41–50 of 62 posts
It's too bad there isn't a yearly tax on the value of 'intellectual property', just like on real property. If a company doesn't pay the tax, someone else could pick it up. It would provide a legal path to handle abandoned things.
> just like on real property Most of a company's tangible assets aren't taxed. In fact, quite the opposite...
Doesn't Switzerland do precisely this?
It's too bad there isn't a yearly tax on the value of 'intellectual property', just like on real property. If a company doesn't pay the tax, someone else could pick it up. It would provide a legal path to handle abandoned things.
On the other hand its common for people to inherit property they can't maintain, forcing them to sell it with much regret. If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property it might be lost to an unscrupulous buyer.
But Intellectual property is a different animal. It may require upkeep in the form of legal defense on infringement but I'm not aware of anything else. But should that prove too costly, and were it sold in the scenario you've painted, it would at least go to someone who considers it valuable and desirable rather than languish, unused.
All a bit of a hypothetical strawman though.
We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
We should start by not calling it intellectual property (IP). Clearly this is not servicemark, trademark, etc. Is copyright actually preventing this?
Dear [REDACTED],
I write on behalf of Electronic Arts Inc. and its development studio DICE or, in other words, "those guys that make Battlefield."
We've noticed that Revive Network has several projects and websites devoted to being a Medic by reviving older Battlefield games, including Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield 2, and Battlefield 2142. It's great to see your enthusiasm for these titles. Not to brag, but we too get the nostalgia chills when booting up these classic entries in the Battlefield franchise.
We need a favor though: we must ask that you stop throwing down Ammo Crates. In other, more legal-styled terms, please stop distributing copies of our game clients and using our trademarks, logos, and artwork on your sites. Thing is, your websites may easily mislead visitors to believe that you are associated or affiliated with EA we're the only ones that get to wear the Official EA dog tag. Since you're Battlefield community members, we know that you are smart and helpful, and will respect that we must protect our intellectual property rights in the franchise.
Please drop us a line to let us know you're on board with this. Should you have any questions regarding all this, please do not hesitate to contact me via e-mail at [REDACTED]@ea.com.
Thanks,
[REDACTED] IP Counsel Electronic Arts Inc.
What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so. I very much preferred the old days when players had to run their own servers. It was less convenient, but made for great community and avoided situations like this.
I think my preferred fix is to require them to support the online features until a date that they make clear wherever the game is sold. Then the legal system isn't trying to mandate specific implementation details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand its common for people to inherit property they can't maintain, forcing them to sell it with much regret. If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property it might be lost to an unscrupulous buyer.
> If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property Challenge for HN: find the most recent three patents which (a) were filed by individuals not an employer (b) those individuals could reasonably be described as poor (c) aren't subject to widespread infringement by a big company. (and (d) is for something actually useful not a perpetual motion machine etc) I think it might be quite a hard thing to…
”According to the law, the inventor, or a person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention, may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions.”
and, more explicitly, http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/:
”When someone makes an invention, and does so as an employee of a company, usually the company owns the right to apply for a patent. The exception once again is the United States, where only natural persons may apply for a patent. In the USA, the employee will typically have a clause in his employment contract stating that he assigns all his patent rights to the company. The filing is then done on behalf of the employee, but the rights immediately go to the company.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
IP and land are apples and Shakespearean sonnets. There's really no comparison. There's only so much space on the island of Manhattan. It can't fit everybody on the planet. Digital property is reproducible at zero cost. We could have a copy of Battlefield 2 for every man, woman, cat, and dog on this planet, at effectively the same cost that it takes to create the first copy.
Actually, in theory it could - it wouldn't be very comfortable, nor easy, and forget fire codes, but...
Manhattan is approximately 22.82 square miles in area; or approximately 59103529 square meters.
If we say "standing room only" and allocate 2 square meters per person, we could cram approximately 29551765 people on the island (assuming we level everything else, of course).
There are 7.6 billion people on the planet Earth, so:
7600000000 / 29551765 = 257 layers
If we say "let's build a building to house them all - and let's give 10 feet of room between levels" - then we get a (very ugly) "building" 2570 feet tall.
The Burj Khalifa is 2722 feet tall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP and land are apples and Shakespearean sonnets. There's really no comparison. There's only so much space on the island of Manhattan. It can't fit everybody on the planet. Digital property is reproducible at zero cost. We could have a copy of Battlefield 2 for every man, woman, cat, and dog on this planet, at effectively the same cost that it takes to create the first copy.
> It can't fit everybody on the planet. Actually, in theory it could - it wouldn't be very comfortable, nor easy, and forget fire codes, but... Manhattan is approximately 22.82 square miles in area; or approximately 59103529 square meters. If we say "standing room only" and allocate 2 square meters per person, we could cram approximately 29551765 people on the island (assuming we level everything else, of course). Th…
What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so. I very much preferred the old days when players had to run their own servers. It was less convenient, but made for great community and avoided situations like this.
>EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so The actual content of EA's letter makes it quite clear they are specifically after the unauthorized usage of their branding and trademark, and the fact that the site hosted the actual Battlefield Heroes game binaries for free download. The letter does not demand the site unilaterally shut down its server hosting. The site's response is a…
Simply running alternate servers, distributing patches to the game, and using their launcher without copyrighted artwork or branding (maybe a "not endorsed by or associated with EA" sort of disclaimer) would seem to be fine.
It's reminiscent of the EverQuest server emulation community. They distribute patches and run open-source server infrastructure, but forbid distributing copies of the EQ game itself, pointing people to legitimate acquisition methods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think my preferred fix is to require them to support the online features until a date that they make clear wherever the game is sold. Then the legal system isn't trying to mandate specific implementation details.
Then they bust out Hollywood style accounting. Each game gets it's own LLC, then pays the studio exorbitant rates for handling G&A, and put liability for keeping the servers online with the disposable LLC.
But then people at least have a chance to know what they are buying.
I find this much less problematic than the idea that support will be eternal for a $50 game.
In my opinion the question is how do we treat hybrid software products: A part of it runs locally and another part runs on a server. If you sell/advertise those two pieces of software as a single integrated product but you only give away the client executable, how long after the sale should you be required to keep the server running? It's a bit like a web app: The user downloads some HTML+JS which makes XmlHttpReques…