SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Russia mulls legalizing software piracy as it's cut off from Western tech:
With sanctions against Russia starting to bite, the Kremlin is mulling ways to keep businesses and the government running. The latest is a creative twist on state asset seizures, only instead of the government taking over an oil refinery, for example, Russia is considering legalizing software piracy.
Russian law already allows for the government to authorize—"without consent of the patent holder"—the use of any intellectual property "in case of emergency related to ensuring the defense and security of the state." The government hasn't taken that step yet, but it may soon, according to a report from Russian business newspaper Kommersant, spotted and translated by Kyle Mitchell, an attorney who specializes in technology law. It's yet another sign of a Cyber Curtain that's increasingly separating Russia from the West.
The plan would create "a compulsory licensing mechanism for software, databases, and technology for integrated microcircuits," the Kommersant said. It would only apply to companies from countries that have imposed sanctions. While the article doesn't name names, many large Western firms—some of which would be likely targets—have drastically scaled back business in Russia. So far, Microsoft has suspended sales of new products and services in Russia, Apple has stopped selling devices, and Samsung has stopped selling both devices and chips.
Presumably, any move by the Kremlin to "seize" IP would exempt Chinese companies, which are reportedly considering how to press their advantage. Smartphone-makers Xiaomi and Honor stand to gain, as do Chinese automakers. Still, any gains aren't guaranteed since doing business in Russia has become riddled with problems, spanning everything from logistics to finance.
Also at TorrentFreak.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday March 10 2022, @08:48AM (7 children)
It's a fair thought, and I agree that patent terms and especially copyright terms should be limited and practical. However, it's worth reminding folks that patents exist for a reason. I have 30 patents to my name, and they represent decades of work that I could not realise the benefit of myself without the opportunity to have a temporary monopoly to find capital and bring them to market. Without those protections, I wouldn't have done even half the stuff that I've invented to solve valuable real-world problems - there's be no point. Instead I'd have focused on what's interesting to study, even if it doesn't solve people's needs.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 10 2022, @12:54PM (1 child)
Got it.
I don't think that I've ever called for a repeal of either copyright or patents. We just need to end the stupid surrounding both. An entire industry of patent trolling has grown up around the stupid of patents. How stupid must lawmakers be, to have allowed that to happen?
(Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday March 15 2022, @12:54AM
You and I aren't always in agreement, but on this topic we coincide; we need IP reform globally.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10 2022, @03:44PM (1 child)
I'm not necessarily sure we should abolish patents but when I read the overwhelming majority of patents they are all really stupid.
I recently read a patent on an AI that says something to the extent of if a robot enters a room and scans it and reenters and scans it again and notices that certain objects have moved or are no longer present it can then use that information to help determine if the objects are animate objects.
The patent said something to the extent of, it can scan to see if an object moves to help determine the nature of the object.
Uhm ... that's not patent worthy. It's common sense.
In fact, reading through patents, it is extremely difficult to find examples of good patents. The overwhelming majority of them are stupid.
Where are the patents that tell me how to build my computer. My smart phone. My car. The respirators that they used at hospitals. etc... The majority of the patents are useless and give zero useful information. They are either broad, vague, obvious to someone NOT trained in the art and they are very far from educational. I have never heard of anyone reading through patents to learn anything because they're not useful. No one would put that they learned engineering, for instance, by reading through patents on their job application. They would get laughed out of the building because those patents aren't educational and present zero useful information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10 2022, @09:14PM
That's also not to mention the USPTO's disregard for prior art when granting patents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10 2022, @03:47PM (2 children)
Also, you claim to have 30 patents. So present to me the patents so that I can analyze them and potentially critique them.
If someone wants to claim that patents are good because THEY have patents and their patents are worth obtaining let me see what patents you have so that I/we can actually analyze your claim.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday March 10 2022, @10:58PM (1 child)
I'd be glad to; please contact me privately so we can make a time to go through them together. My patents are an eclectic mix regarding aerial robotics (my main field) and sensor technology with applications to mining, sport and medicine.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11 2022, @03:51AM
I understand if you don't want to identify yourself publically, I wouldn't either, but if we are to discuss the merits of having patents or not it ought to be done publically. Patents are publically searchable, as they should be, so we should access and discuss them. The system affects us all.
I'm not so sure that we should abolish patents entirely but I guess my problem is that the patent examiners are probably not trained in the art that they reviewing and so they don't know what's obvious and what's not.
It seems like the quality of the patents that do get approved is very low. The patents almost ought to teach us how to build cutting edge things that are actually currently on the market and being sold in large quantity from scratch even including source code, schematics, board views, component and materials lists, manufacturing processes that are actually used, structural formulas, etc...