Solitary in Iran Nearly Broke Me. Then I Went Inside America's Prisons. | Mother Jones
Probably one of the saddest things I’ve ever read.
A Study In Movement
Motorola asks ITC to ban every Mac, iPad, and most iPhones | Ars Technica
More proof of the sheer absurdity of patent law.
For One Company, Product Shape Trademark Protection Victory is Sweet - Core77
More bullshit in the world of intellectual property.
National - Marvin Ammori - If You've Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law - The Atlantic
Another reason copyright law is so remarkably outdated.
When I write a letter to somebody, I and I alone choose whether I identify myself in the letter inside the envelope, on the outside of the envelope, both, or neither. It is completely my prerogative whether I choose to communicate anonymously or not. This is a right we have in analog communications and in law; it is perfectly reasonable to demand that the law applies online as well. When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to intercept the letter in transit, break its seal and examine its contents un- less I am under formal, individual and prior suspicion of a specific crime. In that case, law enforcement (and only them) may do this. Of course, I am never under any obligation to help anybody open and interpret my letters. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well. When I write a letter to somebody, no third party has the right to alter the contents of the letter in transit or deny its delivery. Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well? When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to stand at the mailbox and demand that they log all my communications: who I am communicating with, when, and for how long. Again, to demand that this applies online as well would only be logical. When I write a letter to somebody, the mailman carrying that letter to its recipient is never responsible for what I have written. He has messenger immunity. And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well. All of these fundamental rights are under systematic attack by the copyright industry.
Software patents should be abolished, plain and simple. Software is already covered by copyright, making patent protection unnecessary.
A very clear and compelling story that patents are not tools to ensure creators get their due but rather that they are used to stifle others.
A Patent Lie: How Yahoo Weaponized My Work | Epicenter | Wired.com
content creators have been happily coexisting with piracy all this time, and I’m certainly one of them. Make good stuff, then make it easy for people to buy it. There’s your anti-piracy plan. The big content companies are TERRIBLE at doing both of these things, so it’s no wonder they’re not doing so well in the current environment
Today, everyone is patent happy and every small little action is patented, so Microsoft will have its proprietary set, Apple and Google will have theirs, all the other vendors will have theirs.
Interesting discussion on the future of gestural interfaces and interaction patterns.
The bigger question for me is really wondering why we’ve allowed companies to patent interaction patterns. It’s not like we let people patent a specific way to swing a hammer in the past.
To focus only on WikiLeaks is to miss the big picture of what’s happening with information — just like focusing only on Napter in 1999 would have led you to miss the bigger revolution in digital music. The original Napster was shut down in 2001, but its P2P heirs continue to share pirated files, and it paved the way for the rise of iTunes and Pandora — and the fall of Tower Records. Similarly, you can jail Julian Assange, but you probably can’t jail every 17 year old hacker whose blood is boiling because you just jailed Julian Assange — nor can you get a restraining order on every fed-up associate, manager, or cashier who wants to blow the whistle on you.
