The New York Times on Hypocrisy of US IP Policies 335
jwinterboy writes "
The New York Times has an article (free blah di blah) criticizing the intellectual property framework that the U.S. places on developing countries, given that it was a large pirate of intellectual property during it's own industrialization.
"
Developing nations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Developing nations (Score:5, Interesting)
AFAIK in the 2nd half of 19th century Germany was widely seen as the rip-off nation building machinery, chemical and pharmaceutical industries on violating patents, only switching to international patent system after they had something to lose.
For general amusement: among my fellow german countrymen it is widely unknown, that the mark "made in germany" (which they hold in a kind of national pride) was originally forced on german goods by the British to mark them as cheap crap (anybody to remember first japanese cars?).
Re:Developing nations (the Mauser) (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like the tide has changed (Score:2)
This is one of the few english language [landfield.com]
articles I found:
Re:Made in... [urban legend alert!] (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Made in... [urban legend alert!] (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of their articles are pure political spin
pieces. All of them are supercilious tripe, even
when they manage to get the facts right, but
worse they go on to derive invalid conclusions
from their "facts", in order to refute their
straw-man "legends".
Besides which, there was nothing -- nada -- zip --
zilch -- about the post to which you respond to
give it the credibility which would merit a
refutation, thus making your response a tendentious
pedantry up with which I cannot put.
Prove it. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for his/her post not being a response, I'd say you're wrong. It was a response to the fact that this person was repeating a lie like it was a fact. Stopping the spread of lies, and general enlightenment, is something that everyone in society should try to do. By ending stupidmemes like the girl who masturbated with a lobster dieing with baby-lobsters in a sensitive place, you make the society a better place to be.
Back to the Future Reference (Score:2, Funny)
Or at least something like that: I quote out of memory.
Re:Developing nations (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Developing nations (Score:4, Insightful)
These are the same countries US (and EU to a lesser extent) corporations dump out-of-date food and medical supplies on to claim tax breaks - use for slave labour to make "designer" trainers and generally exploit however they can.
The sad thing is, the US govt can't see why the rest of the World (except our pathetic lapdog PM) takes offence at this...
Mod me down if you like, it needed saying...
Re:Developing nations (Score:5, Insightful)
It's telling that the Slashbots are so upset by RIAA and MS. These things are utterly trivial. The real problems are in steel tarriffs and agricultural subsidies, that a nation that touts free trade (and the EU is just as bad here) resorts to protectionism and barely-disguised mercantilism at the first sign of trouble. Trouble's when you need your principles the most, not the least.
The developing world doesn't give a stuff what word processor you prefer or how you think it's unfair that you should have to pay, what, $15 for a CD, so you steal it instead. Look at the big picture, people.
Re:Developing nations (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is just as bad as the US. So much for free trade. NAFTA the only true free trade agreement that coveres all goods and labor. Of course we undermine it with subsidies, but it is a step in the right direction.
Farm subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)
The IMF orders those same third world countries we dump our subsidized food into on good years to stop helping local farmers buy chickens with something as simple as insurance that if the chick they buy doesn't become a 1 year old chicken it will be replaced. Then the free trade negotiators show up and tell them they can get rid of that 33% tariff on the president's widgets if he will just get rid of that tariff that protects his countries maize production and well prevents his family's competitors from coming out with better widgets by making those patent laws stronger, err in line with American standards.
What does it mean when we complain about a 55 year copyright in Taiwan, which hasn't even been around that long, much less democratic in that time? They are in line with international standards, and have trouble policing such an overlong copyright already, much less the kind of permanent monopoly the US wants them to establish on words.
PS As I understand it the farm subsidies are even worse in the EU, esp France, and this is causing problems with Eastern European countries who wouldn't get the subsidies if they joined the EU. This is from the economist which isn't an unbiased source; is it true?
Re:Farm subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, by campaigning against agricultural subsidies and for "fair prices" for the developing world, the anti-globalization movement is agitating in favor of more globalization! That would homogenize prices across the market.
Actually, the whole movement is like that. They are anti-profit, but pro-tax. Anti-monopoly, but pro-government. Anti-capitalist, but pro-freedom.
Really, the corporate CEO and the tree-hugger want the same things, neither of which are in the interests of the government, which does its best to set them against each other.
As I understand it the farm subsidies are even worse in the EU, esp France, and this is causing problems with Eastern European countries who wouldn't get the subsidies if they joined the EU. This is from the economist which isn't an unbiased source; is it true?
Yup, google for "Common Agricultural Policy". You can get the raw figures from the EU website itself, then do the analysis yourself (compare, say, the CAP to the value of the agricultural sector in one of the aspiring members). I won't post a link, I want you to look for yourself so you know that I'm not biased the other way.
Re:Farm subsidies (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not true. The corporate CEO wants profits, and will be selective about their globalism as long as it protects profits. They will gladly accept subsidies to save their asses - in steel, the airline industry, agribusiness - while providing lip service to an open market. They are happy to enjoy all the benefits of government intervention to ensure their immediate profitability. And, since corporate money bankrolls the political process, what is in the interests of the government is usually what is in the interests of the CEO. The tree-hugger wants the prosperity of the 3rd world (and may not always be clear how to do that).
Re:Developing nations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Developing nations (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh...
This has been going on for too long in the USA and the reason is simple. Most voters in the US don't give a rats ass. Two recent situations come to mind.
The whole genetically modified foodstuff debacle. The problem is that the US has granted patents on GM strains of common foodstuffs. Then when GM strains pollute natural crops with [commondreams.org] patented genes, farmers [percyschmeiser.com] get sued into oblivion. Then, when third world countries turn down "donations" of GM food [bbc.co.uk] , US aid officials criticize them. What everyone seemed to miss (unsurprisingly) is that if Zimbabwe accepted the GM maize and then their local crops "somehow" became polluted with patented GM strains, they would soon be in a position where they would have to pay IP lawyers and US corporations to enable their people to eat locally produced food.
The other issue is protectionism. I won't even touch the steel issue. It reeks too badly. Instead, let's consider the current softwood lumber dispute with Canada. (if you say "What dispute?" my point is made) The protectionism in this dispute is almost as rampant as the corruption. The bottom line being that a select group of southern lumber barons profit while average Americans pay $3000 more for new housing. Oh, don't forget the 50,000 Canadians who were put out of work. The fact that the WTO will eventually overturn this does not negate the impact it has on profits, costs and jobs in the short term. If this is how we treat our closest ally, it's no wonder our enemies hate us.
Look at the big picture, people.
Sorry, looking at the big picture is simply too difficult for most Americans. It requires critical thinking and the ability to look at our own behaviour objectively. Point being, as long as Joe Sixpack has a job and Monday Night Football, most Americans just don't care.
Be a bit more cynical (Score:3, Interesting)
the US govt can't see why the rest of the World...takes offense at this
You really think that the US govt can't see? It's the normal US citizenry that can't see, because they get fed piles upon piles of propoganda.
Let's take a look:
Gov't line: We need to bomb them to protect the freedoms of the Kuwaiti people
Reality: we have big oil ties with the whole area, and any one country becoming dominant enough to be able to set oil prices or do anything but lie their passively while we import their national resources at dirt-cheap prices would be an economic unpleasantness. Much better to keep them afraid (at least for fifty years, until their oil runs out, at which point we couldn't care less what happens, just like we don't care what happens in places like Africa).
Gov't line: We need to suppress rebels and ensure stability, so we're moving in troops.
Reality: We want to build a canal at some really awful terms for Panama. Panama doesn't bite. We fund rebel groups, stir up a bit of unrest, move in troops to "maintain Western Hemisphere stability", and build the canal in the middle of their country, letting Panama know that they can have it back in a hundred years. Quite profitable for us.
Government line: we want to protect democratic rights in Vietnam, so we're helping fund a fair government
Reality: we want a lapdog government on the borders of communist nations to stop the spread of communism.
Government line: We're bombing terrorist camps, protecting the human rights of women and others who the Taliban is suppressing.
Reality: There's no big signs on people saying "I am a terrorist." There are a shitload of warlords and private groups and villages. Basically, any faction that doesn't buy into the lapdog government that we're in the process of setting up is portrayed on CNN as a "terrorist group" that we're bombing. Of course, this kills lots of women and children and people that have never had the slightest to do with bombing things in the United States, but we can make up for it by finding the occasional poster person in Afghanistan who is now "freed from the bonds of the veil" and can partake of Western products.
Government line: we're "facilitating the peace process" because we're concerned about the parties involved. Palestine keeps breaking the peace agreements.
Reality: We didn't care in the least about Israel back in the Six Day War, when Israel was about to get invaded by five or so armies. Why? Because we were convinced that Israel was about to get toasted, and we don't really have any interest in pulling anyone's feet out of the fire. After Israel pulled off the most stunning military feat in the last century and won, we decided that Israel was the person to buddy up to. Both Palestine and Israel have regularly violated the rights of each other's people, and both hate each other's guts -- Palestine is no worse here than Israel -- but because Israel is currently the top dog, we villify Palestine.
It goes on and on. US World War II propoganda is particularly amusing, if you ever look back at it, because it's so ridiculous. Speaking of which:
Government line: we need to go after Germany because they're evil and empire-building (in modern times, there is a perception that we got involved to "save the Jews").
Reality: Most people in the US were entirely uninterested in helping any Jews out, which were pretty much seen as job-taking immigrants. Germany's building an empire...but we didn't care when France was doing the same. No, we just happened to have significantly more economic ties to England and France.
Modern propoganda spin: Our Founding Fathers were noble idealists who were throwing off the shackles of an unjust government.
Reality: Our Founding Fathers were vandals (sorry, that's just what the Boston Tea Party was) who didn't want to pay taxes to pay for the military protection that they had had from Indians for decades.
Modern spin: fought to save the country from slavery
Reality: Slavery not primary issue to the majority of people fighting, Union or Confederacy. Union cared mostly about not allowing any states to leave the United States (which would weaken the states as a whole), and the Confederacy was mostly interested in being able to have much more power at a state level.
Government line: the US is the most environmentally conscious of nations, putting out extreme efforts to product emissions-free cars, and using as much clout as it can to require developing nations to be clean.
Reality: The US is quite interested in countries being environmentally conscious -- as long as it isn't us. It's in our interests to drive up their costs and down ours. We've been the single major holdout against international antipollution agreements over the past few years. We *do* care about polution that immediately impacts US citizens (dumping chemicals in rivers that go to reseviours), but as for conservation of international resources...we use so many times our share of energy that it's ridiculous.
Government line: We stopped offensive germ warfare efforts about twenty years ago. We focus only on defense now.
Reality: Not sure one way or another, but if you remember, when we were proposing the (very sweet for us economically) "food for oil" trade agreement after we arranged for an international embarge of Iraq, and Iraq was holding out, claiming that they had plenty of food resources, there was a very unusual sudden mass outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease throughout Iraq's cattle. Go figure.
Government line: The US government wants to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of "rogue states" and terrorists to keep the world safe for everyone.
Reality: The US wants to keep nuclear weapons away from *anyone else*. Our current nuclear weapon reductions are meaningless -- both Russia and us have easily enough to destroy the other, even enough to overwhelm antimissile defenses. We just ignore allies that have nukes. Yet a nuclear weapon is just about the only meaningful resistance a country can put up in case of a US attack -- the US doesn't want any resistance to be possible. We have overwhelming conventional force, and we want things to stay that way.
Government line: "Defense spending". Our military is for "defense".
Reality: And yet, over the last fourty years, almost all our military spending has gone into making our military faster, lighter, and easier to move around the world via ships in battle groups. Why? Not cost effective at all for defense -- we can defend our shores just fine traditional approaches -- but amazingly good at bombardment and intimidation of countries that we aren't getting along with.
Government line: Al Queda is a bunch of cowards who can't take an honest fight who went after innocent people.
Reality: Assuming bin Laden himself was behind Sept. 11, he's one of the most successful military tacticians in the last hundred years. Think about it. He has a force that is outgunned, and outmanned. The people he's working with, Afghanis, have been used by the US governent as disposable tools against US enemies and then dropped when they were no longer useful (much like the Kurds, the Cuban revolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs). The understandably feel some resentment. Their religion (at least the political side of said religion) has been rather oppressed and attacked by Western culture that seems quite evil to them (loss of emphasis on the family, sexual promiscuity, etc). Most of the eastern countries being exploited for their oil are Islamic, and the US has had quite a hand in dirty work in the region. So what does he do, with no tanks, airplanes, or anything else? He uses our own airplanes against us. Who does he attack? Not the US soldiers, the grunts who are being paid to attack other countries, but against the people who are directly responsible for the decisions that caused so much damage to his country and people -- US politicians (the White House), the overbearing US military (the Pentagon), and the powerful corporations that have been encouraging said oil exploitation (rich suits in the World Trade Center).
The US government is just as guilty as the Soviets, the Chinese, and anyone else in putting out bogus propoganda. It's more successful because people are happy and rich. If you think that people that bought into Soviet or North Korean propoganda must have been incredibly stupid
Now, that doesn't mean that US propoganda is *bad* for us. US citizens enjoy an extremely high standard of living, rights (even in other countries) to ignore local laws that are simply unheard of (Clinton can get a vandal off in Singapore from being punished for his crimes, but if Taiwan tried to get someone off for copyright infringement, I doubt they'd have any success). Most of this comes, counter to said propoganda, not from "rights" or the long-dead "American self-sufficiency" or anything along those lines. It's because we're happy to use our military power to whack people if it gives us an economic benefit. You get to live the good life because there are people in our government who are willing to do the dirty, unethical work that keeps you enjoying your life.
What let most of our modern economy be built? Roads and fuel. Centralization of manufacturing and specialization came directly from those. Why do we get our oil so much cheaper than people in any other countries? Because we club the crap out of anyone that opposes us exporting their oil at dirt-cheap prices. We happily put tariffs up against countries importing, but use every last bit of our clout to prevent countries from taxing US imports. And it's been enormously successful over the past two centuries, making us the dominant economic power, and making us extremely successful.
No, I'm not arguing that this should stop. I'd just like to see that people be aware of what we're doing, and make a conscious decision to do what they're doing. Being the bully on the block can be pretty pleasant, but something feels vaguely wrong about being the bully on the block and thinking that you're the saint.
Be even more cynical (Score:5, Insightful)
The Slashdot line: We want to protect starving artists who are being exploited by the RIAA.
Reality: Almost everyone on Slashdot pushing this has vague notions of "unlimited free music" available, without them having to put any resources into production of future music. As for people that claim (and frequently have rationalized their behavior to the point of believing it) that their goals really *are* to defend the artist rather than get free music...I ask, how many of you were crusading against the recording industry's exploitation of the artist *before Napster was around*?
The Slashdot line: Windows is highly insecure. Anyone using it is asking to get broken in to. Linux/Unix is much better.
Reality: Windows and other Microsoft products have had security holes, the same as Unix/Linux has. For every egregious MS bug (active content), there's an equally egregious Unix/Linux bug (massive numbers of buffer overflows in ssh, which is frequently deployed at secure sites and is relied upon to be solid). For every MS program with a miserable security history that runs with administrative permissions (IIS), there's a Unix program that does the same (sendmail).
Slashdot line: H1Bs exploit foreign workers by bringing them to come to the United States and then work at lower wages than other US workers. H1Bs produce workers that produce code of abysmal quality. H1Bs should be eliminated to protect the workers that are being exploited. The US economy would be better (by employing more US workers) if we got rid of the H1Bs.
Reality: H1Bs let people get into the country. Workers coming to the US are quite happy to work at lower wages for a period of time if it means they get their foot in the door and can get permanent residency. People aren't being forced to take H1Bs -- they want them! They work at lower wages than US workers because US tech wages are astronomical compared to the amount of effort required to gain the skillset necessary to do the job. Many H1B workers are *very* skilled, more so than their US counterparts. If a company is going to go all the way over to another country *and* sponsor a worker, it is damn well going to do an even more stringent examination of the worker's competence than it would a domestic worker. Eliminating H1Bs wouldn't make any H1B-users happy at all -- they *choose* to come to the United States and work at 90% the normal US wage because it beats the snot out of working at 10% the normal US wage in a foreign country. As for the US economy being better by helping domestic workers...that's simply not true. What US workers want is guaranteed jobs (or at least jobs with a heavy edge given them in hiring). Costs of paying US workers more is then passed down to the consumer. So people in favor of labor protectionism are asking the entire United States to subsidize their highly-paid lifestyle when there's a more efficient alternative. Plus, it's easy to move software development to another country -- everyone speaks C++, work is fairly independent, and collaboration (and tools for collaboration) are pretty good and easy. If the US does labor protection, in the long term, companies will either move to other countries or go out of business, beaten by companies in countries with cheaper workers. That's *bad* for the economy.
Slashdot line: Sweatshops are evil. They exploit the foreign worker. They should be eliminated.
Reality: This is mostly AFL/CIO-initiated propoganda. Sweatshops are hiring foreign workers at low prices because that's the only way they can be competitive. If you want to pay $50 more for your hard drive, go for it...but competition on price is what has driven down wages. Eliminating sweatshops, as some have proposed, wouldn't do anything to help the foreign worker -- they're willing to work at inhumanly low rates because that's the only way they can get enough for food. Wipe the sweatshops out, and they simply starve. The only people to benefit are US unskilled labor, which gets a short term boost in hiring. This is much the same as the H1B item mentioned above.
Slashdot line: Drug legalization is good because I'm concerned about the human rights of the nonviolent offenders that are put in jail. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to ban drugs.
Reality: Most people taking this view are interested in smoking up, not primarily concerned about potential constitutional violations. Why? I don't see complaints of constitutional violations (libertarian types aside), despite the fact that most of the Bill of Rights is pretty much ignored by the federal government (I remember doing a breakdown at one point of how many are actually strictly followed...something like two of the amendments.)
Disney, I'm looking at YOU (Score:5, Insightful)
- Snow White and the Seven Dwarves - stolen
- Pinnochio - stolen
- Cinderella - stolen
- Mary Poppins -stolen
- 20,000 Leagues under the sea - stolen
- Beauty and the Beast - stolen
- Robinhood - stolen
- The Jungle Book - stolen
- Tarzan -I believe they actually pay royalties to the Burroughs estate -- and hate having to do it
- The Little Mermaid - stolen
- Mary Poppins - stolen
- Peter Pan - stolen
The list goes on and on. In fact, it appears that the whole success of the second phase of the Disney corp (The first wave of animated features) rides firmly on the back of the public domain. When they start producing their own stories in the 70's they fail miserably ("Escape from Witch Mountain", "The World's Greatest Athelete", ad nauseum).It's not so much the re-using the public domain for source material that I have a problem with, it's the bald-faced refusal to let "their" "intellectual property" loose when it's legitimately part of the common public culture. For damn sure now, every westerner knows who Mickey Mouse is, that's why he's worth so much. But he wouldn't be worth so much if everyone didn't know him. That is exactly the same reason why Disney found value in the commons when it was establishing itself as a company. The same reason their first feature was "Snow White".
AND furthermore... (Score:2, Interesting)
Talk about slamming the door in the face of the people behind you! What hypocrisy!
Re:Developing nations (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you actually objecting to that policy?
I was hoping someone would try this argument. Yes I do object when the pharmaceutical companies use war, famine and death as an excuse to push up their stock prices. The drugs and other garbage these companies "dump" are of absolutely no use to the people in the countries they're sending it to.
A guy called Mark Thomas here in the UK presents a programme [channel4.com] where he tries to uncover government corruption, corporate corruption etc each week (he also has a pretty wicked sense of humour, whire really makes the show). One of these shows dealt with this issue. Here are a few quotes that you might find interesting...
During the civil war in Bosnia so much unwanted drugs were dumped that the government were forced to pay $34 million to build an incinerator just to dispose of them. One charity we spoke to, Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, said that they had to spend £100,000 in the town of Mostar alone disposing of these drugs in lime filled buckets.
[...]
Since then, the situation has not improved. We spoke to a woman who was involved in sorting out drugs in Albania in 1999. She told us of a hospital in Tirana which had received tonnes of drugs, shown below.
[picture of tonnes of drugs]
However in sorting them out she found some nitrous oxide canisters which had an expiry date of 1989 or 1990 - ten years before they reached Albania. She also discovered sadly that of all the tonnes of drugs donated, only a small proportion could actually be termed useful, shown below.
[picture of about 150 small bottles]
There were also other companies sending sex aids, diet pills and other completely useless crap to starving nations simply to make money while leaving the huge cleanup job to those with nothing. Nice, huh?
Re:Developing nations (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't it be said that many countries will remain poor and on the back burner for many years because they have little natural resources and a small population? Don't you need a somewhat large population and a good supply of materiel to get things done?
The answer is no. The counter examples are Hong Kong and Singapore. They are basically city-states which attained their economic position through careful investment and development of their niche industries. Slightly larger examples which still fall under small population and limited natural resources would be South Korea and Taiwan. An example of a foundering country with a large population and plentiful natural resources would be Indonesia (and maybe Congo/Zaire).
I realize that this isn't exactly in line with IP, but I don't think that's a pressing issue for a subsistance farmer thousands of miles from most of us.
Neither is population control or education, but they are all critical issues to the economic well-being of a nation. IP doesn't affect the individual farmer or (most) individual citizens. But it does affect a nation's wealth (and thus power and economic development) and thus consequently affects those farmers and citizens. Implying that if a small, poor country should be resigned to its economic fate, and thus IP is not a contributor to its situation is fallacious.
Uh-huh (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, if one follows the money, it is obvious why the framework is being followed:
I don't think there's much more for me to say.</rant>
Re:Uh-huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, they'd be paying with dollars loaned to them from the rich countries (like the U.S.) at low or no interest rate, in the hope that they too would develop economically.
I think the royalty thing is a sham. Ever see how quickly copycat products come out in the U.S.? Typically inferior/cheaper/lamer?
And, FWIW, governments, not just the U.S., ALWAYS try to create double standards. That's the idea, protect your own. Fairness and bargaining only happen when there are equal positions of negotiating. There are only a handful of countries that would qualify and yet the U.S. tries to treat all countries like players.
Just look at how much money was going to Afghanistan under the Taliban pre 9/11.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what really sickens me about American politics is the driving need to get reelected. I think so many things in this country would get fixed if there weren't career politicians, if politicians had the guts to do what they thought was right over what would get the reelected.
So I take a deeper stab at the US government than others (plus, I have a right to criticize my government, and I know more about it than any other) but that doesn't mean other government don't act in the same manner. Governments, in general, act in their own self-interest. That has to lead double standards and certain people getting the raw end of the deal.
And on a side note about your Taliban comment (agrreing with you), remember which country provided Saddam with chemical weapons and looked the other way while he gassed his own people?
In other words, take my political rants with a grain of salt =]
Re:Uh-huh (Score:5, Insightful)
If the European Union had a proper foreign policy, this (and a number of other things happening in the middle east) wouldn't be happening.
The European Union is bigger in size and wealth but it still hasn't got a unified voice. When this happens there will be some balance on international politics.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:5, Interesting)
When you've got so many very diverse countries it's really hard to speak with a unified voice. I certainly don't think it is something the USA would necessarily be good at. Imagine if USA unified with Canada - I imagine it would be very difficult to, for instance, come up with international policies that would satisfy both the Canadians and North Americans. I imagine that the the USA would just try to force it's way of doing things on Canada, which isn't what "speaking with a unified voice" is about.
But Europe's getting there, and actually in the grand scheme of things it's getting there very quickly. It was only two years ago that a unified currency was introduced. And now it seems that there is unity on the idea of a single president representing the whole of the Union.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2, Informative)
Little nitpick to an otherwise insightful post: the euro was introduced in the beginning 2002.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2)
Jeepers you're right. It's amazing how quickly you get used to it...
Re:Uh-huh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2, Informative)
It was only two years ago that a unified currency was introduced.
The exchange rates between the participating countries' currencies and the Euro were fixed on Dec 31, 1998 and I for one started paying in Euros on Jan 1st, 2002 so I don't really know where your "two years" figure is coming from.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2)
There will be no unified voice of Europe almost certainly in my lifetime (what language would it use for starters?). Having said that where the member states interests coincide, the EU could be a powerful influence although unfortunately but not surprisingly our interests don't coincide very often.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:3, Interesting)
For all the current rhetoric about "America speaks with One voice", we sure do seem to argue a lot here about what exactly that voice should be. That constant conflict and arguing is part of what makes this country an exciting and fun place to live, and part of what makes it unbearably frustrating at the same time. For every argument you win, you lose 3 or 4 others, and a lot of people have a hard time accepting that. Not every American agrees with the "One Voice" we're all supposedly speaking with. Of course, plenty of us buy right into it as well.
And whatever your feelings for or against various aspects of the global situation right now, you have to at least admit: it's a very interesting time to be alive, isn't it?
Re:Uh-huh (Score:3, Insightful)
And they'd better get a move on quick, especially on defense.
As much as I sympathize with the European position on guns vs. butter, a situation where America spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined is very dangerous, especially once the neoconservatives currently in power here get a taste of imperial power.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2, Insightful)
You say this as if you were powerless to change it.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh-huh (Score:3, Interesting)
W(estern b)ankers who lent them the money in the first place.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2)
And with the impression of helping other countries develop they do everything they can so that all that money is going straight back into the US economy. A system that seemingly helps only US, while keeping even badly needed medication at "international" prices forever out of reach from a country with their own produced funds.
The catch with the system is that the vast amount of US dollars on loan to developing countries would tip the worlds economy on end if it became worthless. Hence US has to pump in dollars to make those countries go around at all, in the same time ensuring that their own economies never will catch up.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:3, Informative)
No no no. Inform yourself. Argentina, for instance, is paying a rate of like 60% annually. In the last 20 years, Argentina has payed interests in excess of the principal due to this date.
Everything's well and peachy and I respect your country and way of life, but please don't be unfair.
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2, Informative)
Seeing the debt balloon from 16.5 million pesos to over a billion in a year might have opened some eyes, up, eh?
BTW, some good stuff here on Argentina: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/asia/countri
Re:Uh-huh (Score:2, Insightful)
As with your friendly loan-shark around the corner the idea isn't that the debtor prospers but that he's able to earn just enough money to pay the interests.
Of course you can't loan 3rd world countries money with interest rates of 50%, the media would crucify you, therefore you take lower rates but make sure the debtor needs more money.
ingenious system; it has been around - in different incarnations - for thousands of years and still works just fine
Full text so you don't need to login (Score:5, Informative)
Debate on Intellectual Property
By STEVE LOHR
In the 19th century, the United States was both a rapidly industrializing nation and -- as Charles Dickens, among others, knew all too well -- a bold pirate of intellectual property.
But these days, when it comes to dealing with developing nations around the world, the United States seems to be ignoring its own swashbuckling heritage. Or at least that's the implication of a recent report by the international Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. The report recommends that the World Trade Organization's treaty on intellectual property rights be made much more flexible so that developing nations, from Brazil to Bangladesh, can adopt rules more at their own pace.
The global debate over intellectual property rights -- patents, copyrights and trademarks -- is focused mainly on forward-looking industries like computer software, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. But Americans can look back to this nation's 19th-century experience in book publishing, for example, to understand the developing world's viewpoint.
Back then, American law offered copyright protection -- but only to citizens and residents of the United States. The works of English authors were copied with abandon and sold cheap to an American public hungry for books. This so irritated Mr. Dickens -- whose "Christmas Carol" sold for 6 cents a copy in America, versus $2.50 in England -- that he toured the United States in 1842, urging the adoption of international copyright protection as being in the long-term interest of American authors and publishers.
Such appeals proved unpersuasive until 1891, when the United States had a thriving literary culture and a book industry that wanted its own intellectual property protection abroad. So Congress passed a copyright act extending protection to foreign works in return for similar treatment for American authors overseas.
Indeed, the economies that were shining success stories of development, from the United States in the 19th century to Japan and its East Asian neighbors like Taiwan and South Korea in the 20th, took off under systems of weak intellectual property protection. Technology transfer came easily and inexpensively until domestic skills and local industries were advanced enough that stronger intellectual property protections became a matter of self-interest.
But according to the recent report, this kind of economic-development tactic -- copying to jump-start an industry -- is endangered by the United States-led push for stronger intellectual property rights worldwide.
As part of a sweeping trade deal reached in 1994, the member nations of the World Trade Organization must adhere to a global agreement known as Trips, for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Trips stemmed partly from the prevailing belief during the 1990's that the "American model" -- free trade, wide-open capital markets and strong intellectual property protection -- was the sure way to global prosperity.
But just as the prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund are now being questioned, as prosperity has proved elusive for countries like Brazil and Argentina, so are the W.T.O.'s intellectual property rules.
"If we cut off imitation strategies for developing countries, we are drastically narrowing the options they have to reach an economic takeoff," said John H. Barton, a professor at Stanford law school who led the commission on intellectual property rights.
Many economists regard the 1994 agreement as a triumph for a few industries -- pharmaceuticals, software and Hollywood -- that stand to gain a lot from the protections and whose interests were championed by the United States government. "Trips was a matter of powerful companies with intellectual property concerns essentially dictating trade policy," said Keith E. Maskus, a trade expert at the University of Colorado.
The United States does stand to gain the most from stronger intellectual property protections, most of which must be in effect by 2005, under Trips. A World Bank study estimates that American companies would pocket an additional $19 billion a year in royalties, while developing nations like China, Mexico, Brazil and India -- net importers of intellectual property -- would pay more to the patent holders.
Intellectual property rights are temporary grants of monopoly intended to give economic incentives for innovative activity. Why toil for months or years to develop a new drug or think up a clever software program, the thinking goes, unless there is the potential for a big payoff? The intended result is that consumers will pay somewhat higher prices for an individual drug or software program but will benefit from all the additional innovation in the economy.
That is the theory. Within the United States, there is criticism that the corporate frenzy to patent any technical advance, even business methods, undermines innovation by unnecessarily restricting the flow of ideas. And just last week, the United States Supreme Court heard a challenge to a 1998 law that extended copyrights in this country by 20 years; the law's opponents contend that the extension inhibits public creativity by making it harder for other people to obtain and build upon existing works. But in general, the theory behind intellectual property rights tends to work in rich nations.
The concern about Trips is that it is too much of a one-size-fits-all approach that works to the detriment of developing nations. "It would be fine if we lived in a world of all rich people," said Jeffrey D. Sachs, a development economist at Columbia University. "The danger with Trips is that it will mostly hurt the developing countries' access to ideas."
The report of the intellectual property rights commission, which was sponsored by the British government, includes a long list of recommendations, some of which would be anathema to American companies:
Encourage developing nations to make greater use of compulsory licensing of drugs.
Allow more "reverse engineering" of software programs -- that is, copying a product by studying and making educated assumptions about the underlying code.
Permit "cracking" of software used to protect copyrighted digital media, if the country determines that the copy-protection technology limits the fair use of digital text, video or music.
The commission's report comes amid a growing backlash in developing countries against the imposition of a strong global system of intellectual property rights. The lightning-rod issue has been the AIDS epidemic, and the resulting confrontation between developing nations and the pharmaceutical industry.
Facing a public outcry and the threat of compulsory licensing in countries like South Africa, Brazil and India, the pharmaceutical companies began cutting prices by 80 percent or more on drugs for use in treating AIDS-related ailments in developing nations two years ago.
The World Trade Organization, at its meeting last November in Doha, Qatar, issued a declaration that public health matters must be weighed equally with intellectual property rights. As part of the Doha declaration, the trade organization allowed the world's least developed nations, mostly in Africa, to exempt pharmaceuticals from patent protection until 2016. (The intellectual property rights commission recommends that exemption for the poorest nations be extended to all fields of technology.)
Whether the AIDS episode was a single, isolated case or a sign of a changing relationship between the developing counties and the pharmaceutical industry is uncertain. But emboldened developing countries could invoke the public health argument for diseases like heart disease and diabetes -- and the increasing sophistication of generic drug makers in India and China could give them alternate sources of supply.
"H.I.V.-AIDS is what made everybody think about this," said Dr. Jim Yong Kim, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and an expert on health projects in poor countries. "But I think access to medicine will be on the table much more broadly in the developing world."
The pharmaceutical makers insist that they responded quickly to the AIDS crisis, working cooperatively with the United Nations and other international agencies. But the industry says focusing on low-cost drugs alone ignores the more significant chronic hurdles to treating diseases of all kinds in developing nations -- lack of public health infrastructure, education, financing and political will. There are 35,000 people in Africa being treated under the international program begun two years ago, while an estimated 30 million people have H.I.V. in Africa.
"There is plenty of supply," said Harvey E. Bale Jr., director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations in Geneva. "Access is not the issue."
Those who defend the Trips global standards for intellectual property protection say that a strong patent system not only fuels innovation but provides the best way for developing nations to attract investment and encourage a rapid transfer of technology. China, for example, has steadily given foreign companies a greater measure of protection for intellectual property and last year signed on to Trips, when the nation joined the World Trade Organization.
"There is no doubt that has played an important role in attracting R. & D. investment in China," said Brad Smith, the general counsel of Microsoft. In June, Microsoft announced that it would spend $700 million over the next three years in China in education, training and research, and in investments in local companies.
In the end, the debate over intellectual property rights, like the controversy over I.M.F. policies in developing nations, may be more a dispute about speed than direction. Free trade, open financial markets and intellectual property rights are economic goals worth pursuing. But that is not to say that the preferred path is necessarily the straight line of ideological purity.
Trips, as it stands, reflects "a mentality borne of the American triumphalism of the 1990's," said Mr. Sachs of Columbia. "There is a widespread sense that that approach to development policy has to be recalibrated."
Re:Full text so you don't need to login (Score:3, Insightful)
Such appeals proved unpersuasive until 1891, when the United States had a thriving literary culture
Coincidence?
Re:Full text so you don't need to login (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Full text so you don't need to login (Score:5, Funny)
The original from the NYtimes was much better IMHO.
Registration (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that
Some sites offering free registration forbidd certain entries, for example the first name Saddam is not allowed on Hotmail. I don't think that there is only one guy with that name...
Use /.'s own account (Score:4, Informative)
Username: goatse.cx
Password: goatse.cx
Btw Chris, I hear you're leaving us soon [dibona.com]. Well, all the best from us and hope to hear more from you.
They DO ban them, but not NYT (WHY?!?!?) (Score:2)
/. has refused all stories requiring registration for some time now. But they CONTINUE to support the New York Times, even they are one of the sites that started this goddamned trend. How is this not hypocritical?
I personally refuse to visit any NYT articles as long as they keep up with the foolishness. I just wait for someone to post the text.
Re:Registration (Score:4, Funny)
That's going a little bit too far. It's bad enough that /. bans hypertext links to any site which doesn't support HTTP.
Re:Registration (Score:2, Funny)
How can you say that???
Just look:
As a member, you'll enjoy:
In-depth coverage and analysis of news events from The New York Times FREE
Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE
Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, multimedia and much, much more FREE
You're willing to turn this much down on something as cheap as morals??
Re:Registration (Score:2)
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
Does this mean that the author of nytview could be prosecuted under the DMCA?
Christmas Carol Special DVD Collectors' Edition (Score:4, Funny)
It just doesn't make sense ... (Score:4, Interesting)
India didn't want a patent system. Now they have one and they're sending $$ back to (mostly) US pharmaceutical companies. Look at South Africa's near-revolt on AIDS drugs too.
Anyway, i suppose i should read the article now.
Hypocrisy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy? (Score:4, Insightful)
You could even say we are forcing a lot of countries to get developed, thanks to our globalisation efforts. It's not fair we are measuring them with standards that are based on our thinking now, apposed to our way of thinking 200 years ago. That is measuring with two different scales, and that is hypocrisy.
Re:Hypocrisy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe you would prefer to pretend that all the groups/societies in the world that are priveleged should be seen as being inherently "worthy" of that privelege, and that no historical analysis of how they got there is required? (ie: the "never ask a man how he made his first million" quote).
Re:Hypocrisy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will we ever "quit blathering" about our founding fathers? Only when we've all conceded that we're going to Hell in a handbasket. Until then, we'll argue, disagree, and some of us will try to preserve the noble grounds on which the nation was founded. Just don't expect an immediate about face from one of the most ethnically, philosophically, religiously, and politically diverse nations on the planet. We tend to disagree like it's going out of style, a trait that seems to be missed by the rest of the world.
Thanks for your time.
Re:Hypocrisy? (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrisy? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, if you understand how modern democratic governments work, you know that the US can't give lip service to ignoring IP protection. But, in fact, it doesn't do a heck of a lot to enforce it in the developing world. Look at Microsoft in China. Go to India and see how easy it is to buy pirated software. Look at the response of the American government to efforts by countries around the world (including Canada
You forget that, as sovereigns, countries choose which laws to enforce within their own boundaries. If Brazil were to turn a blind eye to domestic companies violating US IP to manufacture affordable AIDS medication, you would hardly hear a squawk from the US. It's only when Brazil makes a big deal about nullifying the IP laws that the US feels it has to respond -- it's just a negotiating tactic on Brazil's part anyway: why else would they draw attention to it?
In short, I believe that developing countries can do to the US exactly what the US did to the developed countries of 100 years ago: ignore their IP protection, and get the exact same response as the US did: annoyance.
Companies and IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Companies and IP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Companies and IP (Score:5, Informative)
At the point when the artist signs it over to them, in exchange for an advance and/or global distribution and promotion facilities. Or at the point when he signs a "work-for-hire" agreement, and gets a steady paycheck in exchange for a little less pressure.
When the fifes stop tweeting, the drums stop rum-tumming, and all the clenched fists make their collective way out of the air and back into blue-jeaned pockets, small children still need new shoes, and the writers, artists, and musicians who are their moms and dads have to buy them.
Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws .... (Score:4, Insightful)
but ...
My dad used to drive drunk occasionally when he was young. He's in AA now and thinks that drunk drivers should lose their licenses and go to jail.
Hypocrisy? Perhaps. But maybe he just wised up in his old age.
Re:Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws .... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would only hypocrisy if he got where he is now because of drunk driving.
The argument is that the US only devloped as rapidly, and successfully, as it has because of weak IP control in its early years. And it's now protecting that position, and denying that route for development to others, by advocating strong IP protection. That's the hypocrisy.
Re:Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws .... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would only hypocrisy if he got where he is now because of drunk driving.
No it would only be hypocrisy if he called for harsh treatment of drunk drivers while concealling his own conviction.
Countries are not hypocritical, the individual politicians running the country are.
For example the idiot in the Whitehouse is a hypocrite because he lectures on corporate ethics desite having received millions in campaign contributions from Kenny boy Lay and Enron, including the loan of a cororate jet and made his money in Harken through the same kind of corporate accounting scams.
George W's does at least have the courage of his conviction for DUI. I have not heard him call for stiffer sentences there. So he gets off on the narrow charge of hypocrisy. However the former coke addict has led the introduction of stiffer penalties for use Texas had he been caught snorting coke and his father had not been able to get him off the way he got him out of serving in Vietnam.
Oh and it goes without saying that the 'chickenhawks' who want to start Vietnam mk II to distract attention from the aforementioned corruption at Harken and Haliburton are hypocrites since none of the ring-leaders served in Vietnam unless you count being a deserter from the Texas national guard.
Re:Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws .... (Score:2)
Hypocrisy? Perhaps. But maybe he just wised up in his old age.
Hypocrisy, NOT AT ALL. It would only be hypocrisy if he continued to drive drunk. A change of policy isn't hypocrisy
Same as what the US did to its forests and swamps (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam (Score:2)
> Just like how the US clearcut vast forests for the
> lumber and turned millions of square miles of
> diverse swampland into flat farmland, but we're
> now trying to stop Brazil from doing the same for
> their individual economic gains.
Make that clearcuts and turns. It is still going on today. Didn't you hear that our fearless President's excellent plan to prevent forest fires is to let the logging companies into the national forests to give them a "trim" (cut them all down)? As for the wetlands, I don't see them surviving the West Nile virus hysteria.
But that's nothing to worry about. Our glorious president (being fitted for his halo even as we speak) has championed the great Yucca Mountain Project. Basically, we take a bigger amount of nuclear waste than the largest Godzilla (77,000 tons vs. 66,000 tons), and stuff it all into a sacred mountain we don't even own, a hundred miles from a major city, in an unstable, earthquake prone area. And we hope nothing bad happens in the next 10,000 years (worse case scenario has the thing making life on this planet impossible). I just hope the gods to whom the mountain is sacred and Godzilla, a Shinto deity in a rubber suit, shake that mountain until they shake some sense into somebody.
If you want an example of a country that wisely manages its resources and takes good care of the environment, the USA under the Bush administration is not the place to look, I am very sad to say.
Sonora:"New Godzilla reading. He's moving inward toward Tokai."
Shinoda: "The nuclear plants, I knew it.
Sonora: "Afraid so."
Yuki: "Well, that's just lovely. Another Chernobyl."
"Godzilla 2000" (US version dialog)
Search google for 'Tokai criticality 1999'.
Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, we chopped down a huge amount of US forests for paper, furniture, cooking and ship building purposes. But then we got rich. Then this happened:
<i>Today, the volume of wood in U.S. forests is about 25 percent greater than it was 40 years ago. The United States has about the same amount of land covered by trees today as it did 80 years ago. In Vermont, for example, forest cover has more than doubled - from 37 percent in 1850 to 77 percent forest today. In New Hampshire, forest cover was 50 percent in 1850 compared to 87 percent today.
Each year, there are 1.5 billion tree seedlings planted in the United States - that's more than five new trees for each American, and nearly 2,000 for every bear. Forest planting in the United States currently averages about 2.4 million acres per year. </I>
http://www.timberhunt.com/country_report/countr
Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam (Score:2)
The example you give of economic incentives to do the "right thing" is the best route, but I don't see this happening as much as it should.
Dear STEVE (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not to say that we should blow off injustice. It really sucks to be on the receiving end, and knowledge of that suction should temper our dealings with those who claim to be feeling the vacuum.
But let's not wear the hair shirt too excessively...
Effect on Eldred v. Ashcroft (Score:2, Insightful)
On/Off (Score:4, Insightful)
Broader Theme of Colonialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to take one example: the U. S. is pushing for all sorts of free trade agreements. Why? Well, for the first hundred years of our existence, the main form of revenue for our government had been tariffs (taxes on imports---taxes on exports are actually prohibited by the constitution.) At the time of the Revolutionary War, the main U.S. exports were cotton, tobacco, from the South and lumber from New England. You may notice that these are either raw materials or agricultural goods. But the money is in the value added, as readers of
It is no secret that the U.S. used protective tariffs to protect early manufacturer's (who otherwise could not compete with England). It is also no secret that the U. S. really did not like it when others tried to do the same. Now we are doing it with GATT. Throughout the last century we were not so sublte: Marines were sent throughout this hemesphere to make sure that bananas were grown and local governments were not too concerned about the welafare of the common man at the exoence of U. S. buisness interests.
The tragic thing is, just as with development of manufacture, this colonial IP policiy hurts both the developin countries and the people in developed nations. They can't form a manufacturing base, we can't get real, honest, labor unions. And of course, by keeping so many people in the unmechanized fields and unsecured mineshafts, we are really missing out on the increadible behefits that a well educated _global_ populace could bring.
Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism (Score:5, Insightful)
While we can obliterate training camps and oust dictators, we're never going to subject every man who hates us to such abject poverty that he can't buy a box cutter and a plane ticket. Fighting the signs and symptoms of terrorism may even be more damaging than taking no action at all in the long run. Who will be left? The most hardened and determined? Do we really want to galvanize the will of our enemies and force them further into desperation?
It cannot be to America's future benefit to regard the nations of the world as its subjects. Sadly, I doubt Bush even has the wit to realize that he is doing so. I sincerely hope our future President will be some sort of diplomat rather than a caricature of a Texan cowboy.
Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism (Score:3, Interesting)
Were the presidents before Bush really that different. Except that with no effective opposition Bush feels able to come out and say it.
While we can obliterate training camps and oust dictators,
Very often these turn out to be traning camps which the US people paid for and dictators installed by the US.
we're never going to subject every man who hates us to such abject poverty that he can't buy a box cutter and a plane ticket.
That's probably easier than asking why they should hate you in the first place. Since the answers are probably not what most Americans would want to hear.
I sincerely hope our future President will be some sort of diplomat rather than a caricature of a Texan cowboy.
Actually her or she would probably not have to be too much of a diplomat. They would just need to be radical enough to cease all economic and military aid to all other countries. All too often this ends up keeping undemocratic governments in office. especially where there is an interest for big business involved. Effectivly what would be needed would be a US president who would put the interests of the US people before a few big corporates, before some little country in the easten mediterranian. has no interest in being an emporor and wouldn't be afraid to tell fruit companies "if you want to grow fruit in Nicaragua talk to the Nicaraguan government, don't like their terms, tough" or to tell oil companies "if you want to extract oil in Iran, talk to the Iranian government..."
Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism (Score:3, Interesting)
In the past, this would have been opposed by the nuclear force of the Soviet Union. Today, we live in American hegemony over the world. Some would say that global stability with two superpowers is far easier to achieve than with one, and I think we will see this proven true if the attitude of the Bush administration persists after he is out of office.
You are perfectly right that there is far too much corporate influence on our international politics. This should have the citizens outrage, but it isn't so. Why? Which mass media corporation is going to take the fall for getting the word out that our government has sold the safety of its citizens for the lobbying dollars of some corporations? In a sense, your logic makes the same move that mine has. I say, "Don't fight the symptoms of anti-American hatred, but rather the international policies that spawn such hatred." You say, "Don't fight the international policies, but rather the lobbying corporations that fuel those policies." Part and parcel of the same solution, I hope.
Ultimately, I will be voting for a President who views America's role in the world as the judge rather than the jury. It is unreasonable to deny our role as the executor of force and therefore justice (however it may be defined today), but we cannot afford to also convict whomever we like. Those whom we disenfranchise will be attacking with pipebombs and knives rather than aircraft carriers and warplanes. This nation is probably the most susceptible to covert terrorist attacks as a result of our liberty loving and largely anonymous society. This should necessitate that we use our might in accordance with international approval and remain sensitive to the fact that we have become The Empire to our enemies. Instead, we have policies that change the identity of America while perpetuating and in some sense justifying anti-American rage around the world. We must reflect upon our condition and ask ourselves, "For whom has this been a victory?"
Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism (Score:3, Interesting)
Hardly past tense, since the US hasn't actually stopped doing this sort of thing. Let alone make even token attempts at rectifying the problems this covert colonialism created.
Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism (Score:3, Funny)
Smog?
Subtle clarification... (Score:4, Insightful)
The article is about a report which criticizes the intellectual property framework which the U.S. places on developing countries. The article itself is not criticizing the framework.
The NY Times can be a bit biased at times, but let's at least give them a little credit...
Typefaces and IP (Score:5, Interesting)
http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_14.htm
"The reluctance of Americans to press for typeface copyright may have been influenced by a feeling that typeface plagiarism was good for U.S. high-tech businesses who were inventing new technologies for printing, and plagiarizing types of foreign origin (Europe and England). If the situation becomes reversed, and foreign competition (from Japan, Taiwan, and Korea) threatens to overcome American technological superiority in the laser printer industry, then American firms may do an about-face and seek the protection of typeface copyright to help protect the domestic printer industry. Such a trend may already be seen in the licensing of typeface trademarks by Adobe, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Imagen, and Xerox in the U.S. laser printer industry."
Adam Smith and *Intellectual monopoly* (Score:5, Interesting)
With added commentary by yours truly...
Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However
For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer containscurrently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities [pivx.com], a disproportionately high number in comparison to all the other browers on the market today. Also, because of a general disregard for security in the past, many of those same vulnerabilities are exploitable though other Microsoft applications.
And there is many a CIO discovering that the new Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement is far more expensive than before.
The next section is very IMPORTANT.
In fact, the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly. Patents, Copyrights and even Trademarks are a government granted monopoly, they do not occur naturally. That does not mean that they are a bad thing per-say, but their use should be dictated by the benefit to socitety in general, with approprate limits so their use cannot be abused.
These statutes give the power that the ol' Mercantile laws gave to those monopolies. There is no true effective choice in the market. Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols [microsoft.com], effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.
My Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Take the lowest bulk licensing rate in the G8 (if they don't license, then the lowest rate per pill or copy of the software or whatever minus the expected costs of producing each copy).
Multiply this by the ratio of country Foo's MIN(mean, median) income over the G8's MAX(mean, median) income.
Then the industrialized nations have a reason to increase their income equality and they have a reason to make poorer nations less poor. And, poorer nations have the chance to make things without being overburdoned by the IP laws of the rich nations.
And for those of you keeping score at home, YES this is effectively giving away IP to poorer nations, but so what? The richer nations should be paying for their own IP within their own economies and they should look at any money gotten from poorer nations only as gravy.
Why does it take AIDS to let go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we ask ourselves - WHY does it take something of this scale for people to let go of IP? and then only after lots of lobbying, pressure and pleading. I mean W.T.F.!!!
Re:Why does it take AIDS to let go? (Score:2, Insightful)
The people of Africa don't need AIDS drugs. What they need is to start using contraception! The AID epidemic will never be solved until the widespread belief there that using a condom makes you less of a man is eradicated. All the medicine in the world is literally treating the symptoms rather than the cure in Africa.
Of course, what they also need to stop their constant civil wars, and establish democratic governments with universal suffrage. Most African countries like Zimbabwe could easily feed their own people and even be very wealthy from mineral resources, but they can't stop centuries-old tribal conflicts long enough to do it.
Until Africa sorts itself out, the West should not donate another penny - it'll only get siphoned off into a dictator's Swiss account or get spent on arms.
The first industrial spy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tis said that in ~1810 he memorized the schematics to the automated weaving machine to get around the British prohibition on the export of technical schematics.
Whole cities (some bearing his name) in Massachusetts sprung up around this invention, and it lead to a spread of large scale agriculture in the south and west. Previously textile raw materials had to be exported to England for manufacture into garments, then imported back to the US for sale- and enormous impediment for efficiency and growth.
The development of American factories also changed the face of urban demographics- large quantities of the lower classes were pulled into dense cities that were previously enclaves of the wealthy (and their abundant domestic help). Since the best (most nimble & most managable) factory workers were girls, unmarried single women finally got the opportunity to support themselves financially while mantaining their virtue.
The violation of patents lead to progress like this, which had a much greater impact than breaking copyright and reading Dickins on the cheap.
True in other areas too... (Score:5, Interesting)
Though this initiative was later recognized by international law, Western attitudes are somewhat different now. The whole ideological question of who is responsible for a debt has been deemed irrelevant, helping remove the traditional view that lending is a risk-associated venture. Hence there are crippling debts in countless Third World countries that were created by, and only really benifited, the former military dictators of those countries - military dictators whom more often than we supported and helped get into power in the first place.
The problem is more serious.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Basmati)http://www.oneworld.org/ips2
(Neem) http://www.ifoam.org/press/win_final_neu.html
(T
Re: The problem is more serious.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a good google search [google.com] about this problem.
Reminds me of Bruce Sterling's "Distraction" (Score:5, Interesting)
"... the Chinese never liked "intellectual property". We never stopped pressuring them about the issue, and finally a major trade war broke out, and the Chinese just called our bluff. They made all English-language intellectual property freely available on their satellite networks to anybody in the world. They gave away our store for nothing, and it bankrupted us."
"The Chinese hadn't even needed to leave their own borders to kick the blocks out from under the American economy."
Rejection of intellectual property goes well beyond a country's local interests, it can be a way to significantly disrupt an IP-dependent country's economy. Of course, there are few countries who could stand up to the sanctions and possible military action of such countries.
Might be amusing to see the USA invade China over mp3s though.
terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, and they are also (because they were victors (those who control the present control the past)) describe their Revolution is a just and honourable war.
The US Revolution was really a terrorist effort. Disproportional warfare was fought by the Americans, the British, and other power powers of the time had strict rules of engagement. Certain things were "allowed" and "unallowed" during warfare. The Americans, outmatched by the British Forces employed distinctly divergent tactics (raids, ambushes etc) that were -- at the time -- considered barbaric, disgraceful and un-honourable.... Terrorism.
Today, the US, faced with a rebellion; fought against them by a weaker force -- required to employ techniques that change the rules of engagement -- the Americans are now condemning them as barbaric, disgraceful: terrorists.
Am i trying to justify recent acts of violence? No. I just find it INCREDIBLY amazing that a country, that has, to be exceeded by no other -- Chosen to live by the sword -- are so self-righteous and smug wrt the barbarians at the gate. My American neighbours: Witness the fruits of Neo-Imperialism. BTW, anyone who harms another is barbarian - you cannot except yourself from the label just because you tell yourselves so on CNN.
What else do you expect the US to do today wrt IP? We have not progressed beyond State-Politics to the point where international or non-national policies are employed. Presently, the Americans enjoy a great deal of influence in a world's dynamics that they have spent a great deal influencing. "They've made the rules", within the framework of national power (recent history)... America, the present world power is the only one (short of revolution and uprising or a challenge of that power, often bloody - but not absolutely mandatory. The Americans have the opportunity to ADJUST THE SYSTEM OF POWER. To say finally, the present system is broken (look at the war, famine, etc etc) and we will be a part of devising a NEW system.... they shun most all international effort that doesn't serve them explicitly. So, am i surprised that the NYT sees Yankee IP law as hypocrisy? not at all, its more of the same, and not at all unique.
Re:terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I am aware, the American revolutionaries tended to attack military and government targets. Contrast them with modern-day terrorists such as the IRA who focus their attacks primarily on the civilian population. That's the real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, not their tactics, not their strategy, but their choice of target.
Note that the Taliban/al-Queda were freedom fighters while they only attacked Soviet military forces, but exactly the same people using exactly the same techniques became terrorists when they turned their attention to noncombatants.
Get to full report here (Score:4, Informative)
You can download the whole thing in PDF format, or browse online.
(btw I submitted a story about this over a month ago)
Developing countries and IP laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Guess what happened - pirated immediately copied it, and the original producers ended up with thousands of unsellable tapes! So maybe the US is actually doing these countrys a favour by encouraging them to enforce IP laws.
Allowing use of IP by developing nations (Score:2, Interesting)
The G8 countries wouldn't make significant loss, because the developing nations are generally unable to afford the licensed products anyway. Piracy would be no worse, because the pirates already ignore Copyright and IP law.
And what is exactly the point here? (Score:3, Interesting)
These developing countries are soveriegn nations, after all. They can adopt any internal IP polices they want, much like the US did in it's past. And the fact is that they do. It's up to these countries to decide what is in their own self-interest,
J.R.R. Tolkien... (Score:5, Interesting)
The result was, he made a lot of money, and the unauthorized version didn't sell very well.
Neat, huh?
Re:Hypothically Speaking ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
We can take an example from England early in the industrial revolution, where machinery was sealed in iron boxes, or even further back in time when Kings would intentional cripple their blacksmiths so their sword making technology couldn't escape.
Everything would be kept as trade secrets, under non-disclosure agreements.
Anyone remember the wheel, the steam engine, + others.
The steam engine was patented, as was pretty much all technology developed after 1700.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl
http://www.gsn.uk.com/watt.html
The fact is that the patent system has been around since the early industrial revolution, and a lot of historians cite the development of the patent system as the root cause of the rapid development of technology in the industrial world over the past 300 years. Anyone proposing that patents be abandonded really needs to consider the early history of the patent system, and what went on before patents were introduced.