generally much harder to get away with; your victim may fight back an
  • by FlyByPC ( 841016 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @06:33PM (#12731361) Homepage
    How about "get rid of the middleman?" If movies and music were distributed electronically, and available online as soon as they were released in the theaters, you could do away with a lot of the packaging / marketing / middlemen that drive up the cost. Sell albums for $3-$5 apiece online (more if you need a CD shipped), with no DRM, and I think piracy will go down. Make DVD-quality movies available via download for $5-$10 -- or less for older, less-popular movies -- and people won't bother to pirate those, either.

    Unfortnately, groups like the one doing the survey will be the big losers. Such a scheme benefits artists, actors, and the public -- none of whom have near as good representation and lobbyists as the big recording and movie companies.
    • Sell albums for $3-$5 apiece online (more if you need a CD shipped), with no DRM, and I think piracy will go down. Make DVD-quality movies available via download for $5-$10 -- or less for older, less-popular movies -- and people won't bother to pirate those, either.

      Your so naive it's touching.

      People have proven time and time over that

      1 - When faced with the choice of either buying something legally for cheap, and downloading something illegally for free with almost no risk of getting caught, they'll get
      • by Frogbert ( 589961 ) <{frogbert} {at} {}> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:05PM (#12731535)
        I'm not so sure about that, yes there will always be people that will never pay for anything but I think the vast majority of consumers would prefer to pay a sufficiently small flat rate for the conveniance of all you can eat music/tv shows/movies. Sure I could go out and download mp3s off gnutella or whatever but it is completely potluck when it comes to quality and what song your actually downloading.
      • by Anonymous Coward


        They are cheap, and everything they offer is also available through "free" means like Gnutella, etc.

        However, many people still use them. Why? Cheap + Convenient trumps Free + Hassle.
      • My time is not free.
        Hunting something down can be time consuming task, and with the usual p2p crap chances are you end up with something incomlete, useless or worse (like a children's movie with porn sliced in (or so I have heard (no, really, just heard about it :-) ) ) )

        So "cheap" would probably be far cheaper than "free" in this case
      • which is why itunes has been such an incredible failure.

      • I think you are way off base here Rosco. DVD/Video rentals and sales are at an all-time-high! There are plenty of people (the majority actaully) that just want to pay a fair price and be done with it. The amount of time it takes to download a movie and then transcode it and burn it to a DVD is jut not worth it. Especially if you could get a new DVD for $5 bucks or so. What could turn that majority away is restrictive DRM, high prices, and region lockout. Even Joe User will get tired of not being able
      • "When choosing between cheap, high quality stuff and the free, lesser quality version, people go for the free version. Again, apart for a few elitists and high-fidelity freaks, "free" is the criteria for most people."

        Whoo Whoo. This means MS will go out of business any day now!
    • I'm going to copy/paste this verbatim and send it... I think it's a great idea. Getting rid of the publishing mafia as it stands today is the only way to help the artists.
    • $3-$5 apiece online (more if you need a CD shipped), with no DRM, and I think piracy will go down.

      If there is no DRM, some one will put this on Kazaa immediately. Why pay when you can get it for free? Especially if it is an exact copy, like a music album, instead of a low quality rip, like a TV show. Do you actually believe that any business in their right minds would do as you're suggesting?
      • If there is no DRM, some one will put this on Kazaa immediately

        You sound like a bean-counter. Even with DRM, people still put it right on Kazaa!

        Why pay when you can get it for free?

        Umm, why don't you ask "Joe Average". The majority of consumers are actually buying DVD's/Video's, sales/rentals are very high. The majority of consumers are not downloading an AVI, transcoding it to MPEG2 and then burning a DVD, they are going out and renting or buying a DVD.

        • Do you understand what the broadband penetration is into the "Joe Average" community? Do you understand how user-unfriendly BitTorrent is to actually find something and download it to the "Joe Average" community?

          As soon as this becomes more accessible - WinMX for movies, let's say - and there is greater broadband penetration, you will start to see the "Joe Average" folks start downloading en mass. As soon as that happens, it is a whole new ballgame.

          With the release of a easy-to-use, easy-to-search system

        • Notice that I talked about music albums, not TV shows. You are right about TV shows, but music albums don't suffer from any loss in quality. One study showed that people using Napster purchased fewer CDs the longer they used the service.
 5/napster-veterans-fewer-cds []
          • One study showed that people using Napster purchased fewer CDs the longer they used the service.
            Someone need to do a "study" for that? Of course people PAYING to use Napster would purchase fewer CDs. They are already PAYING for the music, why would they go out and buy it again?
    • movies and music aren't expensive because of the cost of packaging. they're expensive because businesses are greedy. printing a single DVD and having it packaged only costs about $1-1.50 if you're manufacturing it in quantities of a few hundred at a time. hollywood and the major record labels can get this done at half of that cost i'm sure. getting rid of that process isn't going to save anyone much money. the music and film industries are just used to making a killing off of the consumers. and besides, you
  • Oh right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @06:36PM (#12731384)
    This is like the RIAA opening up an IRC channel to get some "intelligent discussion" going about IP enforcement. I think we all know where this will lead.

    I think what is likely going on is that they want to hear some opinions from common people on these issues so they can analyze how to best promote their views in ways that will resonate. That way they can tweak their FUD for optimal consumption by the masses.
    • by Saeger ( 456549 )
      /nick l33tk1dd1e
      Free Kev1n!!!!!111
      Inf0rmation wants to be Fr33!!!!!!
      die you f00king gr33dy RIAAsses and MPAAssholes!!
      l0lz! r0flz!
      • /msg l33tk1dd1e
        We have your IP. Prepare to meet our lawyers in half an hour at your house.
        If your parents refuse to unlock the basement, we will push for the death penalty in court.
    • I hate to break it to you, but there are a LOT of people out there, including myself, and probably most at WIPO, who honestly believe that IP law is a good thing.

      Can you really say that promoting a view is 'FUD' when the speaker believes in the message?
      • I'm not opposed to IP law in general, just the incredibly broad ways in which the WIPO, the xxAAs, et al believe it should be extended and strengthened.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    1. Eat WIPO shit
    2. BM
    3. Feed WIPO #2
    4. Goto 1

  • (Speaking as a Wikipedia contributor) The fact that that discussion page, which exists only to help them destroy fair use rights, comes from my beloved Wikipedia --- well, it makes my skin crawl.
    • Re:Ugh, I feel dirty (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:10PM (#12731560) Homepage
      They also cited the Wikipedia definition of "Public Domain" and in the next sentence proceeded to BASTARDIZE it into some sort of flaw in the law:

      Wikipedia defines "public domain" as the "body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of the common cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity, which in general anyone may use or exploit." The public domain includes works and objects of related rights that can be used and exploited by everyone without authorization, and without obligation to pay the copyright owners concerned - generally because the term of protection for the works in question has expired or because there is no provision of copyright law requiring protection of the works in the country where the works are sought to be used.

      Excuse me, if something is in the public domain then the "copyright owner" who is not getting paid DOES NOT EXIST.

      And the last part in appears to paint public domain as a problem of flawed law from some sort of rouge countries.

      • Welcome to the new Enclosure Edicts.
      • And the last part in appears to paint public domain as a problem of flawed law from some sort of rouge countries.
        I've seen this sort of thing before. On the subject of the cessation of copyright on the earliest Elvis works, one particular newspaper report in the UK described it as a "legal loophole". Despite the fact that the termination clause is written in plain English.
  • How about: (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Trogre ( 513942 )
    Instead of announcing my position on Intellectual Property, I'm announcing that you're all... ...morons.
  • Software to me is a set of instructions to a device that understands binary data. As such, it is a form of free speech.

    Therefore, I do not see how these instructions can be patented.

    If in an effort to establish wheher an individual is mature or otherwise, I need to subtract their DoB from the current date, I could also keep subtracting month by month from the current date till the remaning date value is equal to the subject's DoB.

    End result: Same age.

    So why should one patent such an entity? What M$,

  • Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05, 2005 @06:49PM (#12731453)

    I don't know what kind of feedback y'all are looking for but here are some articles in my zine, EuroHacker, about IP and related stuff:

    Heh, might as well give y'all the sales plug :)

    EuroHacker Magazine is a free-as-in-beer webzine dedicated to neat hacks, guns and survival. All from a European, slightly libertarian, perspective

    You can find us in #eurohacker on or you can send us an e-mail to

    Oh, and the main site is here [].

    All the links were nyud'ized. One can never be too careful :)

  • Royalties! (Score:5, Funny)

    by yotto ( 590067 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:03PM (#12731524) Homepage
    If I give them my opinion, and they use it, can I get royalties for it?
  • by Absolut187 ( 816431 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:03PM (#12731528) Homepage
    As a future patent attorney, I encourage them to promote an incredibly complicated system of laws that only specialists can understand.

    This will obviously stifle innovation by raising the cost of product development, but who cares?

    It's not like the original purpose for creating patents and copyrights was to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts.

    Or was it?

  • The OECD's efforts to standardize tax global tax policy [] has the wrong basis. Since an objective is the avoid double taxation of international investment, all taxation (not including import/export tariffs) and the cost of maintaining the social construct of property rights belongs to the jurisdiction within which those property rights are exercised, the single taxation objective can be achieved by taxing net assets thereby eliminating other forms of taxation.

    While there may need be exemptions for such bas

  • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:08PM (#12731550)
    Why do I get the funny feeling that these people are much more interested in justifying putting people in prison for listening to music than they are with dealing with the fact that the five entertainment corporations have STOLEN the public domain in the USA by infinitely extending the copyright period.

    When you buy something on 'time' you make an agreed number of payments and then the item is yours, you own it. The seller does not have the legal right to decide to extend the number of payments that you have to make whenever you get close to completion.

    The copyright period works in the same way. We, the people, agree to let X corporation own the right to demand money for the viewing of an individual work of art or entertainment for a precise and limited amount of time agreed upon when the copyright was granted.

    By bribing politicians to extend the copyright period without agreed upon compensation to We, the people, the corporations have stolen the work of art (or entertainment) and all demanded payments for viewing this title after the original copyright period has ended are improper and illegal extortions of revenue from the people wishing to view this work under their public domain rights.

    By bribing the politicians to infinitely extend the copyright period, by extending it EVERY time that it is due to expire, the corporations are engaging in a repeated pattern of criminal behavior. Under the RICO act, the people can demand that the entities engaging in continous criminal behavior be deprived of their means, their assets, and the legal framework for their continued existence.

    By copying music and movies and sharing these files, We, the people, are simply asserting our rights when faced with a corrupt and racketeering organization. Which in this case are entertainment companies who have stolen the public domain.

    Don't let anyone ever tell you again that you are a 'pirate' or thief because you chose to share or download files of entertainment content.
    And don't take any nonsense from corporate-controlled non-government trade organizations either.

    Thank you.
    • As much as I agree with your main point; there are still new works being distributed which would definitely fall under the original time length for the laws in place. Honestly, if something is older than me, the owner doesn't have many rights to it, as it had its time in the sun before I could speak. On the other hand, if I thought that something is really worth the money, I will buy it; but that is getting off topic and all rambly, so thats enough for me.
    • "Treason doth never prosper: ... For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -- John Harington
    • By copying music and movies and sharing these files, We, the people, are simply asserting our rights when faced with a corrupt and racketeering organization. Which in this case are entertainment companies who have stolen the public domain.

      If you want to retain the moral high ground, you must only traffic in materials that should be public domain, but are not due to extensions. Even under pre-extension copyright rules, the latest three Star Wars films, for example, would still be protected by copyright.

    • We, the people, agree to let X corporation own the right to demand money for the viewing of an individual work of art or entertainment for a precise and limited amount of time agreed upon when the copyright was granted.

      All excellent points, except that copyright was intended to grant those vaunted limited monopolies to the creator of the work, not a corporation. Being able to assign the rights to a work to a corporation may seem a harmless thing, but as we've seen, it can be rather, uh, problematic. [pard
  • Stupid Slashbots (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shadow_slicer ( 607649 ) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:10PM (#12731564)
    All of the posts so far seem to be just generic knee-jerk comments about IP.

    Consider this: if they recieve well-written and enlightened criticism (as most of the already existing commentary appears to be) then we will be able to view their future actions in light of the forum results. This will provide a yardstick for anyone to compare their future actions.

    If they do something that opposes the majority opinion or most sensible recommendations present in the open forum, we can criticize them.
    As is we have no reference for what information is available to them, so we cannot prove that they are being intentionally evil.

    Even if they refuse to listen to us, it is a chance for concerned parties to submit their concerns in a single location on the record.
    And in case they do listen to us we should explain rationally what and why we hold our opinions, what changes we would recommend and how they would effect those involved (ex. if patents disappeared no one would have to hire a patent attorney (yay!), but would have no protection against people copying their ideas and no incentive to ever document their inventions (boo!)). If they find our explanations acceptable they may change their policies to be more to our liking.
    • Congratulations, you've won the prize. You've both decried and embodied problem you observed in a single post. Bravo.

      How about leading by example? You might do a decent job.
      • I don't have good literary skills. I have not adequately researched the topic, and have no real experience in this field.
        In addition I have no real standing in this field to draw upon for support: I'm a college student, not an engineer or businessman. I don't really know the way things are in the IP world aside from how it affects me personally. I could clothe myself in white-tower idealism and preach about morality and social conscience, but that doesn't really say as much as people in the field giving rea
    • You know how the political scene uses all those poles? Add to that all the other organizations that use opinion poles, comment boxes, feedback, etc. It is all about understanding your consumer/customer/enemy/product/pick your view. This is essentially the same thing.

      What we should be concerned with is credit where it is due. Those that produce more valuable ideas will obviously be in more demand. Giving an individual, group, or organization a monopoly on an idea, no matter its simplicity or complexity
      • All of that is pure speculation. Maybe I need to upgrade my tinfoil hat, but I have a hard time seeing things from your perspective.

        I doubt this is part of a data-mining conspiracy to determine the most effective method of brain-washing the masses. (This sort of forum would only attract the most interested parties who hold different views from the masses and are also the least likely to be persuaded.) Worst case, it may help them plan their timeline and budgetting.

        As much as it hurts to say it, Intellectu
        • Trademarks are not an issue, that is an easy to understand aspect of IP that has more to do with image/label than with an idea. I have no problem with defending a particular title as long as it does not go too far with attempting to own a particular word that is part of our language.

          The one area that needs to be enforced is plagiarism and related. Like you say, what if someone just rebranded some product and sold it? It happens all the time actually, maybe not the the degree you might imagine, but it ha
        • IP is not supposed to be about "theft and control". It actually is supposed to be about incentive
          One of the big problems with patents recently is triviality and obviousness. When companies start patenting "clicking patterns" and "scoring system for games based on objectives", something seems totally wrong.

          Triviality coupled the way big corporations are filing preemptive/predatory patents to protect themselves from competition is turing the patent system into a minefield for any independent inventors. At t
    • How about this one.

      "Dear Sirs. In the future I would like to be able to purchase music. When I say "Purchase" I mean that you get some of my money and return I actually own something and can do with it what I want. Do you think that will be possible in the future you envision?
  • Where is the downside in giving WIPO some well thought out feedback? I would like to take the extremists on both side of this issue and POUND THIS SHIT OUT OF THEM. Good feedback may not change their minds, but it might make them look foolish.

    Of course I know all of you are so busy doing spectacular things in life that you would NEVER waste your time posting inanities to forums/boards.
    • Harm ? If you participate in a process you legitimize the process. Instead of being someone that resists the very concept you become a zealot unhappy with the neccessesary compromises.

      That said given the manner the wipo has acted in the past my guess is they are hoping for bad behaviour from the open information society people so that they may better demonize them.
      • Exactly.

        There is a good reason why scientists have decided to boycot the Kansas Intelligent design review/pannel/whatever.

        When you know the motive of the excercise is against what you think is right then your participation in such an excercise is dubious as best
      • The reason WIPO has acted in the way they have are because of lobbying from RIAA and the likes.

        Whats needed are the right kind of lobbying.

  • maybe somebody[*] with a good knowlege of software patents should have a gander and see what patents the wipo site is infinging on (if possible), such as a javascript for loop (that's patented isn't it?), etc

    [*] i dont really know much about software patents other than what i read on /., so i cant do it
  • summary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by KillShill ( 877105 )
    WIPO = Global BSA/SPA

    what kind of jail cell do you want today?

    there is NO way in hell that we will ever get anything even remotely reasonable in copyright laws. our only hope is that the current system collapses. there are far too many people with interests that run counter to justice and freedom that control the strings.

    it's not giving up so much as knowing where to draw the line. it's like exerting infinitely more energy in a marathon each step to make it to the finish line when everyone but you is alr
  • Theme 3 - Hacked (Score:2, Informative)

    by KaSkA101 ( 692931 )
    Anyone look at theme three? It appears that it was hacked, as it has a picture from gotse on the top of the page.
  • seems someone really likes wipo... that they wanted to post their picture over the text at one of the article links,,,

    oh well.... I'm sure WIPO knows there are those who do not like them, without this sort of hacking...

    • Yeah, the hacker is so kewl. Too bad it just gives the WIPO some disgusting proof that their opponents in the IP discussion are a group of childish, immature, punks. Mainstream organizations (like legislatures) will consider this another example of the hollow content and negative orientation of the anti-IP community. This community is already rife with ranting zealots who quote others ideas without understanding them, consistently use flawed logical arguments, and refuse to remain open-minded enough to part
  • Why, did they run out of toilet paper?
  • Here are some things to lobby for that might be within reach.
    • TRIPS as both floor and ceiling on length of copyright
      The TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement [] establishes 50 years as the minimum duration of copyright for WTO countries. 50 years should also be the maximum, and the TRIPS agreement should be amended accordingly. Countries, such as the US, which go beyond 50 years should be brought into compliance with international norms. This is a proper WTO issue, since
    • On a similar theme, I'd like to see:

      * Patent protection excluded from cases where prior art can't be determined. An example would be where the prior art is usually protected by trade secrets. What is the point of giving patents to non inventors? Software has this problem.


      A shift of the benefit of Copyright/Patent/etc. back to the creator, artist etc. I don't know quite how it could be done, but it seems to me that the distribution channel usually benefits instead of the creator/inventor etc.
      • And some others from my wish list:

        * Duration of patents changed per field of invention.

        The whole point of patents is to reward an inventor when the barrier to copying his invention is low, but the cost of the making the first invention high. It's designed to give him a window in which to make money that otherwise wouldn't exist.

        So the duration should be set like that, for a back of the napkin business process idea, the invention cost is negligable, so the duration of patents in that field zero.

        For somet
  • Here is some background [] on WIPO, DMCA and the legislative monkey work that got American legislation that could not make it through Congress into an international treaty. Dirty.
  • They ask questions then frame the options to restrict the reply.

    "Theme Three: The public domain and open access models of information creation: at odds with the intellectual property system or enabled by it? "

    Gee a multiple choice question:
    1. Is the public domain against Copyright?
    2. Or does it depend on copyright?

    How about the 3rd option:
    3. Or does copyrighted material DEPEND on the public domain?

    Imagine if you had to re-invent a sorting algo, an indexing algo, a wheel, a cog, a lever, every time you w

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling