Patents? What are those?

[Bill Layer]

Hi All,

(First post since my questionable question, and it's protracted,
embarrasing fallout)

But I've thought this to death, and I'd like to think aloud for a moment
about patents, intellectual property and moral vs. legalistic defenses.

With respect to the theft or piracy of computer software, fine art,
literature or other intellectual properties, what is it that has us most
offended? Is it the LEGALISTIC notion of theft, as defined under law, or
the MORAL notion, as defined by society and culture? 

Because frankly, they do not agree. I've heard folks on this list cite
patent or copyright expiry as accepable grounds for acquisition of said
properties. But, just because the scope of law is unable to provide
perpetual security for the rightful holder, this does not release us of
moral guilt in taking or using that person's property, does it?

What about the legal politics of sample use in the music industry? The
industry has basically declared (for pratical, legal reasons only) that it
is essentially legal to steal 10 seconds of someone's song, for your own
use. This seems fairly reasonable, until you look at situations like MC
Hammer 'can't touch this' vs. Rick James 'superfreak'. Would any of us
consider that situation as anything less than outright plagarism? How would
you feel about creating the ultimate sample, and hearing it one day as the
bulk of some industry giant's latest 'track'?

Finally, a word about patents. I'd like to direct your attention to the IBM
patent library for a look at a recent patent for "Novel implementation of
Output Transformerless Amplifier" held by Bruce Rozenblit. It's an esoteric
piece of work, but there is a very curious feature in it: This "output
transformerless amplifier" seems to, and in fact DOES have an output
transformer!!! Seems like a bit of an oversight, eh?

With that level of attention to detail being practiced in the highest
office in the land, what level of moral respect are these patents really
due? If any given  patent can consist of naught but *pure* falsehood and
deception, might some others also be tainted by this? In fact, this patent
in question makes a disreputable mockery of the whole system.

I must go on to tell you, that the holder of this patent is using it's
existence to declare that he has been issued the only new OTL patent since
the 1950's, ALSO a *double* lie, as is plainly shown by the *ahem* other
recent patents you will turn up in your search. Did you find Ralph
Karsten's famous patent from the early 1980's, for instance? In a complete
reversal, here we see the immoral shorn up by the legalistic.

Can anyone extract sense from this? The balanced approach to this situation
continues to elude... (PS I've tried being a perfectionist, and that
doesn't work either...)





 

 


Bill Layer, member

The International Brotherhood of Jazz Dancers, Pastry Chefs and Nuclear
Technicians