One should not be able to appropriate a word or symbol for proprietary use if in the process this denies its non-misrepresentational use by the public.

Trademarks are about attribution of authorship of products “Ming Made Me” and speech “Heinz Meanz Beanz” and identification of the author through distinct symbols or the distinctive speech itself.

One doesn’t ‘own’ the symbol, one simply records an original identity between a symbol and a manufacturer/author, commonly referred to as a name. The use of this name in similar circumstances should not be permitted if this is used to misrepresent or misattribute authorship, or where that may occur through confusion. This is a matter of truth, and protection of the public against deception. There is no impairment of the public’s liberty except when a trademark holder overreaches themselves to prevent use of the symbol in situations where it is not confusing nor being used to misattribute the provenance of a product or work.

And bear in mind that when patent prohibited features in popular software (games) are nevertheless highly valued by players, infringing modules may become ‘accidentally leaked’ onto file-sharing networks by developers unsympathetic to the software patent.

There may well be powerful trolls (MS?) who become as the RIAA and attempt to stamp out anyone caught distributing unlicensed, patent violating software.

And yes, copyright infringement and patent violation, especially by citizens in the privacy of their own homes, are not even ‘crimes’ of vice but infractions of a commercial publisher’s grant of monopoly, and if you ask me, justifiable reassertions of the human right to freedom of expression.

The term ‘social contract’ is also historical revisionism (as is the insinuation that IP remains owned by the publisher). Copyright and patents were intended to regulate a few commercial publishers or manufacturers for the benefit of the author or innovator. They were not intended as licenses for publishers and manufacturers to repress the general populace, i.e. they were not social contracts.

And software patents are the only category of patentable subject matter that I can think of where Friedman’s argument applies at all. The vast majority of “processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter” are created by commercial companies and sold to individuals. In contrast, virtually all categories of copyrighted content can be digitized and transmitted via the Internet.

The difference with patents is that patent infringers tend to be companies. Companies are different from individuals in several respects, as I explained above: they have deeper pockets (so they’re more deterrable) and they have more employees (which means it’s easier to get someone to rat them out).

Perhaps most importantly, patent infringement tends to take the form of selling products that infringe on a particular patent. That’s not something you can do in secret. If I’m manufacturing and selling a product that’s covered by my competitor’s patent, he’s going to notice when my product starts showing up on store shelves next to his.

Finally, there are far, far fewer people infringing a given patent than a given copyright. If the patent covers a drug, for example, there might only be a dozen companies in the whole world with the capacity to manufacture and distribute the drug on a wide scale. So enforcing your patent only requires monitoring the activities of those dozen companies.

Also, I think the argument applies equally well to patent. There is no (knowingly) aggrieved party to report violations of patent rights, so enforcement of patent law will require someone “to spy, to mole, to entrap.”

Also, I think the argument applies equally well to patent. There is no (knowingly) aggrieved party to report violations of patent rights, so enforcement of patent law will require someone “to spy, to mole, to entrap.”