[CrackMonkey] [owen@ditherati.com: D I T H E R A T I for 26 April 2000]

[Seth David Schoen]

Don Marti writes:

> On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 04:54:42PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> 
> > Hmmmmm, how can you fund getting smart IP lawyers to make a living
> > _diminishing_ the legally-recognized scope of IP instead of
> > _expanding_ it?
> 
> IP is Internet Protocol dammit. There's no "Intellectual Property"
> mentioned in the Constitution, because there's no such thing.

I don't think Michael Eisner agrees with you.

http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0423.html

	Intellectual property rights are really no different from
	ordinary property rights.

> Now, _patent_ lawyers, that's another story. If a medium to large
> company got the repuation of AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKING THE PATENTS of any
> patenteer who approached it instead of just licensing any old bogus
> patent, it would be like a store that prosecutes shoplifters -- more
> expensive per incident, but cheaper in the long run because of the
> deterrent. Patent holders would start leaving them alone.

Yes, but this would create a kind of double standard (which may
already exist to some degree) -- patents would be enforced against
small companies (perhaps not against individuals), not against
big aggressive companies.

Imagine if a store made a habit of prosecuting poor people (who
couldn't afford good lawyers) for shoplifting, but not prosecuting
anybody who looked rich enough to afford a lawyer.  This would be a
deterrent for some people, but not for people who already have
lawyers. :-)

I'm sure David Friedman would say that there's an equilibrium
somewhere.  If a large company did what you propose, it would probably
shift the equilibrium so that patent holders would be reluctant to go
after _that company_ for patent infringement.  That doesn't
necessarily mean that they would be reluctant to go after _anyone_ for
patent infringement, though.

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5