Divine works


eng deu рус

the Antitrust initiative:

questions for lawyers:

We do not understand how the performance of FOSS, FLOSS, Creative Commons and Open design is provided - in non-democratic countries of the 2nd world.
("The license agreement of the GPL does not allow modifications to local law and does not specify territorial restrictions.
Therefore, such a contract is not compatible with the legal regime in Russia."
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License))

is it Correct to think that international treaties (http://bestoflawyers.blogspot.de/) and the legislation of most countries simply does not provide for such forms of restriction of the use of inventions?
They are legal only in a few countries like the United States?

are open source appropriate technology (OSAT) and Cross-licensing arrangements Possible in countries around the world?
The work of international law can only be ensured by economic and political sanctions against the countries of the 2nd world?
But such sanctions are not effective and only help to promote?

is it Possible for the 2nd world government to enforce its own patent laws?
For example, if OSAT blocks new nuclear weapons, for example in the field of Artificial intelligence, what court will issue an arrest warrant for the President of the 2nd world who decided to produce it, if it will deal with patent terrorism against the international Patent pool?

is it possible to contain threats at all with patents?

the patent war " stacked development of the U.S. aviation industry.  (This claim has been dismissed in research). As a consequence, airplane development in the United States fell so far behind Europe. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war )

Fight not against patents, but-instead of patents:

there are many initiatives to combat the patent system.
But this struggle is utopian.
The development of an alternative-a competitive system that allows people in the 2nd world not to work against the sustainability of development-can be much more effective.
No one is forced, no one is opposed, but only to allow inventors to choose between 2 systems of protection of their intellectual rights-monopolistic, associated with intermediaries, and less harmful.

a tiny correction:

the most promising approach is to extend the parallel patent system, which differs from the existing one - only one property out of a thousand - by the absence of monopolies, i.e. the right of "patent holders" to prohibit.
This monopoly is similar to the Communist ban on the freedom of private property, especially since ideas belong to the spiritual world, not the material world.

that is, the authors can still be paid by users, not by the managers of the "Prize Fund".
Open design is NOT the same as being free.
It is well developed in Software but not at all developed in Open design-E.

Generalization, but not nationalization:

"Nationalization" of the "Prize Fund" degenerates into monopolies, often in the worst forms.
But the freedom of the" public domain " without adequate social and legal institutions is ineffective.
Competition of Institutions = Cooperation of people.

Positive, constructive orientation:

Efficiently, and you will find more supporters than fight for the restriction of the use of inventions, such as anti-propaganda and the system, allowing anticipatory, preventive development solutions:
1. For "Patent thicket", "Umbrella patents", for example against the use of Artificial intelligence in propaganda.
2. Solutions that can be used, for example, against propaganda.

do people Want to preserve the divine life on Earth?

Unbalanced:
Patents – 99.9% uptime
Open design-0,0%
This disproportionality does not reflect the mood in society, but the political efforts of monopolists.
Thus, the corresponding Social movement has great potential. What is needed is an initiative to create it. Who can speak with her?

we must not Delay – propaganda technologies are developing in democratic countries too.

Demagogy:

Approval:
"The main purpose of intellectual property law is to encourage the creation of a wide variety of intellectual goods for consumers."
("The main purpose of the intellectual property law is to encourage the creation of a wide range of intellectual goods for consumers.")
- is known malicious demagoguery, because:
The authors know it:
1. About researches showing the efficiency of alternative non-exclusive mechanisms of providing the Intellectual rights for the specified purpose.
2. Paid a monopoly on the promotion of intellectual property.
3. That the goal is the monopoly profit, the killing of competition and freedom.

the goal of intellectual property is to create medicines to save lives.
But because of the non-availability of monopolized medicines, many more lives are lost than they are saved.
Simplistically speaking, pharmacists have killed more people than the Nazis in the 2nd world war.

Nothing will change - unless there is "intellectual property":

there have been no Patent wars yet. - The US army did not invade the country in which goods are produced without permission. - Just don't let through the border such "pirate" goods.
If there is no "intellectual property", then the goods will also not be allowed across their borders, but those for which the interest is not paid to the authors.

Contradiction?:

"Open design usually comes with licenses Creative Commons"
But"the Goals and philosophy are identical to the Open source policy."
www.ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Открытое_проектирование)
- Is there any contradiction here?:
On the 1st hand-the purpose and philosophy of Open code policy-is, first of all, the prohibition of "closing" Open code?.
On the 2nd hand-licenses & nbsp; Creative Commons refer only to Copyright, that is, to copy the content, but not to its use?

experience is the best judge:

"Levin's Main argument, and that of other copyright holders, will be affected by the free distribution of content producers and consumers."
It's demagoguery. - Levin understands that it is very simple to check his statement – to allow both schemes to compete with each other, even in different countries.

the

survival Mechanism of humanity:

Anti-monopoly is not necessary for "pirates". - It is necessary for the survival of mankind.
How to introduce anti-monopoly mechanism?

1. Select countries:

a. Democratic,
b. With the "pirate" of public opinion.
For Example, Sweden, Ecuador.

2. To organize laws "Copyleft" - is not a fixture under Copyright:

Again, we need not maximalism, but the maximum effect.
To do this, these laws should be only:
a. Antitrust, i.e. repealing the law on Intellectual "property",
b. Creating the legal basis for the work of the following institution, mechanism:

3. Create competing sites without intermediaries that:

a. Would allow Producers (authors, including scientific) – to spread the Intellectual product (Works and Technical solutions),
b. Would allow Users. - Register with your country's ID.
c. Would testify to the use of the products of the Intellectual product by specific users.

Manufacturers could issue invoices to users.

Intermediaries (Publishers) could also use this service?:

- but this is another problem. She can't be the reason of the rejection of the decision of the 1st.
In addition:
1. To own such sites is beneficial to "Pirates",
2. Authors can choose between such sites – those that really isolate monopolists.

time does not wait:

This System should be created - while Russia and China with the help of undemocratic majority of countries have not eliminated the free Internet,
If the Internet is free, monopolism will not stand the competition, and all democratic countries will have to change their legislation.

stages of monopolism:

1. The right of the leader of the herd of baboons on the females.
2. The right of the first wedding night in Europe.
3. The right to control limited natural resources (land, serfs, oil).
4. The right to control information.

1-3's rights-provided large external excesses, in including "class",
but the 4th right is more dangerous for the survival of humanity.

 

Piracy and anti-monopoly:

 

Monopolism is a relic of the "wild" middle ages, "the right of power".
Now Monopoly threatens the existence of humanity.

Discoveries and inventions are made in the expectation of their public use.
If there was no public demand, no scientist would be paid a cent.

the Author is certainly entitled to remuneration for his work.
But the monopoly – is inefficient, and most importantly very harmful reward mechanism.
90% of profit at the expense of monopoly – not the authors, and intermediaries, "copyright owners".

we Are talking only about science. - In the field of entertainment-cinema, music-non-monopoly mechanisms of remuneration of large groups-complex.
And the sphere of entertainment is not critical for the survival of mankind.

the existing patent system is already killing about a billion people a year - more than a nuclear war - by raising drug prices.

there is No need to bury the patent system:

it is only Necessary to make it anti-monopoly. -
A patent should not give its owner the right to decide how an invention can - and can – be used by others and how much it costs.
This decision should be made by a mechanism similar to that of natural monopolies, similar to that of the judiciary.

how to reform the patent system?:

1. Unlimited Pirate offensive,
2. Bringing her to the point of absurdity. -
- Effectively combine the latter with other benefits, such as anti - war. – proactive patenting of military development, and the prohibition of States to use them – at any price.

a compilation of the views of the authors:

it would be Nice to make a compilation of the views of the deceased authors about:
1. Profit on them - their enemies,
2. Prohibition of free reading.

 

8569

 

file: why is there no revolution in technology?

- Because the chiefs are stupid,
Good engineers – they are the performers
And free spotlights are bad engineers.

Why patents are not much in the way of progress?

- Because
1. Abuse of monopoly is not profitable.
2. There are other solutions that destroy monopolism,
3. Patents are territorial. - Transnational producers are changing their nationality.

Conclusion: Effectively prohibit weapons:

1. Can beat the chiefs on a step – everywhere and always,
2. There is no economic factor preventing "abuse" of monopolism,
3. About the global good of the organization, you can close all the loopholes.