Highest Rated Comments

Recognizant735 karma

If I had to construct a way to harmonize IP across countries, I would look for a system that is relatively short-term (Compared to the near-perpetual US code), and has a strong backing of public domain. I would allow pre-existing copyrights to continue to their natural end without offering renewal or extension, and have something in place to allow a gradation of scale for the next decade or so to allow a steady acclimation for all member countries.

It is absurd for us to be operating at the period of highest technological innovation and fastest drawing board-to-product development procedures, while reinforcing the strictest IP laws in history. The whole concept of IP exists to promote healthy competition, encourage cooperation, and allow a temporary period where an innovator has a monopoly to develop and profit from their idea, not to exert perpetual corporate monopolies and keep things from other public innovators, which has unfortunately become the de facto US standard, which the TPP tries to apply across the board.

Edit: While I am appreciative of the gold, I encourage others to donate to EFF, and other organizations fighting for these policy changes.

Edit2: As I accidentally got in the way of the official response, their post is right here for your browsing convenience.

Recognizant110 karma

How does it feel to personally be telling that 'One weird trick Airliners don't want you to know about'?

Recognizant88 karma

They can argue whatever they want. Our current technological innovation has to do with communication technologies and the massive production leaps we have seen since the early 1970s with the advent of computer technologies. If they want to assert otherwise, they're welcome to try, but I would like to see some studies on the matter. With patents and copyright falling into the public domain, we could continue to create and innovate on an individual scale that we aren't seeing right now outside of corporate umbrellas. This competition is ultimately in the public interest.

The only argument they might have that's anything approaching valid is that their stock prices might fall if they suddenly had to start actually competing with others again, and so it would be bad for the economy in that sense. But I think we could get over that.

Recognizant20 karma

I believe /u/VirtuallyRealistic was referring to the quite likely fact that the two panelists seemed to be, at a minimum, significantly overplaying their level of disinterest.

As in, they were portraying a character that disliked something further than they typically would, even if they do marginally agree with it, to cause a bigger stir and generate more ratings. See also: Ann Coulter.

Recognizant9 karma

I have addressed this elsewhere in the thread, but yes, you are essentially correct. The patent system has an issue of specificity, the copyright system has an issue with duration, and the trademark system has its own... unfortunate quirks, as well, with broadness of terms allowed.

Point is, when looking for a country to base international IP laws on, the US should be at the back of the line, not the front.