Shared publicly  - 
The Administration is working on a new intellectual property enforcement strategy & we want your input. Learn more & tell us what you think:
Simona Markovic's profile photoRosa Haydee Leduc's profile photoThomas Watson's profile photoJohn Nash (Kubulai)'s profile photo
Ideals are not property.  IP laws are wrong and destroy free markets.
Thank you! I really appreciate you asking the people for input. It's the correct approach. Now, please, for the love of all decency, heed us.
i agree we should have laws that allow similar idea filling as far as they are not exactly the same. this will spur new innovative ideas and create more jobs in the country
Each State needs its own entire IPv4 range, from to Access to those are from IPv6 address used as normal scheme.  http://[ipv6]:[ipv4]....  or [ipv6]://[ipv4]...  the standards are in place, yet the discussion is not there.
Being able to "own" an idea you spent the effort inventing is a powerful encouragement to invent, but being able to own intellectual property for more than a generation is harmful to that same innovative spirit in that it prevents innovations on your original idea.  Intellectual property rights ought never to last 50 years under any conditions, and corporate ownership of IP ought to end sooner than individual ownership.
What +Brady Postma said sounds more like transient information mixed with TTL, yet the issue about this is sticky cache.
There's no sense in worrying about enforcement until the PTO is severely reformed, and relevant laws have been brought back to heel to further innovation and the public good, as they were initially intended to do.
The right to profit from one's work SHOULD be protected. It should also expire within a reasonable period of time. It currently does not.
Everyone knows what the right thing to do is in the situation except for those lobbying with the MPAA and RIAA. The US needs to innovate and lessen protections and not allow them to extend for insane periods of time... Innovation comes from the sharing of ideas, not from motivations like profits and greed.
Enforcement of IP through the Keystone pipeline, I know someone thought of blindness to the borders. Re: PTO
+Eric Tipler, that effect could be reduced if individuals had more rights as copyright holders than corporations (along with reasonably limited copyright periods).
+Brady Postma   Yes, +Jonathan Ballard  been here a few days now.  I believe it is a machine programmed with political terms.  I had thought the AI would better be by now....
+Brady Postma Be polite, of course not. You want links to standards, so you can read every attempt of the right and the left to make some central sense of the entire property issues? That's not laymen's terms, then.
No matter what we tell these people about the horrendous state of IP, patents (esp software), and copyright, big money will make sure it goes their way.
+Chris Cecil What you said is evidence of how people turn any discussion over intellectual property into war. It's happened, and some country who's name starts with I published the manual.
+Anthony Milbauer, what do you think is the right handling of IP?  I think the issue gets too little attention because people are more eager to denounce the status quo than to offer a wise alternative.
+Jonathan Ballard , you seem to not know of speak, and your idea for mapping IP Addresses to states is downright laughable, and standards won't make that work.
It is a pretty bad deal when the post does not allow comments to be added. I'd have added something in if it had
IF there should be ANY IP laws (and I'm not totally convinced we need any) they should be limited for a very short amount of time (just long enough for you to get a company together to produce the thing you invented) and be non-transferable. 
Non-transferable seems like a good idea to me.
+Gary Poritt The buzzword/label for that is deep think, yet Nixon had gave it another name, which is now obvious of why by above discussion.
+Nicholas LoCicero E-Waste may be (still) the central issue, which means more and more creative ways that things are put together and taken apart. There have been laws over disassembly of IP, and if they are followed as written than each university would have its own dump on site (campus). 
What of copyrights and patents already issued?  I think it's wrong to unilaterally alter the contracts that set their expiration dates; does anyone disagree?
Anotherwords, America cannot rely on CERN, when that is located over there.
I'd like to see limits on damage claims made by companies not actively exploiting or seeking to exploit their patents (similar to trademarks) to prevent patent trolls.  Also unexploited patents should have a shorter life than exploited to prevent companies from hoarding ideas to prevent competition rather than promote it.
Make patent shelving illegal.
just another office to fill.nothing wrong with what we have
+James Dailey Do you know what we have now?  We have tech companies gobbling up every single patent they can get their hands on in case someone produces something that possibly infringes on those patents.  Then the company with the one million patents sues the pants off of the other company to prevent them from developing their product, even if the company with the patent has no intention of using it to develop anything.  It stifles growth and innovation.
Meanwhile, in some dark back room of the white house, the IP enforcement is being written by big business.
I am a composer and an aspiring programmer, and what little I have learned of copyright, patents, and intellectual property has sickened me.  Say you are an average citizen who has a good idea, but because the vast majority of what you make goes to cost of living, you have no means to make said thing come about.  Enter the large money-wielding corporations, who have their lawyers write up a nice long contract.  Since you see no other way to make this good idea happen, and since the vast majority of us don't really understand lawyer talk, you sign.  Upon signing the corporation gives the much needed loan to get the idea started.  What you don't know is that in that large contract you sign over any and all intellectual property to the large corporation.  Say in the future you decide you could implement your idea elsewhere, once you do the large corporation comes back and slaps you with the large contract.  You no longer have ANY right to your concept except what the corporation allows to you.  That is what is wrong with our current system.
After following several sets of links I finally got to the page where the "real" commenting can occur, which has several conditions placed on submissions.  For all of you who are interested in real change in IP law, please do more than post replies here.
First of all let's dump the term intellectual property and focus on what the problem really is about.  Innovators or content creators make significant up front investments.  The problem is once the innovation or content is created it can be copied infinitely with little cost.  In order to create incentives for innovation and content creation we give the creator a temporary government granted monopoly to allow them time to recover their upfront investment. The problem is that the duration of these monopolies is always the same and does not take into account the actual up front costs incurred by the creator.  In fact a creator might continue to restrict usage of their creation long after recovering all upfront cost by product sales or licensing fees.  In my view this is an economic sinkhole because value (in terms of time and effort) is being traded unequally.  A solution, at least for patents and maybe copyrights, might be to make the creators declare and defend the cost of their creations.  So instead of having a fixed duration their monopoly rights end when they have recovered their up front costs.  The values of these monopolies would also depreciate at a fixed rate over time. 
Why are we concerned with this when many believe we have reached a "Pax Americana?"
i could give my idea , but i'm pretty sure that i wouldn't get the credit for it .
and than the chinese get their hands on it and reproduce it and your invention dont mean squat because unfathfull americans will buy it
brings a good point . to think of all the chinese workers who will be trated so poorly in the sweat shop conditions . i dont want their blood and sufferings on my hands  .
thats why tis idea is stupid.your just creating another product of government.the only way is get world support and that is not going to happen
Can I be the IP Czar, please? BTW, I would like to patent the idea of an IP Czar and then charge people for it.
you got that right.more than likely its one of the big wigs trying to put one of their cronies in
+Steve Hindon its just another way the government can get control of us.anytime government gives you something they take twice as much somewhere else
HA! I've actually thought about this before! Here's my idea..

Similar patents may be granted as long as they are not the same or for the same purpose. ENCOURAGE INNOVATION
Patents are non-transferable. Patent holder pays (or registers a proxy corporation to pay) patent tax to the Patent Office for registering the patent and keeping it in active status. When the patent holder (or corporation) stops paying on the patent, it is deemed inactive.  _PREVENT PATENT TROLLS_
Active patents are licensed publicly -- scalable license fee paid to patent holder (or corporation) and patent license tax paid to the Patent Office for moderating and licensing patents. PREVENT PETTY PATENT WARS BETWEEN CORPORATIONS
Patents expire. Inactive and expired patents are free to use. PROMOTE CAPITALIST ECONOMY

I'm sure that it doesn't work for everything.... Anyone that wishes can take it and run with it ;-)
in a perfect world that would be great,but what keeps other countrys from buying this product taking it overseas manufactureing it,than selling it.    WAL-MART
If your IP ,s are known by others,then you are not intlectual enough to own it,&therefore there is no need for Uncle Sam to stick his nose in anything.
it would be fesable,but dont you think that this would stop people from the incentive to create
well if there is no reward for what you create except the name i dont think thats enough.this is a world market and if this was the inventers intention he would just mail you one,and that would be great,but with all these corp and countrys they would take what belongs to you and make billons
As an aside this BBC article references a study that says patent trolls cost other US bodies $29bn last year and that half of that was to entities that earned less than $100m a year.  So much for encouraging innovation.
To continue this disscusion,in the domain of Uncle Sam,s itself is a type of IP. The larger issue is intlectual ,are they grown ln farms,?,obviously not ,brain are brought to the level of intlectual in Universities,and classrooms all over and mostly if not all by public todays tech world we can,t build the univers,by worrying about who owns what,and how much is enough.In a simpler way you can not build a skyscraper ,without cement,still,and engineers.
No,when human brain is developed to the level of intlec.then there hunger
for more and better knowldge kicks in,and keeps going,incentives is not
even in the equation,except by greed.
+Angelia Blaker, some have proposed that IP owned by individual people ought to last longer than IP owned by corporations.  Corporations would have to recognize original creators or the IPs would expire sooner.  Do you have any problem with that idea?
With,your Austrelian English,and my iranian,Italian comprehension,we must
have something in comon,that all these chaps involved in this IP discusion
,know that without Hi Tech.none of us could comunicate and benifit,it is
not how many IPs has been used to make this world wide disscusion
possible.we all pay for it,and IPs get paid some more than others,but that
doesn,t mean we need Uncle Sam,Uncle Ben,or any other Uncle involve in
this,started private and has to stay private.This tech is not like
Chem.bussiness,that is clearly shows who mixed what chemical,when and
where,in a in tech have made a world wide net,that every
strand of it came from some ones IP.s .So lets move on and keep coming up
with new strands for many generation to come.
Saludos Honorable Presidente y su actual Administracion. Resulta de gran interes para nosotros saber que en Proyectos de Ley nuestra opinion tambien es importante. Es un placer para mi poder brindar ideas y cualquier otra sugerencia relacionada a este tema. El mismo beneficiaria a una poblacion general. Soy muy buena en interpretacion de asuntos de esta indole, especialmente temas educacionales.  Asi tambien, aquellos que proveen bienestar significativamente a la comunidad en general.  Antes, debido a falta de comunicacion en otro idioma desearia obtener borrador traducido acerca de este Proyecto. De modo tal que logre interpretar de forma mas sencilla y rapida cada inciso.  Gracias, Dios les bendiga
(Desde San Juan, PR - MA Educacion - Curriculo y Ensenanza)             
presidente obama me podría dar una visa para trabajar en los estados unidos , soy de paraguay necesito construir una casa para mi familia no tengo los recursos 
Protect ideas without hindering innovation.
What is flawed is the abuse of the legal system in place to protect the patent system. To invest a lot of time and resources into creating a product and to have it blatantly copied without permission and/or a license is a clear violation of the patent. The patent system must quickly evolve to recognize the delineation between invention and innovation. An invention typically encapsulates a new concept and its manifestation as a product. An innovation is progression of an existing concept. Inventive patents deserve longevity and protection. Innovative patents must serve to protect consumers and competition by disallowing abuse both by the party receiving the patent and the party(ies) seeking to violate it. IMO, innovative patents must be short-lived in everyone's best interest. Patents, innovative in particular, must also tagged with clauses that can terminate the patent prematurely if consumers are ultimately harmed.
You are correct there are plenty laws related to the subject on
disscusion,it only lack of judges mostly apointed by different
adminstreation,that know how to apply laws.
do you mean how to apply laws to make it profitable or to help the ones that the laws are not designed for ?
I mean aplying the way it was intended by the law makers,we all know there
are problems at that stage of the game too.we don,t need more laws,you don
t sell your car because you have a flat tire.
Here's a tip, leave it the hell alone unless your going to bring in tech experts not MPPA lobbyists and technologically challenged senators. 
Joe V
USPTO is a joke, reform it and MPPA/RIAA is not the right people to provide guidance on IP. its like asking Oil industry to make rules for EPA. Who is it really benefiting??
1: be aware that you can debate al you like, here, but unless you follow the link and submit your comments as directed, no one who is commenting here is likely to be considered in the formulation of policy.

2: The Internet perceives censorship as damage and routes around it. In general, this should be viewed as a positive effect and not legislated for or against. "Censorship" can take many forms. Sometimes it's a repressive government locking away books. Sometimes it's just a baseball game preempting someone's favorite show. Either way, information that someone wanted access to was blocked. While large-scale infringement is a matter for law-enforcement to be concerned with, simple attempts to share information should not be.
True' but tbe disscusion here just as important fo formulating thouth,and
widening scope of users of internet vision.In 1800,s was called people,s
Estoy un poco incredulo,pero en mi pagina las mesclaz de lo que
escribimos con el aviso sobre la responsabilidad presidencial
de 10 horas,porque estabamos en una copia de el watergate donde
Richard Nixon tuvo que renunciar al puesto de Presidente,el señor
Romney tiene las mismas responsabilidades que si fuera electo
Pesidente de los Estados Unidos,apropiandose de nuestro trabajo
sin ningun motivo,privandome de mi cronica a favor del Presidente
Brack Obama y dirigido a todo ciudadano que hable Español y que
un gran porcentage de mi cronica estaba dirigida a mis amigos
hermanos y compañeros latinoamericanos,en mi pagina le di 10
horas al señor Romney,y el problema se arreglo,aqui le doy el
mismo mensaje,si no me dirigire a los tribunales,porque pienso
que aun estamos en un pais democratico aun señor Romney,y
el Poder Ejecutivo,Poder legislativo y el Poder Judicial sobre todo
Disallow patents for ideas that can directly save lives, only allow patents to be owned by the individuals who created whatever is patented, and have all other patents expire after a two year window.

I think copyrights should still be allowed, however.  For example, I think Nintendo should be allowed to be the only company to call its platforming games Super Mario ___, but anybody else should be able to rip-off Mario in every way but name if they so please.  

People should not own ideas!
The way paten laws work now, big firms have all the power. Single innovators and small firms should have the same protections as big firms do IN REALITY. 
Sure, just do whatever the EFF recommends and everyone who isn't a media executive will be happy.
I think the federal government simply needs to hang a going out of business sign on the white house front lawn to get things rolling again.
Alexa Antonaras, so often that is the case.
What is the point of enforcement - if someone outside the US can use that same IP property for free? Why doesn't the United Nation set up an IP enforcement team instead? 
+John Pham, in part because the UN would suck at it.  They suck at enforcement almost every time they try it.  Look at Interpol or various global warming initiatives or their frequently failed attempts to avert or end wars.

+Alexa Antonaras, what do you think of the idea of IP being a non-transferable right that corporations cannot posses?
Repeal current laws that protect IPs for over 70 years. After such long periods of time certain IPs become mediums in of themselves to newer generations. There should be a 20 to 30 year limit on IPs before they enter public domain.
+Michael J Pierce Yeah, copyrights that last for the life of the author plus 70 years are ridiculous.  It ought to be the life of the author or 30 years max for humans and 20 years max for corporations.
Hay personas que es logico estan desesperadas de los logros
obtenidos por el Presidente Barack y su esposa Michelle Obama,
han dado horas y horas para mejorar el sistema de salud de todos
los Estado Unidenses,yo les digo hermanos latinoamericanos que
ni con todo el oro del mundo aquellos que tenian la necesidad de
un sistema de esta naturaleza lo habrian conseguido,ahora las
compañias de seguros no podran abusar de sus clientes,este plan
protege a todos los ciudadanos con las ideas que tengan,tendran
que reconocer que nunca mas tendran limites de hasta cuando
estan cubiertos,para mas exactitud y conocer el contenido del
programa de salud vayan arriba donde el Presidente Obama les dice
lo que la corte suprema les ha dado a todas las clases sociales,pero
yo estoy sumamente satisfecho viendo el plan de lo obtenido para
la clase media y los que no podian pagarse un plan,generalmente
latinoamericanos,les ruego hermanos,amigos y compañeros que por
sus propios ojos visiten clicando la zona en letras azules y entraran
a lo que el presidente Obama ha hecho por ustedes,cualquier
cosa de orden general escribanlo en la pagina,sea yo u otra persona
les respondera,pero a partir de ayer ningun ciudadano de los
Estados Unidos esta sin proteccion medica gracias a el Presidente
Barack y Michelle Obama,yo les pido sigan botando como lo han
hecho en el dia de ayer donde 10.000 votos se han sumado un
abrazo y muchas felicidades,porque yo se que necesitaban salud
Creo y estoy absolutamente seguro que como tratan de callar a
periodistas,es igual que introducirse a la casa de alguien por la
fuerza,un nuevo Watergate,denunciar penalmente estos individuos
pagados por el candidato Mitt Romney señor Presidente Barack
Obama,porque continuan a pesar de las invocaciones a la justicia
penal,yo pagare mis abogados,porque tratan de callarme en mi sitio
de trabajo como periodista.
+Alexa Antonaras Yes, the example I offered you would mean corporations (studios, record labels, publishers, software companies, etc.) would have to leave IP to the artists.  It also means artists could not leave IP to heirs in a will, and it does not eliminate corporations' ability to use their greater financial means as leverage in negotiating contracts.  Creators would still (and probably always will) be cherry-picked based on potential profitability.

One downside would be that US law would be dramatically different than other national (and international) copyright law.  Corporations may shop around for artists outside of the USA from whom they could profit more, which could potentially make opportunities for American artists to "make it big" far more rare.  But any reduction to IP duration risks that; IP reform inherently assumes that smaller but more plentiful artistic achievements are preferable to fewer but larger achievements.

It is a more radical plan than the one I made to +Michael J Pierce.  In speaking to him, I offered a plan that shortens the duration of IP legal protection especially if they are corporate-owned, so corporations might want to give artists the IP in order to profit from that IP for a longer period of time.
Add a comment...