Actually, “strong IP rights” isn’t quite the same as enforced IP rights or respect for IP through rule of law. Note that PFF supports raising the non-obvious standard for patents, as reflected in recent amicus filings. http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/050511ksr-teleflex-amicus.pdf

They are academic capitalists who live in a world of theory.

Hmm, this is why Tim went off about academics and their Newtonian blackboards in his recent posts. Hence, I asked him a question, which I now re-pose: which academics do you find “disconnected” from the real world of patents? Ill point to the absence of popular OSS proponents Lessig Moglen Weber from patent industrial organization and law and econ conferences in the past decade. OSS supporters Hunt Kahin Varien on the other hand seem to have positioned their way onto very important invite lists. Im deeply surprised you and Enigma give them the silent treatment when they support your cause w/ more credibilty than others you cite.

MikeT, have you been listening to Max and Stacy again??

Sounds like something they would say (and I might be inclined to agree with, in this case.)

MikeT, have you been listening to Max and Stacy again??

Sounds like something they would say (and I might be inclined to agree with, in this case.)

Strong IP advocates see everything as a zero sum game. To them, nothing short of reducing all buyers of IP to renters is sufficient to protect “property rights.” The day that DVD data is regulated under normal physical property laws is the day the economy will crash in their eyes. No one denies the right to mod a car, but they would deny the right to modify a DVD and sell their license.

Strong IP advocates see everything as a zero sum game. To them, nothing short of reducing all buyers of IP to renters is sufficient to protect “property rights.” The day that DVD data is regulated under normal physical property laws is the day the economy will crash in their eyes. No one denies the right to mod a car, but they would deny the right to modify a DVD and sell their license.

What is even worse, from my perspective as an architect is the pernicious effects that the use of eminent domain has had on the quality of the built environment.

Instead of seeing organic development of city form, in which many small projects develop over time and contribute to the richness and vibrancy of a city’s life, I am seeing more and more mega projects that look the same from city to city.

To be fair the architects are aware of this problem and are taking some steps to mitigate this in their design, but better to have small scale organic development in the first place, that the designers wouldn’t continually be confronted with problem of how to make something large look small.

Also, these large projects tend to go to large firms, and there’s been a big decline in the small to medium sized architectural office (say about 20 employees) These offices had connections to communities, and although small played important part in their communities cultural life. No more.