Posts Tagged ‘Jones’

This is an argument against trademark law – Part 2

October 27, 2013
Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the ...

Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the World Wide Web Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I recently posted this:

Somebody asked me:

What is the difference between my owning land and owning unique knowledge?

I’ll try to explain the main differences. Starting with the one that I think is most significant.

For Smith to acquire any land that belongs to Jones, Smith has to harm Jones in some way to de-facto “possess’ it, and Jones loses his own property to theft.

But if Jones “owns” a piece of “unique knowledge”, Jones loses absolutely nothing of what he already has if Smith acquires the same piece of “unique knowledge”.

If we apply the principles that support free trade among nations –they do– consider that the free trade means for sugar that we get net positive effect on the average. End the tarriff on them, domestic producers lose but everybody else gains a LOT more.

Ending the “intellectual property” monopolies might mean a loss for the former patent and copyright and trademark holders, but it means great benefit for the rest of us. Not only in that the monopoly royalties hit us all and drain resources from other productive areas, but it means an end to a completely artificial industry in legal services that support such monopolies as a specialization, supplemented in turn by all the bogus “defensive” patent filings. Defensive patents are taken out on ideas that are so obvious anybody and even everybody knows them, but if somebody is awarded by these clueless patent officials then suddenly they have to pay royalties for the obvious.

An example of this waste is a patent Microsoft was actually awarded for an algorithm that recognizes what country corresponds to a high-level domain suffix in the DNS string!!

Information doesn’t want to be free, it just exists, but punishing people for knowing something or telling it gives too much power to government cronies that have a “For rent” shingle hung in front of their office.

Besides, consider Courtney Love‘s rant that the big corporate monsters of Hollywood control the market and pay pittance to the real true originators of ideas, the original writers, the originators of the “intellectual” product.

Consider also that we have recent outstanding examples that disprove the premise in the US Constitution and in the laws of most countries. The idea was stated as to provide incentives for innovation in science and the arts.

Consider also that a lot of new good ideas come from government-subsidized research. Hey, even IBM got its start with the government employee Hollerith who was told to design a system to count the census faster in the late 1800s. He did, and then went private to produce the punched card machines. I don’t know who got the patent for it, but if he did, is it “fair”? We paid for that research. The government couldn’t do it without robbing us first.

(Before the people who love to be told what to do and say and spend on what react, let us point out that the gigantic advances in calculating and computing have been from the private sector).

But now we have the World Wide Web, using a protocol and algorithms that Tim Berners-Lee gave to the world. Open source is taking over! In the words of one Red Hat developer I recently met, “We won!” (meaning Open Source). Android has more devices running it than Apple has sold, Linux took over the Internet server space lightning fast, open source browsers are crowding out the Microsoft browser on Microsoft machines running Windows.

Open source inspired open document, the commons license, wikipedia (in part), wikis in general. An open source office suite. There is open source bios!

Google Facebook. Yahoo. The most important Internet companies run open source. Brokerage companies on Wall Street that gain and lose millions sometimes in seconds, prefer Linux applications.

And the most creative research in computing is in open source code.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>


National and International Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Are They Different?

June 4, 2013

Cover (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, they are all the same in the idea that an [ahem] “enlightened” [suppress guffaw here] ruling clique should rule over all of us, justified by the same excuse used by all tyrants and all dictators of all times: It’s for “our own good”.

National socialism and international socialism are based on one tiny gang of dictators.

Among those who are sincerely interested in doing good, central planning of any category  comes from a momentous hubris, albeit often unconscious hubris. They know what people should do, so they force us to do it. Claiming a majority vote is not a use of force is a cheap intellectual cop-out once we accept the reality, because all government relies on the use of force.

I once was one of those inflicted with that hubris, thinking that a Marxist revolution was the best thing for the peoples of the world. But Marxist revolutions were always ugly revolutions. But Marx’s idea of a transitional dictatorship bothered me until it broke out into “anarchism”, what libertarians would probably call “syndicalist anarchism” or  “left anarchism”.

If my neighbor John Doe takes something from the other neighbor Mr. Jones and gives it to me because I need it, it is still THEFT.

It is theft whether Mr. Jones is a billionaire, millionaire, or earns more than a quarter-million dollars, or not. If he stole it, he stole it. It is still THEFT.

If neighbor John Doe organizes the neighborhood, the whole city or county, and then the state, and gets a majority vote to take something from the other neighbor Mr. Jones by force of “democracy” to give it to me, it still does not make it okay. It is still THEFT.

To such theft, I DO NOT CONSENT. No matter how much good it does me or any other neighbor.

If you do consent, you are accessory to theft, once your sin is exposed.

I gave nearly twenty years of my life to missionary work, and helping others, helping them. Against such love there is no law.

Against theft, there is: Thou shalt not steal


No wonder Phil Jones was so terrified of what might happen to him

November 7, 2011

Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video | Watts Up With That?:

I guess he didn’t know what powerful players were backing the scam. Maybe Jones thought they might throw him under the bus for a scapegoat. But there was too much invested.

For a calming bit of laughter, we might say that somebody had decided to emphasize human-caused global warming instead of aliens for getting people to go along with the program…