| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
PRIVACY AND THE UNNECESSARY EXPANSION OF IP PROTECTION
-- By ScottMcKinney - 16 Nov 2009 | |
>
> | I would appreciate review of my paper by anyone interested. | | | INTRODUCTION
How can we account for the current state of affairs, in which privacy (anonymity and autonomy) is being swept out from under a naïve public's feet, while intellectual property laws are being used to strengthen monopolies over proprietary software and technology? Furthermore, how can we improve our situation in the short term, living in a world of intellectual monopoly and Orwellian surveillance? I attempt to answer these questions below.
GOVERNMENT, CORPORATIONS, AND THE EXPANSION OF IP PROTECTION | |
<
< | As Eben discussed in class, intellectual monopoly does not necessarily promote innovation (for an economic professor's fascinating historical perspective of the subject, see Against Intellectual Monopoly–which, unsurprisingly, is available for free download). Unfortunately, instead of preserving the status quo of intellectual property protection, the government has extended protection wholesale. Disney led a crusade to retroactively increase copyright protection, and the U.S. bowed to the mouse. Although copyright protection is automatically granted once a computer program's source code is placed in a fixed medium (the signing of the Berne Convention eliminated the need for formalities), there are still many benefits to registering a copyright. Yet, the copyright office does not require a computer program to register all of the source code, allowing software companies to hide meaningful code. For a long time, it was assumed that computer programs were unpatentable. However, misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), by the newly-created U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opened the patent floodgates. Since 1982, the CAFC oversaw an explosion of patents that included granting broad protection for the pharmaceutical industry, patenting thousands upon thousands of computer programs, and allowing the infamous “business method” patents now at issue in Bilski. Computer patents are not required to disclose their source code, which would allow innovative programmers to improve upon these discoveries—just as they do in an anarchical production environment. | >
> | As Eben discussed in class, intellectual monopoly does not necessarily promote innovation (for an economic professor's fascinating historical perspective of the subject, see Against Intellectual Monopoly—which, unsurprisingly, is available for free download). Unfortunately, in the last 50 years, instead of preserving the status quo of intellectual property protection, the government has extended protection wholesale. Disney led a crusade to retroactively increase copyright protection, and the U.S. bowed to the mouse. Although copyright protection is automatically granted once a computer program's source code is placed in a fixed medium (the signing of the Berne Convention eliminated the need for formalities), there are still many benefits to registering a copyright. Yet, the copyright office does not require a computer program to register all of the source code, allowing software companies to hide meaningful code. For a long time, it was assumed that computer programs were unpatentable. However, misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), by the newly-created U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opened the patent floodgates. Since 1982, the CAFC oversaw an explosion of patents that included granting broad protection for the pharmaceutical industry, patenting thousands upon thousands of computer programs, and allowing the infamous “business method” patents now at issue in Bilski. Computer patents are not required to disclose their source code, which would allow innovative programmers to improve upon these discoveries—just as they do in an anarchical production environment. | | | Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The current state of IP protection in America does not promote science or the arts–instead it stifles them and simultaneously increases the ability of corporations to maintain monopolistic control over the marketplace. Copyright and patent laws should be revised and enforced towards fulfilling their constitutional purpose of "promoting science"—not "promoting corporate dominance." | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ScottMcKinney | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|