Intellectual property rights, argues Rishab Ghosh, were ostensibly developed to increase creativity; but today, policy decisions that treat knowledge and art as if they were physical forms of property actually threaten to decrease creativity, limit public access to creativity, and discourage collaborative creativity. "Newton should have had to pay a license fee before being allowed even to see how tall the 'shoulders of giants' were, let alone to stand upon them," he writes.

Lawrence Lessig says:

"CODE is a mature and sophisticated exploration of the most important issues related to creativity in the digital age. The broad mix of scholars, offering extraordinarily insightful perspectives, makes this collection essential for understanding this critically important set of questions."

Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Economy

One-size-fits-all mandates on critical consumer technologies will stifle the growth of the intellectual property industry and indeed, of new forms of art. A wide array of hardware-software combinations to choose from would best serve copyright holders -- artists and the content industries -- and consumers.

The full paper (29 pages) is available for download in PDF.

Those who follow the issue will find familiar material here, but numerous original nuggets make it worth a look. In particular, the thread on differential pricing is recommended.

Studios and broadcasters might look to both new and old advertising models to capture revenue. Non-separable advertising / programming will play a larger role, as it did in the early days of television.

Cultural "purists” may balk at the idea of mixing business and entertainment -- but is there really that much artistic integrity to be frittered away? Is "Everybody Loves Raymond" a work of such high cultural value that it would wither under such treatment?

Expanding the Market's Role in Advancing Intellectual Property

Remember that silly thread about the "decline" of rated R movies? This is part of the explanation.

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you -- just one word.
Ben: Yes sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Ben: Yes I am.
Mr. McGuire: Unpop.
Ben: Exactly how do you mean?
Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in unpop. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Ben: Yes I will.
Mr. McGuire: Shh! Enough said. That's a deal.

Companies should wake up to the new economics of the internet, and think abundance, not shortage.

The internet is changing the entertainment business from one that is driven by hits to one that will make most of its money from misses.

A miss hit

This report explains why public policy should embrace peer-to-peer technologies. It examines the history of technological innovation in communications and the “piracy panics” they cause among entrenched incumbents. For three centuries, in battles over the printing press, telegraphy, mechanical pianos, cinematography, radio, cable television, photocopying, video and audio recorders, and the current generation of digital technologies, public policy has favored technological innovation by refusing to allow copyright to regulate technology. The paper reminds policymakers of the historic lesson that technological innovation promotes political, cultural, and social development, and economic growth.

Face the Music: Benefits of Peer-to-Peer Networks [PDF]

Immersion Corporation of San Jose, CA holds 142 US patents, nearly all of which are related to haptic human-computer interfaces.

From a conference call for Immersion shareholders: The case involved Immersion's allegation that Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (SCEA) and Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (SCEI, the Japanese parent of SCEA) infringed 16 claims in
two of our patents, U.S. Patent Number 6,275,213 and 6,424,333, relating to vibro-tactile technologies. The case was filed on February 11, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case has been pending before United States District Judge Claudia Wilken.

It is worth noting that Microsoft was also named in this case on claims that the Xbox also infringed; they settled out of court.

Here's 6,275,213. It's interesting to note that this isn't even their patent, originally. It was assigned to a company named Virtual Technologies, out of Palo Alto.

Tactile feedback man-machine interface device

Abstract: A man-machine interface which provides tactile feedback to various sensing body parts is disclosed. The device employs one or more vibrotactile units, where each unit comprises a mass and a mass-moving actuator. As the mass is accelerated by the mass-moving actuator, the entire vibrotactile unit vibrates. Thus, the vibrotactile unit transmits a vibratory stimulus to the sensing body part to which it is affixed. The vibrotactile unit may be used in conjunction with a spatial placement sensing device which measures the spatial placement of a measured body part. A computing device uses the spatial placement of the measured body part to determine the desired vibratory stimulus to be provided by the vibrotactile unit. In this manner, the computing device may control the level of vibratory feedback perceived by the corresponding sensing body part in response to the motion of the measured body part. The sensing body part and the measured body part may be separate or the same body part.

U.S. Patent 6,424,333 is a continuation application of prior U.S. application Ser. No. 09/561,782, filed on May 1, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,275,213, in the name of Marc Tremblay, et al., which is a continuation of prior U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/066,608, filed on Apr. 24, 1998 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,088,017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/565,102, filed Nov. 30, 1995, abandoned; and all of which are incorporated herein by reference.

From a law.com article in September 2004, here's a description of the alleged infringement:

He said the PlayStation technology in dispute "is a very small subset of vibrations" that occur in a joystick during a small number of events per game.

For example, he said, in "A Bug's Life," the ant in the game must jump first on an acorn, which then turns into a mushroom.

Powers said the vibration in question occurs only when t... [ Read More (1.6k in body) ]

Both the court and Congress should be sensitive to evolving technologies. But they should not let technology evolve in a way that deprives people who create of the ability to be paid for their work.

The obvious superiority of the subscription model becomes more clear with each passing day.

When David Steals Goliath's Music

Universities, caught in the crossfire between litigation-crazy record companies and music-swapping students, are seeking to appease both by rolling out a bevy of new, legal file-sharing services.

Subscription music services are now part of tuition.

New Movement Hits Universities: Get Legal Music

The parallels are unavoidable.

This op-ed by Larry Lessig was published in Wednesday's Washington Post.

Bytes and Bullets

"Signing Howard Stern is, without a doubt, the most exciting and transformational event in the history of radio," said Joseph Clayton, CEO of Sirius.

Howard Stern to Shift Show to Satellite Radio in 2006

Yochai Benkler: "A detailed proposal for how we could radically transform the way in which our society funds its music and film industries."

This book goes on sale in August.

Promises To Keep: Technology, Law, And The Future Of Entertainment