aeblog

Well, with a little tinkering of the language, you probably *could* get a patent on your voice booth or your method of producing music using your recordings of others' voices (provided that no one has publicly done such things before). However, you would have only one year to file a patent application from the time you first publicly disclosed these things... the clock is ticking!

Of course, I would not volunteer to be your attorney if you decided to make a living suing independent musicians who copied these ideas of yours -- and it sounds as though you have no such inclination. But would you feel differently if, say, the RIAA took your ideas and commercialized them on a massive scale and/or in a distasteful way??

Yes, we need patent law reform, but I'd hate to see all protections disappear. After all, patent laws *can* protect the little guys from big commercial empires. We just need a better balance, because right now most of our intellectual property laws favor the big guy (who invariably has costly high-powered attorneys on his side).

Incidentally, I do think the "Patent Absurdity" article is a bit misleading (though I agree with its general message). The hypothetical story themes recited in the article presumably never would have been granted patent protection (even if literary works were covered by patent law) because these themes would be considered obvious. A patent can only be granted for something that is new, useful, and not obvious.

Maybe I should get a patent on the BYOV booth and methodology just so I could publicly give it away to anyone for free. This would be a good method of preserving the idea as freely available so that some major record label couldn't gobble it up and tell me I can't any more do what I developed on my own. Wait a minute: could someone else see what I am doing with the booth right now, notice that I haven't 'protected' the idea, go out and get a patent on it and then force me to stop doing what I am doing? Would that be possible? I can't even believe how sad it is that this thought has even crossed my mind as anything other than totally ridiculous and far-fetched. Oh, IP law goddess, please inform me!

Regarding the article, I think Stallman's point is not that Hugo could have gotten a patent on those basic and obvious literary ideas, but rather that software developers today are in fact getting patents on similarly basic and obvious methods of structuring and creating software. At least that's what I took from his points.

I've always thought that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but in this current climate of imitation becoming appropriation in the name of the almighty dollar, it seems like all creative people have to really watch out for the commercialization vultures.

Thankfully, you have to actually invent something in order to get a patent on it -- you can't just grab someone else's idea and secure the patent rights for yourself (at least in accordance with the law, anyway). So you *should* be safe from any corporate goons who might want to steal your idea and then stop you from using what you created. Of course, someone else could grab your idea, create some innovative improvement to it, and then get a patent on your idea plus the innovative add-on. But they couldn't stop you from doing your thing unless you copied the add-on.

I think the bottom line is that it's all about keeping a bunch of lawyers employed...

long live the lawyers!!!! will it be them or cockroaches that survive the nuclear holocaust?

(thanks for the clarification above. this does put me a bit more at ease)