Apps and Freedom

Our patent system was originally designed to encourage innovation. Therefore, we gave people legal protection against their works being copied for a short period while they recouped their investment.

The thinking behind it was that this would allow the inventor a time period to open up his distribution channels and establish himself as the market leader before the more established companies came in and copied his idea.

Since communication and transportation systems were in their infancy, governments granted longer durations of patents and copyrights. After all, your new widgets might take months to just make it over to the other side of the country. But today we have the internet, we have airplanes, we mass ship merchandise in shipping crates. The fact is that distribution channels are much faster and more efficient than they were a couple hundred years ago.

Unfortunately, the patent system has not kept up. In fact, it has turned into a method to force out the little guys. There are entire patent trolling law firms (when malpractice laws went into place, many lawyers chose to move to “greener” pastures like frivolous patent suits). There are even very large companies that make most of their money by enforcing frivolous patents.

Almost every tech firm in Silicon Valley gets sued for some type of patent infringement. Companies are sued for simple things like using a double click, or creating an easy to use interface on a digital music device. The fact is, the IP system (intellectual property) has morphed into something it was never meant to be.

There are a few things that can be done to reform intellectual property laws. Here are a few:

Patents

• Shorten Patent Length – 3 year term from filing date (10 year term on medicine due to FDA approval process)
• Limit standing to sue to companies who actually have a product fulfilling their patent (No real product? Then you cannot sue).

Copyright

• Shorten term to 10 years since modern printing and digital distribution methods are faster.
• Cannot sue for more than the market price of distributed material.
• No renewals. After term, it goes to the public domain.
• Derivative works are considered unique.
• Repeal DMCA and exit the World Trade Organization (since they require U.S. laws to comply with their regulations)

Trademarks

• Should be limited in nature.
• Very specific, not general. (i.e. A white swoosh looking exactly like this)

Another option

Of course, companies could choose not to copyright or patent at all. Instead they could hide the “trade secret,” making it impossible for other companies to copy their idea without reverse engineering.

Conclusion

These reforms would give inventors that initial edge without being too restrictive on innovation. We need an IP system that accounts for reality. People will only respect a system as long as the demands are reasonable. Perpetual copyrights and  patents on general ideas are not reasonable. This is a better way that will not only encourage innovation, but will cause it to flourish.

I just read an article about the debt ceiling increase on Yahoo Finance.  The article itself showed that the author was very good at copying talking points, but one commenter made some very good observations. His remarks are listed below…

There will be NO default, I wish reporters reported and actually investigated stories not just reprinted speeches and talking points. THE US WILL NOT DEFAULT ON IT’S DEBT.
What will happen is the US will have to shut down parts of the govt if there isn’t a budget in place and the spending limit raised. But, should no deal be reached, the govt still has enough money to
1) service the debt (approx 30 billion a month)
2) pay social security medicare , medicaid.
3) pay for the military all branches plus contractors
4) still have approx 36 billion left over each month to spend.

This is because the US takes in 200 billion a month in receipts, then it borrows 176 billion a month, so no raise to the spending limit means we can’t borrow, it doesn’t mean we’re broke.

I cannot believe how much it costs to heat your house. Last month, our bill almost doubled. I suppose that comes with the unseasonably cold temperatures.

Jessica and I were talking about the price difference between propane (like we had at our old house) and natural gas (like we have at our new house.

Our initial thought was that it should be about the same. But after doing some research, we found that there is a pretty big difference between propane and natural gas.

In order to figure out the cost of propane verses natural gas, I did the following:

1. I first needed to determine an appropriate conversion between gallons of propane and therms of natural gas. I found a website that listed a rough approximation between therms and gallons of propane:
   “100 cubic feet (1 CCF) of natural gas is very nearly 1 therm (0.95 – 1.05, typically, depending on gas analysis). 1 gallon of LPG is about 0.91 therm. (91000 BTU).”
2. After determining that 1 gallon of Propane = 0.91 therms, I calculated how much one therm equals by doing the by dividing 1 gallon of propane by 0.91 therms. This gives me the solution that 1 Therm = 1.1 Gallons of propane.
3. Then I looked at our propane and natural gas bills to determine the unit prices for each. For propane, this is $1.49 per gallon. For natural gas, it is $0.80 a therm.
4. Next I determined a standard measurement to base our calculations on. I chose therms. Since 1 therm = 1.1 Gallons of Propane, we will take 1.1 gallons of propane times $1.49. This will give us an equivalent to the price per therm.
   1.1 * $1.49 = $1.63
5. We can conclude that, at current market prices (January 1, 2009), natural gas is much cheaper. Currently, $0.80 of natural gas would cost you $1.63 if it was bought in propane.