checkpoint

doc/index.rst

@@ -20,3 +20,4 @@ Moshe'z Rants
     sorcerer-supreme
     fictional-politics
     lindsey-elliot
+    ip-law

doc/ip-law.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
+Intellectual Property Law
+=========================
+
+Dislaimers
+----------
+
+I am not a lawyer,
+and this is not legal advice.
+The subject covered here is not
+"law"
+but
+"moral foundations of law",
+part of the philosophy of ethics.
+
+Also,
+the takes here are very
+"cold".
+They have been explained before,
+by others.
+
+The rant is here so that I can avoid repeating it.
+All mistakes are my responsibility.
+
+Among the people who I have learned for are
+Richard M. Stallman
+and
+Cory Doctorow.
+
+Introduction
+------------
+
+Fundamentally,
+IP law is a misnomer.
+It is a collection of different laws
+covering different things.
+It is best understood as a collection of unrelated things.
+
+All of these laws are designed as
+*trade-offs*:
+can we encourage maximum good
+for the least cost?
+One of the reasons they are highly contentious
+is because shifting the trade-off
+to have a different party incur the cost
+is easy to argue for.
+
+Trademark Law
+-------------
+
+Trademarks cover various things:
+logos,
+slogans,
+words,
+and icons.
+There are also various forms of trademark
+or trade symbol protection.
+
+The
+*original intent*
+of trademark law
+is as an
+anti-consumer
+fraud device.
+The idea is that consumers should be able to trust
+the source of the goods they acquire.
+
+The simplest example is that of a logo.
+
+Let's say I make tables.
+I use quality wood
+and
+expert craftsmanship
+to make good tables.
+
+I mark these tables with a
+"𝕄"
+mark.
+People know that this mark means it is a table
+made with high quality wood and expert craftsmanship.
+
+Even if I never make chairs,
+if someone was to make chairs and mark them with
+"𝕄"
+it would be reasonable for consumers to assume I made those.
+If those chairs are shoddily made,
+this reflects on my tables and their brand.
+
+This is what trademarks cover.
+This is why
+"fields of endeavors"
+is a vague boundary.
+
+What if someone makes,
+say,
+shirts?
+Is that close enough to tables?
+
+The answer should be obvious:
+*I don't know*.
+This would be a matter for courts to decide
+if confusion is likely and what liability is there.
+
+Trademark law,
+and trademark enforcement,
+are complicated by necessity.
+This is an unfortunate truth.
+
+As in any such complicated law
+we should be ready for both kinds of mistakes:
+false enforcements
+and
+missing enforcements.
+
+A
+"false enforcements"
+is a case where a trademark violation
+should have been decided for the good of society.
+A
+"missing enforcement"
+is a case where a trademark violation
+was decided
+to the detriment of society.
+
+That these happen
+*is not a knock against trademark law in general*.
+This is not a defense of trademark law either!
+
+It is possible that trademark law should be amended.
+Amending the law,
+ideally,
+would reduce both kinds of errors.
+
+More typically,
+it would reduce one in favor of the other.
+Whether this is a good idea is a complicated decision.
+
+All of these things are important to keep in mind when
+evaluating the law,
+as well as the outcome of various cases.
+It is too easy to rush to conclusions and make the law worse.
+
+Patents
+-------
+
+It is important to understand the original intent of patent law.
+The context in which patents were invented was that
+people would take knowledge
+*to their graves*
+to protect it.
+
+The goal of patent law is to give people an incentive to invent
+secret techniques
+and publish them.
+In return for publishing the technique
+they receive exclusivity for some time.
+
+The first trade-off in patent law
+is
+how strict to be about
+the notions of
+*secret technique*
+and
+*publish*.
+People will publish as little about the technique,
+and as confusingly as they can get away with.
+
+One of the goals of the patent office is to verify that the
+"publishing"
+is clear enough.
+It is not unlikely that the current standards are too low.
+
+The other goal of the patent office is to verify that what is described is,
+indeed,
+a secret technique.
+It is not unlikely that the current standards are too low.
+
+However,
+it is important to note that here,
+too,
+there are trade-offs.
+Making the standards too strict would either reduce inventions of
+new techniques
+or
+keeping them as trade secrets forever.
+
+Copyright
+---------
+
+Last,
+but certainly not least,
+we come to copyright.
+
+Copyright was invented as a way to force
+companies who owned machines which could copy
+books
+to pay the people who wrote
+books.
+The two common ways of paying people for books are
+"work for hire"
+and
+"buying a license".
+
+Buying licenses is a complicated topic of contract law,
+the license can be exclusive,
+time-bound,
+both,
+or neither,
+among other things.
+Works for hire is simpler:
+where it applies,
+the company owns the copyright
+in return for paying the author in advance.
+
+After copying other things,
+like music
+or video media,
+became easier,
+copyright law grew to apply to those as well.
+By now,
+copyright
+"maximalism"
+attaches copyright to any
+"creative work".
+
+By now,
+what copyright covers
+and
+who owns it are mostly a matter of consensus.
+However,
+there are still degrees of freedom in the law:
+
+* What copying acts fall under the law?
+* How long does copyright last for?
+
+The first question is the
+"fair use exemption".
+Currently,
+fair use is limited both by law and precendent.
+One potential way to amend copyright law
+is to increase what the exemption covers.
+
+The second question got the most
+political will applied to it.
+For example,
+the
+`Term Extension Act`_
+faced
+both political and legal opposition.
+
+.. _Term Extension Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
+
+It is important to note though that,
+for example,
+"Steamboat Willie"
+is
+*not*
+the modern Micky Mouse.
+If someone tried to derive something from
+Steamboat Willie,
+how influenced would they need to be from modern Mickey Mouse
+before it violated the copyright act?
+
+This is,
+in many ways,
+a question of what falls under
+"fair use".
+
+It is widely accepted that,
+as it stands,
+copyright law does not make
+trade-offs
+that are optimal for society.
+It is also reflecting,
+by extension,
+on general IP law.
+
+The fact that the legislative branch has been
+so captured by corporate interests
+casts doubt on whether the trade-offs
+in the rest of the related laws are designed for scietal benefits.
+If for no other reason,
+it would be good to amend copyright law to be less restrictive.
+
+Summary
+-------
+
+As a category,
+"IP law"
+is not a coherent one.
+However,
+as an alignment of corporate interests,
+many of these laws are sponsored by similar financial interests.
+