Pconline.com.cn - copyright infringement

[mips]

One can argue that IP laws stifle competition. One can also
successfully argue IP laws encourage progress. For example, why
should I invent product X only for Microsoft to steal it and mass
produce it with its industrial, marketing, and financial might
versus my one man operation? Why should I publish anything if
someone else can steal it, claim it as their own, and peddle it
without my consent?

In a way they do stifle progress. The average guy in the street has a hard time patenting anything, to expensive (much easier for big companies) and he will require financial backing which means they want a big cut. But on the other hand IP laws will protect your work from scavengers, thing is you have to get the patent first. And then there are the people that patent the most absurd rubbish that is so vague and if they find anything that remotely resembles their patent they try and make a quick buck in court.

Recently saw a interesting letter from the big wig at SCO to his congressman. Making claims that Linux or Open Source software violates all kinds of copyright & patent laws. Claiming it is anti-american & a threat to US security. Really laughable in my opinion. If people want to willingly contribute their time and energy freely to the rest of humanity without expecting anything in return then so be it and good for them.

I still want to see the proof to their claim that Linux uses copyrighted/patented Unix code. Lets just say for a second that the code is infact from Unix, who originally wrote that code ? Maybe it just came from Berkley etc.

The other thing that gets me is the selling of land. I mean who owned it in the first place to sell ? Nobody !!! Some just lay claim to it....

Cheers
mips

 

[Leonard H]

In a way they do stifle progress. The average guy in the street has
a hard time patenting anything, to expensive (much easier for big
companies) and he will require financial backing which means they
want a big cut. But on the other hand IP laws will protect your
work from scavengers, thing is you have to get the patent first.
And then there are the people that patent the most absurd rubbish
that is so vague and if they find anything that remotely resembles
their patent they try and make a quick buck in court.

I agree that there are a lot of frivelous patents and a lot of abuses to intellectual property laws. Surely, this doesn't mean we discard IP rights altogether simply because there are flaws. Rather, parts of the process needs to be corrected. As a whole, I believe IP laws are essential to the advancement and implementation of new ideas.

Copyrights don't require any capital to procure. You create it .... it's copyrighted. Admittedly, defending copyrights can get expensive.

Recently saw a interesting letter from the big wig at SCO to his
congressman. Making claims that Linux or Open Source software
violates all kinds of copyright & patent laws. Claiming it is
anti-american & a threat to US security. Really laughable in my
opinion. If people want to willingly contribute their time and
energy freely to the rest of humanity without expecting anything in
return then so be it and good for them.

I believe people should have exclusive and sole custody of their thoughts and ideas. It's pretty much the crux of my belief. If people wish to share these ideas in public domain, who's to tell them they can't. Conversely, if they do not wish to put out ideas in the public domain, that is their right as well.

The other thing that gets me is the selling of land. I mean who
owned it in the first place to sell ? Nobody !!! Some just lay
claim to it....

Whoever discovered the land and was first to be able to defend said land owned it ;-) Yes, it's a messy affair.

 

[Francesco]

So why not contact their biggest advertiser??

After all - I am not sure if you have noticed it - every small picture on their website is "clickable" and the large image has a DPReview logo on it!!! What better proof for their advertisers???

BTW, how did you find out about this site, in the first place?

--

Francesco Gallarotti
-----------------------------
http://www.gallarotti.net/4images/

 

[Tony Ku]

However, look at it this way -- if you must respect copyright laws,
then it should not end iwth the work in teh 20th century How
far back should it go?

Copyright laws have time limitations (usually ranging from 0-100
years post mortem of the copyright holder).

Inventions can not be copyrighted. They are patented, and as with
copyrights, have a terminal life.

Actually Copyright laws are INDEFINITE. you just have to know how to go around it.

Invention can't be copyrighted, but manufacturing process, or the actual item is copyrighted.

I think that was much more of a
"wrong doing" than some 100 hours per week, at least you didn't get
killed So i think all countries should pay royalties to china
when they build a bullet, a bomb, etc. Anything that uses
gunpowder AND its derivative products. That's how copyright laws
works today, and it is literally extended forever!

This is not how copyrights, patents, trademarks, or any other
intellectual property laws work. I suggest you read up on the
topic before making any conclusions about intellectual property
rights.

Actually this is how copyright law and how patent laws work. You can't use a patented item to create new ones without violating prior art. Copyright laws originated as part of copying a book by HAND, and was never designed to protect ALL things indefinitely.

Copyright laws, in my opinion is used today by mega coporations to
STIFLE competition, not to promote it. Same thing with patents.

One can argue that IP laws stifle competition. One can also
successfully argue IP laws encourage progress. For example, why
should I invent product X only for Microsoft to steal it and mass
produce it with its industrial, marketing, and financial might
versus my one man operation? Why should I publish anything if
someone else can steal it, claim it as their own, and peddle it
without my consent?

Because in order for people to buy new things, you ahve to create new ways to doing things. Either way, it doesn't encourage progress at all. It limits what you can create without violating someone else's copyright laws.

IP laws serves to protect both corporate entities as well as
individuals.

You know one defining charcateristic that differentiates first
world countries from third world countries is the former all have
IP laws while very few of the latter have any form of IP rights.
It's no coincidence.

It's funny how these double standards exist -- when China comes out
with a new DVD standard to protect its domestic market, every other
country barked about htat, even though it is a better standard than
the current DVD standard

What double standard?

The double standard is that US, European companies uses standards to prevent entry into market place and uses patents to stifle competition all the time (Chinese manufacturers pays Japansese companies for DVD patents right now, that's why they're coming out with their own EVD design so that they don' thave to pay the damn patent fees), but when Chinese companies does the same thing it's called "anti-competitive".

As far as someone who said don't sell to China -- fine, do that and
you'll find yourself driven out of competition by others who will
sell to China.

I agree.

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Seumas MacCombie]

In a way they do stifle progress. The average guy in the street has
a hard time patenting anything, to expensive (much easier for big
companies) and he will require financial backing which means they
want a big cut. But on the other hand IP laws will protect your
work from scavengers, thing is you have to get the patent first.
And then there are the people that patent the most absurd rubbish
that is so vague and if they find anything that remotely resembles
their patent they try and make a quick buck in court.

Cheers
mips

-- The BIG BHOYS in the USA are at the same racket

Go to http://www.island.net/~macduff2 read the introduction page to about one third the way down, and in the side bar read the article by L Granum.
Aye Big Bhoys, wee Bhoys, slightly off topic, but
Seumas MacCombie

O' gies the power, the gift tae gie us, tae see oorsel's as ithers see us

 

[athelon]

If serveral million Chinese people in the US think your words are offensive, trust me, you are in big trouble.

TIBET! TIBET! TIBET!

 

[hidalgo]

I think it is Phil that is dong the learning right now!

All I was doing was pointing out some proactive solutions he could follow, no theory, concrete helpfull suggestions, but he seem more interested in letting of steam from what I can tell.

H.

Hidalgo you obviously have a lot to learn.

Look what Phil created for us, and now your not even helping him
out when he needs us the most. You can philosophize all you want.
Even if your silly theory could be applied, this is DPreview.

Show your support for it.

=VALOR=

 

[hidalgo]

Dennis,

Like I said, not aportioning blame but indicating partial responsibility. Do you have a problem understaning English? Blame and responsibility are two different things.

H.

No, I did not aportion blame as you infer. But you do need to take
responsibility for your actions. There is a differennce. Or would
you say that a US citizen would be right to walk unarmed into the
center of Najaf (Iraq) right now.

Then what in the heck do these words mean?

"Seems to me that you are in part responsible for this problem by
not making your site available to Chinese readers."

--
CDL

See Profile for gear stuff
Pbase Supporter

 

[CTYankee]

Invention can't be copyrighted, but manufacturing process, or the
actual item is copyrighted.

No...patented. Get it right, then join the discussion intelligently. Copyrights are for original creative work...photos, books, logos, etc. Patents are for devices, processes, widgets, 'things'.

Actually this is how copyright law and how patent laws work. You

can't use a patented item to create new ones without violating
prior art. Copyright laws originated as part of copying a book by
HAND, and was never designed to protect ALL things indefinitely.

Wrong again. I can take a product thats on the market...I can then make a change that is 'novel and suprising' and voila...new patent. I haven not violated any patents if my new invention is not covered in the claims and I can get a new patent if my invention has something novel that sets it apart from prior art (patented or not).

Trust me...I do this. I talk about this stuff with my patent attorney every month or so.

And patents most certainly do expire...thats why some companies DON'T patent. When you patent you MUST disclose what and how you are doing it. Easton Aluminum is a good example. They make the best aluminum for bats and arrows. No one can duplicate it. They have not patented their process (and no longer can if they wanted too since its 'prior arted' itself) so the competition does not know how they do it. Had they patented it the patent would have expired years ago and everyone would know just how to do it and would be totally free to do so.

 

[Ian Yаtes]

And patents most certainly do expire...thats why some companies
DON'T patent. When you patent you MUST disclose what and how you
are doing it. Easton Aluminum is a good example. They make the
best aluminum for bats and arrows. No one can duplicate it. They
have not patented their process (and no longer can if they wanted
too since its 'prior arted' itself) so the competition does not
know how they do it. Had they patented it the patent would have
expired years ago and everyone would know just how to do it and
would be totally free to do so.

Good example there however I know their secret,
Here it is.
They actually use aluminium not aluminum, fools people all the time.

And at that, this thread is closed!

Ian