Re: [Patents] Washington Times: Internet Patents Divide Industry

Be careful to consider that the lumping of things under one asset header may
be a reflection of too much headiness about information technology, from an
accounting and economic perspective.

It seems to me that this is a problem that we who address information
freedom may tend to overlook.  I have had this not-too-well-formed notion
that, aside from the various practical issues associated with attempts to
make marketable assets out of things in this category, the supposed value of
these assets has not been well-grounded for both economic and inherent
reasons.  This problem would be influenced in a favorable direction by valid
exclusive rights policy -- though of course those who have established
interests in this area would indisputably push back.

In the present discourse about "fair value accounting" or "principles-based
accounting," this may be something of some importance -- though I know I am
not personally capable of speaking to the point very well.  But it seems to
me that examining the "accounting problems" in light of how they are
reflections of the perversions of exclusive rights policy that have held
sway for these same 20-odd years, would be an **EXTREMELY** constructive
piece of work for a highly competent analyst to contribute, perhaps by
submitting analyses to the GAAP or the US FASB and such places that are
supposedly addressing these issues.  Such an analysis would probably get a
great deal of press play, too, given its highly provocative implications --
another thing that could open up the discourse to correct premises.

One interesting thing to me that I believe may be relevant in this
connection has been observing that there seems to be almost no recognition
of the public interest as something distinct from private interest any
more.  It seems to me that this has been a major factor in how exclusive
rights policy has been articulated.  It seems to me also to have been a
strong factor in the very ability of something like Bayh-Dole having been
passed here in the States.  One useful analysis I've used has been to say
that those who want to patent software are bent on asserting their private
interests over the public interest as it is supposedly served by exclusive
rights policy.

Seth


Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> 
> >     But "intellectual property" is not such an example.  The generalisation
> >     in this term is needed in many contexts.  We can not chose whether we want
> >     this concept to exist, we can only chose how to name it.
> 
> > I have very rarely found a situation where this generalization
> > (including patents, trademarks and copyrights) is useful for clear
> > thinking.  If there is such a case, I think your proposed term
> > "exclusion rights" would be a good choice, but we should first try
> > separating the different issues.
> 
> What about the case of accounting assets of a company?
> 
> Patents, copyrights, trademarks etc, like real estate property titles,
> have an estimatable value, can be sold etc.  Also, like real estate
> property titles, their value is derived from a right to forbid people to
> use certain ressources.
> 
> For this context, "immaterial property" seems just perfect to me (as would
> the lengthier "exclusion right based assets"), whereas "exclusion rights"
> still lacks meaning of "asset".
> 
> --
> Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
> Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
> 160,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://www.boson2x.org/article.php3?id_article=21

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.