[pp.int.general] 3-step usage rights / forced licensing model

[Christian Hufgard]

Pasi Palmulehto wrote:
> I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you mean take away?
> Author would have monopoly on the work for first 5 years and full rights
> to sell the work for rest of his/her natural or even unnatural long
> life.
> Work simply wouldn't have authors monopoly anymore after 5 years, but
> author would still get compensated by use of the work for the next 20
> years. After that, there's no compensation anymore but sure, he/she/it
> can still sell it too.

Compensation. But why introduce a compensation if he could have the full
right to determine who sells his work for which conditions?


> If you are asking why do we even want to touch the commercial use part,
> I think you should read some of pirate parties texts, it's way too big
> thing to start from the beginning here.

I did. That's why I argue about them. Copyright is defined as commercial
right. And now we want to reduce a new right. After five years everybody
is allowed to use a work commercial - just for the cause of compensation.
Which problem do we solve this way? Remember: non commercial private
copies are allowed at that time.


>> So what? Nobody is forced to use GSM... And if somebody decides, to use
>> a patented work as a standard, thats espicially his problem.
>
> So you don't find it a problem if two man invents a bicycle in different
> countries, both have invested whole assets in it and only one of them
> can sell it because of patents? Or if GSM networks are build around the
> globe and one manufacturer could, if wanted, tell everyone else "you
> aren't anymore allowed to manufacture gsm mobile phones."?

It happens pretty seldom that two people event exactly the same way to
solve a problem. And patent rights grant only a monopoly for a concrete
solution and not for a general idea.
If a vendor exploits his monopoly in a manner you described, there are
even today laws to prevent such behaviour.


>> > Problem is that patented information needs to be free to use _much_
>> > faster,
>>
>> Everybody can read and improve them - and release the new knowledge as
>> free.
>
> But if you invented late 90's a touch screen for computers and patented
> it, most likely nobody would be allowed to start manufacturing even
> phones with touch screen - too same technology.

That's why I had not patented "touchscreens for computers" but simply
"touchscreens". And I had implemented a certain technology and not the
general idea of a touchscreen. So if someone does not want to pay me money
for my implementation he is free to invent another one.


> btw. even html hyperlinks are patented, thank god at least such patents
> are not seen valid.

Yeah. So we do not have to care about. A lot of stuff from the US patent
system is a little bit to trivial and totaly fails the idea of a patent.


>> > some even might have direct link on saving lives.
>>
>> And some others might cost lives. That a totally different issue and
>> might
>> be treated separatly.
>
> Yes, gun etc. patents would come free for use faster too, I don't see a
> problem in that.
>
> But I think this topic is a wrong place for patents vs no patents
> discussion, ppi list already goes from topic to another too easily.

:)

Christian