tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5624376043771655409..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Houston, we have an IP problem: when the elite media gets it wrongVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75050580682827315832015-12-15T18:55:32.450+00:002015-12-15T18:55:32.450+00:00Overall, I cannot improve on your post, as your vi...Overall, I cannot improve on your post, as your view is dead nuts on.<br /><br />Your point 3) is explained by the notion of "the march of the lemmings."<br /><br />For all of their "professed" independence, the plain fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of software coders are NOT so risk-tolerant (nor creative) as to be able to strike out on their own and innovate.<br /><br />The overwhelming bulk majority would rather "follow," collect their paycheck, dither about what <b>they are told</b> are the so-called "EVILS" of patents and merely <b>COPY</b> elements of the creativity of others.<br /><br />Not only is there a paucity of real IP understanding, not only is that vacuum filled with the rhetoric that benefits MOST <i>those</i> small overlords in charge of the lemmings, the lemmings have been SO conditioned to "think" (in truth, parrot) the "lemming speak <i>as if</i> that lemming speak were some great <b>individual</b> banner of personal liberty.<br /><br />I have NEVER in my life seen such a class of intelligent people LACK critical thinking skills.<br /><br />I envision the movie "The Matrix," and a whole <i><b>legion</b></i> of Cyphers who would rather <b>knowingly</b> be plugged into a fantasy world, then deal with the coldness of reality.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32816373462498009372015-12-15T13:09:56.367+00:002015-12-15T13:09:56.367+00:00Gilman Grundy
Great analysis, however I fear you ...Gilman Grundy<br /><br />Great analysis, however I fear you are too forgiving of journalists, particularly journalists from the Economist. My opinion [and I have strong ones] is as follows.<br /><br />It is acceptable (although not desirable) for someone who has no contact with IP and no need for IP to have no knowledge of IP: as soon as such a person recognises they have a need for IP (often too late, but "shit happens"), then there is plenty of accessible information to guide them. Once told that they cannot patent the copyright of the design in their trademark the lesson (sometimes loosely) sticks. <br /><br />However, it is not acceptable for someone with no knowledge and less judgement to spread their ignorance around the world masquerading as informed opinion. <br /><br />As someone who has regularly read the Economist for over 30 years [most of its opinions are comforting to me, even if some jar - and the cartoons are good] I have been aware that often the opinions have been light on supporting facts. It is when it gets to IP that this ignorance becomes glaring. <br /><br />To understand the peculiar organ that is the Economist, it is perhaps worth looking at their <a href="http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom" rel="nofollow">"About us"</a> page, where it states:-<br /><br /><i>A recent editor, Rupert Pennant-Rea, once described The Economist as “a Friday <b>viewspaper</b>, where the readers, with higher than average incomes, better than average minds but with less than average time </i>[flatterers]<i>, can test their opinions against ours. We try to tell the world about the world, to persuade the expert and reach the amateur, with an injection of opinion and argument.”</i> [Arrogant or what?]<br /><br />In other words, never mind the paucity of facts, the Economist has plenty of opinion. [Lots of opinion, good cartoons, all they are missing is soft porn to get the full complement of their fellow red tops (so far they have stuck with reviews of soft porn - see November 14th-20th edition)].<br /><br />Now it is not uncommon for the strongest opinion to accompany the least knowledge [I confess to a weakness in this area, especially after a few drinks], but for journalists this weakness appears to be a badge of pride; even for journalists on an organ whose self image is stated as <i>"The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability"</i>. <br /><br />Well I am sorry, the pompous pontifications of the Economist on IP are becoming tiresomely predictable, and they do not have the privilege of being exempt from criticism because they consider themselves a cut above other newspapers.<br /><br />The Economist has a policy of anonymity for their articles, and this is stated to be because <i>"The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it"</i>. It is of course also a defence for Economist journalists seeking another job - no matter how ignorant the pontification, it is the viewspaper that gets called to account, not the journalist. <br /><br />It is interesting to note from the Economists "About us" page that Kim Philby was a contributor to the Economist: perhaps spreading damaging opinions under cover of anonymity is nothing new.<br /><br />Yours vituperatively and opinionatedly, [and regretfully so far as my favourite reading is concerned]<br /><br />MeldrewMeldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36792369828150646772015-12-15T11:41:28.209+00:002015-12-15T11:41:28.209+00:00My hand-waving, overly-generalised assessment of w...My hand-waving, overly-generalised assessment of why the media has a problem with IP (and vice-versa):<br /><br />1) The US makes us look bad, many articles on the subject of IP are written entirely from the viewpoint of how it works in the US, even in European/Asian press, and the profession outside the US doesn't do enough to distinguish itself from the US. <br /><br />2) Only ridiculous decisions ever draw attention. About the nearest patenting ever gets to positive press is from shows like Dragon's Den. <br /><br />3) The software industry as a whole is massively anti-IP, which is pretty silly given how much they rely on it. Work in a software firm and you'll know why - the level of education about IP is practically zero.<br /><br />4) Somehow social engineering through the granting of state-mandated monopolies are seen as a tool of capitalism by the left, whilst identified as a petti-fogging restriction on business by many on the right. There's not really much outreach from the profession to either side of the debate (or even its middle).<br /><br />5) It really is very complicated. I'm not going to blame some Economist journo for not knowing that copyright and trademarks are two totally separate things when in layman's discussions they are used practically interchangeably, any more than I'd blame Jeremy and the Kats for not knowing what the specific differences are between inflation measured by CPI, RPI, and CPIH. However, I can't remember seeing much input from actual professionals in these articles - perhaps the media are partly to blame for this, but if the journalists who write these articles had a patent/trademark professional on speed-dial who was good for a quote they'd use them.<br /><br />Moan about media ignorance all you want - the people you're moaning at have practically no contact with the patent/trademark profession and the people who then can most easily contact (and who give the best copy) are anti-IP activists. Gilman Grundyhttp://www.foarp.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31881585915668513892015-12-14T16:41:37.906+00:002015-12-14T16:41:37.906+00:00@Ron
Only if you are up really, really early. Is ...@Ron<br /><br />Only if you are up really, really early. Is it making it available to the public if no one hears it?A Nonni Mousenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12172385535275154062015-12-14T16:17:11.200+00:002015-12-14T16:17:11.200+00:00Regular BBC Radio 4 listeners may have heard its d...Regular BBC Radio 4 listeners may have heard its daily "Tweet of the day" feature, consisting of a few seconds of the song, call, or twittering of a particular type of bird, and commentary on the bird in question. Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37375683137031860122015-12-14T14:33:50.232+00:002015-12-14T14:33:50.232+00:00Yegor,
Not to pick nits (I do get what you are sa...Yegor,<br /><br />Not to pick nits (I do get what you are saying, and agree), but Twitter and "tweet" is actually not a great example. Such will not bring about genericide.<br /><br />Google and "googled" is an example that will bring about genericide.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13425299160652979882015-12-14T13:25:51.363+00:002015-12-14T13:25:51.363+00:00I agree with Peter Ulrich - in fact, that was the ...I agree with Peter Ulrich - in fact, that was the most concerning part of the extract from The Economist. <br /><br />For example, you could say "Twitter" is a clever name (whatever that means), like Google, but you just have to see their IPO filing to see that they are concerned that "Tweet", etc. may become generic.Yegor Gaidarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22032889694747794952015-12-14T10:19:03.907+00:002015-12-14T10:19:03.907+00:00Self quotation is one of the smaller sins.
To quo...Self quotation is one of the smaller sins.<br /><br />To quote <a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2821218#comment-2821218" rel="nofollow">my comment </a> to <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21660559" rel="nofollow">this earlier Economist article</a> on patents<br /><br /> <i>It is rare that the word "ignorant" can be applied to an Economist article, but somehow whenever IP law is the topic, that is the word that comes most readily to hand.</i><br /><br />'nuff saidMeldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87283481236490703962015-12-14T09:26:59.506+00:002015-12-14T09:26:59.506+00:00..."the ultimate bonus of turning into a verb......"the ultimate bonus of turning into a verb" is probably something else companies would like to avoid...Peter Ulrichnoreply@blogger.com