We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Defense of Intellectual property
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2041
Description[?]:
| Delevopers have the right to the fruits of their labor, much the same as any other worker. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The patenting of software techniques.
Old value:: Software designs, techniques, formulae and algorithms cannot be patented.
Current: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Proposed: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | The only people that benefit from this kind of legislation are monopolists who seek to slow the progress of innovation and progress. The Open Source movement has seen more new and useful innovations than the entire corporate controlled software industry combined, and we should take our cues from that clear example. In line with our support for Creative Commons, the Leviathan Party opposes this bill on the strongest terms. |
| Date | not recorded |
From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | The open source movement only works due to the willingness of individuals to share information. However many ideas developed stem first from research done in private industry. Open source took the idea and improved upon it. Basic research is instead strengthen by the patent. More individuals are willing to work if they will get paid for their result. Though the results of the open source movement are to be applauded the reality is it is an isolated few developers who have the resources to work for free. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Which is why our government now pays a stipend to inventors, coders and artists who release their work under a Creative Commons license, which means that protentially all developers now have those resources. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Why not allow the worth of the product detemine the salary? Your argument of how the ability to patent software or algorithms slows progress is undefended. The open source movement has shown us that rather then slow progress it allows others to reverse engineer or otherwise modify the algorithms without the need of government support. Those wishing software with more finish can buy the result while those wishing to can use the open source. Thus we get the results we all wish, namely quick innovation without the overhead. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Amazon's one click shopping should be patented? I think not.
Ok, one example, but as a former developer I'm dead against the patenting of this stuff because ultimately it stifles creativity because it puts restrictions on people developing new ways of doing current things. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Unix was developed ATT labs then licensed to universities. This then started (after a bit) Linux when a home version was desired. Same idea to GUI (mac windows Gnome and others) started in I believe ATT lab. Progress is made by allowing as many as possible to do the research. Good ideas are either licenced (unix) or if fees are too high redeveloped by another which is what much of the open source movement does. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | By not allowing patents we remove a large push toward innovation the private sector. Why should we not allow them to spend their large reserves of capital to speed progress. Though are economy now is strong, (some feel unlimited) times will not always be that way. Government may then have to scale back some programs. This is an area where we can achieve the results we all want without the government needing to spend money. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | The Unix example is a poor one because the main problem with such patents is not when they are applied to large software suites but to the sort of examples I gave with the Amazon one-click shopping. Why should anyone who develops a single-click online shopping system have to pay Amazon even if they write the code from scratch? Because that's what this would do. And on the subject of Unix, look at the ongoing litigation from SCO who are suing just about anyone (IBM lately I think) who produces a version of Linus because they say copyright has been infringed. Copyright mind, not a patent. God help us if they were actually using patents laws.
And initially Unix was free. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Amazon's patent's defense was not supported against Barnes and Noble because it was not a invention but rather a simple application of pre existing technology, (I didn't read the ruling itself so that maybe a poor interpetation) Actual inventions are another matter. Yes Unix is a bad example but I felt it would illustrate the point on how there is not just one way to solve a problem. Algorithms which are sufficently close to the "best " run time exist in most any problem domain. Once a method is presented it is fairly simple to produce another method that is different enough to avoid the patent yet will achieve the results needed. If you truely need the best performance then should not the inventor be compensated for their work. As for the SCO suits this is just a desperate company thrashing out to get some money. Patents serve to defend the smalltime software manufacturer as well Stac v. Microsoft, The loss of revenue when Microsoft included the program in its software forced the company to lay off about 20 percent of its workforce and prompted a lawsuit by disgruntled shareholders. By not allowing patents buisnesses and therefore jobs are moved out of buisness as well. Right now the problem is educating the Patent office on what is a true novel invention and what is not, there in lies the problem. I refer back to the one click shopping patent. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Whether or not Unix was originally free has been question and I can't find the source of my info, so treat it as unproven. If I find it I'll post it. No change in my stance though. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | We support the PP; it is a natural law that the product a citizen's labor belongs to them. We must uphold that law. As for the creation of monopolies, we must ensure that they do not flourish, but that is for a different bill. The ratification of this law will not increase the power of companies so much that they become monopolies. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Hmm, what to do? Support in the knowledge that this will fail but establish some form of coalition against the left, or vote against and get credit from the public for being on the winning side? The centrist's dilemma... |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | Or, vote for greater innovation and freedom of information and ensure that software cannot be patented. The only people who would benefit from this legislation are monopolists and corporations wishing to clamp down on competition from smaller firms. Vote no and know you've chosen for the people. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Defense of Intellectual property | | Message | right like the monster corporation that took on the little bitty Microsoft listed a few posts up. Or Apple and (I forget the name of the developer) who made the little widgets that apple has now put into their latest OS. Again the small company does the work and the larger takes it and sells it with no recourse to the inventor. The advantage swings both ways, if a little comp develops something without this they will not get the recognition they deserve (or the money). Yes the larger corporations have the advantage since they draw from a larger pool of resources but without it they have everything, the market share and the finances to push more of their products and now the ideas on how to improve it from the little guy who did all the work. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 15 |
| no | Total Seats: 72 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 8 |
| Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
| Random quote: "Democracy is more dangerous than fire. Fire can't vote itself immune to water." - Michael Z. Williamson
|