A Russian correspondent sent me a translation of a Russian blog entry by Marina Litvinovich, an opposition politican and journalist in Russia:
2007-10-06 21:13:00News
At this moment there’s a search going on in the appartment of the leader of Rostov-on-Don branch of OGF (United Citizen Front[*]) Boris Batyi. Boris is also a parlamentary candidate from “The Other Russia”.
A few months ago his office was searched and he was charged with possession of unlicensed software.
His telephone: 8-903-402-0059
Upd. on 23:12: The search is over. They have taken the computer’s system block, the documents of OGF, and a newspaper “The March of Disagreeing”. They promised to search the office of Batyi’s wife.
————–
[*] OGF – is an opposition political party supporting presidential candidacy of Garry Kasparov, a former world chess champion.
As my correspondent notes, “I’m wondering if Microsoft is aware of the fact that their intellectual
property claims are being used by the Russian police (or, more likely, by FSB) as means of political suppression.”
{ 24 comments }
That’s what the WTO is for. ‘Emerging Economies’ must never be allowed to acquire licensed IP – otherwise our shell economy will fall apart.
Should we start a countdown for Person’s arrival on this thread?
10, 9, 8, 7…….
Guns are the real tools of opression or repression, in this episode it seems.
Damn those guns.
They should be forbidden.
Intellectual Property is all about a band of thughs with guns coming knocking on your door, ktibuk.
“Guns are the real tools of opression or repression, in this episode it seems.
Damn those guns.
They should be forbidden.”
I agree. We should definitely ban gun ownership for any employee of the State; that would solve most of our problems in one fell swoop.
Should we start a countdown for Person’s arrival on this thread?
Sure! And while we’re at it, start a countdown for when he runs away when I bring up a critique to his objections. Four extra seconds ought to cover it.
Did the Russian police requisition the Google search logs in order to enforce “the rule of law” on the political opposition?
Yes, without IP, Russian police couldnt have oppressed opposition. Not in a million years.
Stalin also, killed millions by the use of IP. If only the opposition didnt dowloaded music. How could they know IP is the best tool for oppression,
I wonder how long before Bill Gates is called in to explain Microsoft’s role in the affair? I expect the KGB to call around for a chat. If he is innocent he has nothing to fear….
Time to nationalize MS, eh?
Seriously, if there were no patents and copyrights why wouldn’t technological innovations slow to a crawl? Why wouldn’t Microsoft shut down when its software could be massed reproduced legally for free? Maybe there’s a lot to be said whether patents and copyrights are too long or something. But isn’t there something to be said for specialisation? If there were no protection for songs, paintings, movies, games and software, etc., sure there will be those who would still create songs, movies, software, etc., but they would be doing it in their spare time and couldn’t overly care less if the quality isn’t too great. Isn’t this a throwback to the D.I.Y. self-sufficiency era? Presumably in a free-market society technology is a happy positive externality, apparently.
TLWP Sam –
Copyright/patent laws undoubtedly encourage larger and more costly R&D projects. But what is the cost?
By definition, IP *PREVENTS* the sale of goods, gadgets, etc., which incorporate small incremental changes/improvements to existing patented products. Obviously, if you make a very small improvement to an existing good (i.e. change the composition of the metal used in some small part of a larger machine), you may find yourself with an IP lawsuit on your hands. I mean, what good is IP if you can circumvent it with tiny changes? So, under any patent regime, small (“small” defined arbitrarily by patent law, of course) innovations are outlawed!! Of course, “small” innovations are the most common type of innovation. Most people don’t have revolutionary ideas every day. So outlawing small innovations effectively blocks the most common type of innovation. What do you think is the cumulative effect of outlawing these millions (billions?) of tiny innovations over time?
And this is just one of the many angles that one can take against the utilitarian arguments. That is why it is always best to protect private property (i.e. rivalrous goods), and ONLY private property, and let the price-rationing system guide the various levels/ratios of R&D, production, etc.
TLWP,
Let Microsoft pay to protect its own profits and I won’t disagree. Make the consumers pay to support Bill Gate’s monopoly and I’ll have a few choice words for you.
How long did you think Microsoft would last if the method it used to protect its free-market IP was thugs with guns?
To TLWP- many metal companies stay at the top because they constantly innovate to stay ahead. Maybe IP companies would be forced to do the same. Microsoft might bring out new programs every season, instead of every few years. Drugs sometimes cost a lot to develop, but drug companies might get lots of feedback from innovators if they didn’t have patent problems. Shakespeare didn’t have copyright in his day, but the superior product won the day, and the mention in the history books!
ktibuk write this curious argument:
Yes, without IP, Russian police couldnt have oppressed opposition. Not in a million years.
Stalin also, killed millions by the use of IP. If only the opposition didnt dowloaded music. How could they know IP is the best tool for oppression,
There’s an argument that runs like this:
(1) All dogs have four legs
(2) This cat has four legs
Therefore, (3) This cat is a dog
Not all oppression is IP oppression, but that doesn’t prove that IP oppression is not oppression.
…2…1. I’m sure physical property rights have never been used for political repression, ever. (Well, those examples don’t *really* count because I don’t support *those* kinds of physical property rights, because they’re not *really* property rights. Whatever.)
Fred Mann says: “Most people don’t have revolutionary ideas every day. So outlawing small innovations effectively blocks the most common type of innovation. What do you think is the cumulative effect of outlawing these millions (billions?) of tiny innovations over time?”
I’m sure this observation has been made before, but it strikes me as quite fresh and novel – that the most common kind of everyday innovations are effectively outlawed, or put out of economic reach by the many compounding rents of IP owners, which are alleviated only at the rate of patent expiry.
Framed this way, I find that IP closely echoes minimum wage legistlation, which effectively outlaws employment for those it seeks to employ. In both cases some widespread value which could be realized is put out of reach of many who could capture it.
I guess this similarity shouldn’t be surprising as both are barriers to market entry – as all state interventions ultimately are.
Thanks for the great comment!
TLWP Sam: “If there were no protection for songs, paintings, movies, games and software, etc., sure there will be those who would still create songs, movies, software, etc., but they would be doing it in their spare time and couldn’t overly care less if the quality isn’t too great.”
Comedians don’t copyright their jokes. Magicians don’t copyright their tricks. Both groups manage to have very good quality without using guns or thugs to protect their material.
Person – get over your obsession with literal interpretation of words. If it is called “intellectual property” it does not mean it is a property. For once, property is not created by a government edict. It also does not expire in a few decades.
I’m confused. Is “Person” saying he doesn’t believe that intellectual property is property?
Person:
“…2…1. I’m sure physical property rights have never been used for political repression, ever.”
Its not complicated.
Governments commit physical property repression by creating rules forbidding peaceful uses of your own property.
Thats exactly what IP always is. It tells people what they can and can’t do with their REAL property.
Innovation is fueled by profits. If there are no barriers to entry, companies keep springing up until there is no more profit in the industry. No profits, no research budget, no incentives to innovate. What other system destroys incentives…hmm…
Robert M, don’t you think that firms will find other ways to protect their products if IP laws are repealed, e.g. by contractual agreements consenting to limited use of the product?
“No profits, no research budget, no incentives to innovate.”
i guess.
at some point someone said..enough heavy lifting i am gonna come up with a handtruck.
i guess that was motivated partly by pain and part by profit.
“don’t you think that firms will find other ways to protect their products if IP laws are repealed”
i suppose. say an epidemic of cooties breaks out – (no IP around) couldnt say, medical/drug research be funded simply by ‘services rendered’?
cootie-stoppers could be something like servicemaster in the cleanup field.
receiving payment for research and succesful implementation of vaccines?
i noticed the american cancer society receives millions of dollars that i guess goes to fighting cancer.
“In 1946 Mary Lasker and her colleagues met this challenge, helping to raise over $4 million dollars for the Society–$1 million of which was used to establish and fund the Society’s research program” http://www.careerbuilder.com/Jobs/Company/C7X2BX6TNPJPYPFR4ML/American-Cancer-Society-Eastern-Division/?cbsid=c3b65e4028884a3ab2d8a65dfb92027c-245509241-JP-5&&cbRecursionCnt=
“In its eighth year, SpinOdyssey had its most successful year yet, with more than 490 riders raising half a million dollars for the American Cancer Society’s breast cancer research program.”
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/COM/content/div_NE/COM_1_1x_SpinOdyssey_Funds_Four_Breast_Cancer_Researchers.asp?sitearea=COM
“To date, the ACS has funded 40 Nobel Prize Laureates, and invested over $3 million dollars in cancer research. Major research breakthroughs include the use of tamoxifen…”
http://register.charityrunner.org/site/PageNavigator/About_The_Charity_Runner_Program_National_Teamraiser?JServSessionIdr009=309jzcl0j1.app2b
etc….
some of the money ACS receives may be from companies that have patents or copyrights.
but if drugs, etc were cheaper overall – it would seem that consumers would have additional money to ‘invest’ in the ‘drug developing service industry’.
Comments on this entry are closed.