Re: No discussion of patents, was Re: Social AUTH Patent

In subscript; I'm attempting to work on systems that mean citizens data is
subject to the rule of law relating to their domicile.

Therein, the concept of law may relate to other non-web concepts such as
'law' and 'democracy' as to impact a reality where the information pursuant
to an act may be tested with the available knowledge (that is, the
knowledge available somewhere / currently 'anywhere') as to provide a court
of law available evidence, pursuant to the meaningful utility of a court of
law.

if someone is proven guilty of an act, whereby the information that proved
their innocent was available in a super-silo, stored off-shore, unavailable
to the defendant, then what is the meaning of 'rule of law'...


On 12 August 2015 at 01:00, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On 08/11/2015 10:31 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>
>> I honestly had no idea about these issues. I've followed up locally with
>> other lawyers who I work with, they didn't understand either.
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> Legal ontology / data-rights ontology might be able to graph such
>> considerations, as to ensure the rule of law in all jurisdictions plays a
>> more important role.
>>
>
> Make no mistake: this is not about the rule of law.  There is nothing at
> all illegal about reading a patent disclosure.  Patent disclosures are
> *intended* to be read by the public, so that the public can benefit by
> learning from them.  (And in exchange for that public benefit, the patentee
> get exclusive rights for a limited time.)


*Article I, Section 8 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers>,
Clause 8* of the United States Constitution
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution>, known as
the *Copyright
Clause*, empowers the United States Congress
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress>:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.
​source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

I use this 'quote' often as a guide, for the underlying purpose of why data
is important.  I have not found a similar precedent that denotes the
concept that human endeavour towards something that has not got immediate
value, but rather becomes valuable by way of creating something that is
easily communicated - is otherwise considered of economically meritorious
value.

In my experience, many territories value the capacity for a legal entity to
secure a particular outcome in a court of law, regardless of expense or
capacity to faciliate that expense, prior to the spirit of the law being
upheld.

Whether a solution be met by way of block-chain or credentials, it is
seemingly well within our technical capacity to make available
accountability; and, the question thereafter becomes upon what ideological
basis is that method of accountability made available, in-order to
manifestly create an embodiment of 'web of trust'.  Trust without
accountability, is not trust.  it is a marketing term.
 ​

>
> This is about gaming a broken patent system to protect inventors and users
> from liability.  Our patent system has created a perverse incentive for
> inventors to be willfully ignorant of other people's patents.   And that
> undermines the intended purpose of the patent system, which is supposed to
> provide public benefit by incentivizing the public disclosure of useful
> inventions.
>
> ​v.sad. I hope we can collaborate towards innovation in this area.  I've
posed the question to a better recipient in the RWW forum.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2015Aug/0019.html

I hope, in future, should i have a problem - i can lobby my elected
leaders, or alternatively - run to be an elected leader, as required to
lobby for changes to the legal system that affects me.
​


> David Booth
>