Information/Mental Process Patents
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/page/or/360

I will be trying to coordinate efforts to erradicate Software Patents in Canada.

Russell McOrmond — http://www.flora.ca/

Actually, in the case of software, the solution is even more obvious than that. Don’t change anything, becuase it was working just fine the way it was before software patents.

The solution is obvious: to grant the use of an invention to anyone who pays a flat fee valid for anyone to be paid to the original inventor for a limited period of time.

That means that inventors WILL make money without having to sell their inventions to big companies that can exploit them (as is usually the case). It means people can add to an invention while paying a small fee and in return get a small fee too when his invention gets used. Even if the inventor has lots of money and maket his invention himself, by allowing universal compulsory licensing they would benefit from inprovements by others that they could incorporate “for free” without any effort since they would receive money from anyone marketing the new invention too.

Obviously software should still not be patentable since source code is not an invention but rather at the core it is mathematical formulas to transform some input into some output. It would be like giving patents to mathematician that “discover” theorems. It would artificially force people to use clones of theorems that do the exact same thing differently, which is wasted efforts and counterproductive.

One could argue that you might want to patent the BINARY form only of a software, so that you could still make your own equivalent binary without breaking any patents. But it wouldn’t make any sense since passing from source code to binary is not risky or costly at all and thus should not be protected since it does not help innovation to do so.

To make it one IP law – limited length for all inventions/creations
5 years max (to reap the initial costs out)

after that the business can still make money from it, but he has to compete in competition with other producers ( A benefit to the public)

I see no reason for anything longer in this day and age, Usually your competitor has a competing produc by then anyways against your product.

For Art or books is the same deal – most of the money is made in the first few years , after that bookstore will not carry the books due to it’s age.

limiting the length doesn’t stop the initial inventor or creator from making money from his product. It just forces him to adapt or compete against others who will produce his product. He should however have the edge competitively since he already has the plant and process down pat, and the initial cost paid for by then. It would still benefit the initial inventor/creator, just not as much.

And it should only refer to people or businesses profiting from works. If “NO Profit” is intended or ever made and is of a personal or educational use, – such as teaching or educating the public on art, music, culture, language, poetry, or science. It should not be a infringement.

Is it is then playiing your CD or DVD in your car where anyone can see or hear would be infringement (public performance of a work)
or whistling your favorite tune will get you sued for copyright infringement. Now if the person next to you picks up the tune and writes the notes, it’s not infringement, or he records it, it’s not, and then adpats it to a midi file it’s not, or plays it on his piano , it’s not, or makes his own recording he wishes to share it’s not. It’s only when someone tries to take recognition or benefit from someones work that it should be infringement, and only then.

The public has rights too, rights to culture, education, art, & etc.

The challenge is to limit the right to exclusivity for 5 years and after that to make them public for commercial use for a reduce royalty rate to the inventor/creator. Remember the inventor can still sell his creation albeit , they will have to compete against others (while collecting royalties from them too – like socan fees).

If the work is shared or communicated – not for profit – I.e. Public displays on the street, your car radio/stereo, or any other form (as long as their is no profit there is no infringement.

If you don’t wish to go that road then regulate the Copyright/Patent law to make sure that the inventors are properly rewarded (ie.e RIAA cheating artists out of money) or Pricefixing is thwarted. That means independent audits every year by the government of which the industry pays for in addition to it’s taxes. And to open the source Code/process to Governments to make sure you aren’t infringing – unbenounce to you on someone else’s work and they made to pay for every bit of infringement you did on someone else work.

That way everyone gets whats due to them. It’s either one way or the other way. The Statis quo doesn’t work fiarly to the creator or to the consumers.