Tag: Against Intellectual Property

Using Copyright Laws to Push Independent Mechanics Out of the Market

You have two options when your out of warranty vehicle needs repairs. Option one is to spend a small fortune taking your vehicle to the certified dealer and having their mechanics fix it. The other option is to spend far less money and either repair it yourself or take it to an independent mechanic. Because automobile manufacturers make tons of money off repairing the vehicles they sell they have a direct interest in locking out independent mechanics (both professional and hobbyists).

It’s difficult to lock people out of purely mechanical devices. Any part on a car can be fabricated with enough machining tools and many people rely on this fact to restore old vehicles. But computer technology is offering automobile manufacturers an option to legally lock out independent mechanics through copyright law:

Allowing them to continue to fix their cars has become “legally problematic,” according to a written statement from the Auto Alliance, the main lobbying arm of automakers.

The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where cars are rolling computing platforms, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying and tuning their cars.

[…]

In comments submitted so far, automakers have expressed concern that allowing outsiders to access electronic control units that run critical vehicle functions like steering, throttle inputs and braking “leads to an imbalance by which the negative consequences far outweigh any suggested benefits,” according to the Alliance of Global Automakers. In the worst cases, the organizations said an exemption for enthusiasts “leads to disastrous consequences.”

If automobile manufacturers are allowed to charge people who modify a vehicle’s electronics it opens the door for locking independent mechanics out of the automobile repair business. All it would take is including some rudimentary electronics on every major component of a vehicle (which often exist already) and require it to receive the proper digital signature from the on-board computer to operate. Then, in order for the vehicle to start, the manufacturer can set a requirement that each part must transmit the proper digital signature to the on-board computer. If any part or the on-board computer fails to provide the proper digital signature the car can simply refuse to start (for security purposes, of course).

By holding the private keys to create the correct digital signatures an automobile manufacturer could tightly control who can and cannot create parts for their vehicles. It could also control who it is willing to supply parts to. Right now investing so much money into implementing such a scheme is pointless because there’s no recourse for manufacturers to take against those who modify the electronics. That would change quickly if they could charge anybody who modifies the electronics of a vehicle under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Then they could get the state to go after anybody who modifies a vehicle’s electronics for them. Anybody who modifies the electronics on a vehicle would then face serious cage time and fines at little cost to the manufacturer.

I’m No Longer Doing Business with Crossbreed Holsters

Crossbreed Holsters, as the name implies, makes some damn fine holsters. Although the religious connotations behind the name don’t really jive with me the company’s customer service and warranty are good enough that I’m willing to let it slide. At least I was. I just found out that the company is suing Alien Gear for violating its intellectual property. Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while know that I am against all forms of intellectual property so that’s the first strike. The second strike is against what the patent covers:

The abstract of the filed patent is as follows:

A concealable handgun holster is disclosed with a handgun encasement supported within clothing of a wearer by one or more attachment clips, the attachment clips being hidden “in plain sight” by decorative features that deceive an observer into thinking the clips are decorations rather than part of a holster. In preferred embodiments, the holster is a hybrid holster with a handgun encasement formed by a leather sheet attached to a rigid plastic cover, preferably made of Kydex.RTM.. The clips can be plastic or metal, preferably steel, and can be attached to the encasement by rivets, screws, or any other suitable fastening means known in the art. Decoration of the attachment clips can be by shaping of the clips, perforation of the clips with decorative shapes, engraving on the clips, printing on the clips, and/or attachment of decorative items to the clips.

Really? Crossbreed is suing because it has a patent on putting designs on belt clips that attach to holsters? That is right up there with Amazon’s patent on 1-click shopping and Microsoft’s patent on double-clicking.

Hopefully this patent gets shot down in the courts and Crossbreed is made to pay all of Alien Gear’s legal fees. Trying to take out competitors using the state’s intellectual property apparatus is low. It’s even more low when your patent is one something so glaringly stupid.

ALS Association Moves to Block Other Charities from Enjoying Similar Success

The ice bucket challenge has been very lucrative for the ALS Association. So far the marketing ploy has raised $94 million for the charity. I’ve often noticed that the more successful a charity becomes the more corrupt it also becomes. Now that the ALS Association has its money it’s working to prove my theory:

No one could’ve predicted what a sensation the Ice Bucket Challenge would become. It’s everywhere. It’s unavoidable. And now that it’s earned the ALS Association over $94 million in charity, the organization has filed for a trademark seeking ownership of the phrase “ice bucket challenge.” The August 22nd filings also request a trademark covering “ALS ice bucket challenge,” a slightly-more-specific description that’s proven equally popular across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and other social media. The ALS Association wants complete control over “ice bucket challenge” whenever the three words are being used for charitable fundraising purposes.

So far I haven’t been nominated for the ice bucket challenge and with this latest move I will refuse to take part in the challenge if nominated. In fact I will never give the ALS Association so much as a dime. If the trademark is granted it would prevent any other charity from using an ice bucket challenge to raise money. That leads me to believe that the ALS Association views other charities as competitors, which goes against the whole idea of charity. And in its desire to destroy its perceived competitors it has chosen to use the state’s fiction of intellectual property.

Patent Office Off to a Good Start

Earlier this week the United States Patent Office invalided the trademarks for the Washington Redskins (it’s a handegg team for those who, like me, aren’t familiar):

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled six federal trademark registrations owned by the Washington NFL club today, ruling that the term “Redskins” was disparaging to “a substantial composite” of American Indians when the marks were granted between 1967 and 1990. The decision does not mean the Washington team must stop using the name.

A lot of people are complaining about this move and claiming that it’s abuse of the Patent Office’s power. Not me. I think this is a great move that needs to be replicated on all intellectual property claims.

Good Guy Tesla

In a very positive, and unusual, twist of events Tesla Motors has decided to compete on the quality of its electric cars instead of relying on an intellectual monopoly:

Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

This move may single handedly do more for electric car development than anything else. Patents are the great barrier between markets and innovation. They prevent inventors from utilizing incremental advancements to create new incremental advancements and stifle innovation as patent holders see no reason to continue improving a product so long as they have a monopoly on it. My hope is that this move will lead other companies to do the same but I’m guessing that won’t be the case.

The Beginning of the End for Pharmaceutical Monopolies

My love of 3D printer technology expands far beyond the firearms field. Being able to build complex things in the comfort of our own homes stands to upset the balance of power in many markets. One of the most valuable aspects of 3D printers is their ability to put an end to many monopolistic practices. If you’re able to download designs for an item and print it in your own home then patents become irrelevant, which is why this story about 3D printers capable of making drugs interests me:

He shows me the printer, a nondescript version of the £1,200 3D printer used in the Fab@Home project, which aims to bring self-fabrication to the masses. After a bit of trial and error, Cronin’s team discovered that it could use a bathroom sealant as a material to print reaction chambers of precisely specified dimensions, connected with tubes of different lengths and diameters. After the bespoke miniature lab had set hard, the printer could then inject the system reactants, or “chemical inks”, to create sequenced reactions.

The “inks” would be simple reagents, from which more complex molecules are formed. “If I was being facetious I would say that to find your inks you would go to the periodic table: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on,” Cronin says, “but obviously you can’t handle all those substances very well, so it would have to be a bit more complex than that. If you were looking to make a sugar, for example, you would start with your set of base sugars and mix them together. When we make complex molecules in the traditional way with test tubes and flasks, we start with a smaller number of simpler molecules.” As he points out, nearly all drugs are made of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, as well as readily available agents such as vegetable oils and paraffin. “With a printer it should be possible that with a relatively small number of inks you can make any organic molecule,” he says.

The real beauty of Cronin’s prototype system, however, is that it allows the printer not only to control the sequences and exact calibration of inks, but also to shape, from a tested blueprint, the environment in which those reactions take place. The scale and architecture of the miniature printed “lab” could be pre-programmed into software and downloaded for use with a standard set of inks. In this way, not only the combinations of reactants but also the ratios and speed at which they combine could be ingrained into the system, simply by changing the size of reaction chambers and their relation with one another; Cronin calls this “reactionware” or, because it depends on a conceptualised sequence of flow and reorientation in a 3D space, “Rubik’s Cube chemistry”.

Large pharmaceutical companies enjoy an advantage in the medical field. They can patent chemical compounds and effectively enjoy a monopoly on producing that compound for two decades. During that two decade period the consequences of monopolies afflict everybody who wants or needs that drug. Namely the pharmaceutical company enjoys the ability to jack the price up to whatever it desires since no competition is allowed to enter the market until the patent expires. 3D printers capable of producing drugs could overcome this issue. Suddenly people capable of reverse engineering the drug (say, by looking up the patent and going from there) could post blueprints online for all to download.

Another potential for these printers is the ability to drastically lower the cost of developing new drugs. Individuals with the proper background could develop new drugs on their person computers and perform tests by printing the new drugs. The overall costs would likely drop considerably, which would almost certainly cause a major leap in innovation.

IsoHunt Shutdown

I have some sad news to report. One of the better torrent sites, IsoHunt, has shuttered its doors:

isoHunt, a search engine for BitTorrent files founded more than a decade ago, has agreed today to shut down all its operations worldwide. The company, founded by Canadian Gary Fung, has also accepted a judgment that it must pay the movie studios that sued it $110 million.

It’s not clear how much of that the studios will actually be able to collect. According to a chunk of court transcript cited by Techdirt, the movie studios’ lawyers estimated that Fung and his company had only “two million dollars to $4 million, $5 million at the most” that they could possibly pay.

Fung gave up his long legal fight just weeks from having to defend his site in federal court; a jury trial was scheduled to start on November 5 in a Los Angeles federal court. Earlier court rulings had already determined that Fung was liable for “inducing” copyright infringement, so the court trial would have largely been about damage control. The MPAA had stated studio lawyers would have sought as much as $600 million had the case gone to trial.

Most of you know my feelings towards intellectual property. On top of finding it morally reprehensible, I have also witnessed the writing on the wall and it shows that intellectual property is dying. It’s impossible to maintain a monopoly on ideas when ideas can be spread around the world instantly thanks to the wonderful global network known as the Internet. Hell, this victory over IsoHunt is meaningless because there are hundreds of alternative torrent sites you can download movies and music from.

The only outcome of this fiasco is that people looking to download files via BitTorrent have to spend a few minutes to find another site. In other words, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) spend, in all likelihood, millions of dollars on lawyers to achieve nothing of importance. If nothing demonstrates the slow death of intellectual property that should.

Crowd Sourcing, an Alternative to Copyrights

I seldom talk about video games on this blog because I personally have little time to partake in the hobby anymore. Back in the day I was a gamer and one of the men who had an aptitude for taking my money was Keiji Inafune. If you’re unfamiliar with the name, Mr. Inafune is one of the creator of the video game series MegaMan. MegaMan was, and still is, my favorite game series so it was all but inevitable that Mr. Inafune, after announcing he was planning what looks to be a spiritual successor to the MegaMan series, would take more of my money.

What does this have to do with copyrights? Instead of producing a game and releasing it, Mr. Inafune and his team decided to crowd source funding via Kickstarter (yes, I did throw my money at the project). As long time readers know, I oppose all forms of intellectual property. I cannot justify the use of force needed to maintain monopolies on ideas. Whenever I discuss my opposition to intellectual property I usually meet resistance from individuals concerned about people who make their money via intellectual property laws. Authors, software developers, and game makers would all go broke if copyright laws no longer existed, right? Wrong.

The idea behind copyright laws is that a creative person can create a work, release it to the world, and make money for his or her efforts. Changing that order slightly allows a creative person to make a profit without copyright laws. Crowd sourcing allows a creative person or team to get money up front so they can create a work and release it to the world.

Mr. Inafune and his team are asking for money up front before they begin development. Their goal has been met with a lot of extra money still rolling in. There’s no reason authors or software developers couldn’t do the same thing. Of course this strategy often requires a little priming of the pump. People are unlikely to throw money at a complete unknown so an author, software developer, or game maker would likely have to release some work for free in order to demonstrate their competence. Authors, software developers, and game makers already have to do this so, in the grand scheme of things, nothing would change. Authors often get advances by publishers to write new books but only after writing a book and gaining the interest of the publisher. No publisher is going to give a complete unknown an advance. Software developers have to write their software and release it to the world before they can expect any payment. Game makers, likewise, have to create a game and release it before anybody will give them money for it. Little changes when you move away from copyright laws and rely on up front funding instead.

Intellectual property is dying. The Internet, by offering a venue to share infinitely reproducible copies of intellectual works, has cut intellectual property laws off at the knees. Politicians are scrambling to make more asinine laws to delay the inevitable. People who have relied on intellectual property laws are adapting to new ways of making money. In the end, intellectual property will die an agonizing death but the release of creative works will continue. I believe crowd sourcing is one of the solutions that will allows creative individuals to make money off of their ideas without having to rely on a forcefully protected monopoly.

The State May Kill Intellectual Property

After thinking about the State Department’s attempt to censor 3D printable firearms I came to the realization that the destroyer of intellectual property may very well be the entity that created it. The state has never shied away from censorship but its desire to control information is obviously increasing. What will happen if the state continues to censor more and more material that it defines as objectionable? In all likelihood more information will be published anonymously.

How many people will attach their name to something if they know it will land them in prison or cause them to be murdered by the state? I think that list is pretty short. Most people would prefer to release such material anonymously. When material doesn’t have a name attached to it there is nobody to claim a copyright on it and therefore nobody to initiate an intellectual property lawsuit. In effect the state, through its efforts to censor information, may kill intellectual property. It would be fitting that the creator became the destroyer.

Intellectual Property: The Reason Chemotherapy Costs $70,000

While my opposition to intellectual property can easily be justified by pointing out the absurdity of driving a man to suicide because he may have violated intellectual property laws I also like to point out the ways intellectual property laws make negatively impact all of our lives. Healthcare in this country is absurdly expensive. Advocates of state controlled healthcare will tell you that the reason healthcare in the United States is so expensive is because of greedy capitalists and inefficiencies inherent in the free market. These claims are false. One of the biggest reason healthcare in the United States is so expensive is because of the state, namely the monopolies it grants on ideas:

Why does Gleevec, a leukemia drug that costs $70,000 per year in the United States, cost just $2,500 in India?

It’s seemingly simple. Gleevec is under patent in the U.S., but not in India. Accordingly, Novartis, its Swiss-based manufacturer, may prevent competitors from making and selling lower-cost versions of the drug in the U.S., but not in India.

Last week, India’s highest court rejected an application to patent Gleevec. While the legal issue in the case is important — the patentability of modifications to existing drugs under Indian law — the impact of the decision will likely be broader than just that issue, escalating a long-simmering fight over patented cancer medications in emerging markets.

Unlike the United States, which suffers under atrocious intellectual property laws, other countries aren’t nearly as idiotic when it comes to such matters. Patents on medical procedures and drugs are one of the biggest contributors to the healthcare costs in the United States. When one company is granted a monopoly on a medical procedure or drug they can set the cost to whatever they want. In other countries where such intellectual property laws aren’t observed producers of medical procedures and drugs must set their prices competitively or be knocked out of the market.