Yes the topic of this article was a bit out of the normal mainstream for IPwatchdog, however the various (misguided or otherwise) attempts to change the way the Internet, our primary distribution and consumption medium for digital IP is controlled is of interest where such changes could impact the way in which digital IPR is enforced. I therefore began reading this article, expecting an IP angle to events.

To me it is a great shame that many sound bites were seemed to imply that it was the ‘ITU’ that was making a power grab to take over the Internet rather than some ITU member states attempting to subvert the ITU for various domestic reasons. Also contrary to some observe opinions, it was right and proper for the ITU/WCIT to discuss the Internet in the context of it’s pre-existing terms of reference (scope of authority and ITR’s), which would include it’s contribution to the development of the protocols used by the Internet and the underlying infrastructure of telecommuncation services; but such topics are a long way from content monitoring and inspection.

May your blog flourish in 2013. I just replied to Paul Cole on a new thread of yours and i hope we see some further activity in that thread.

As to putting words in my mouth, I see it all the time. But not from you. They do it to get some lively dialogue going. That’s understandable, isn’t it?

Thanks for your comment.

I have no intention of letting IPWatchdog change in terms of comment policy. I think we have excellent discussions here and I can tell you for certain that there are many in the industry who notice. I’m not interested in volume of comments. I think our quality is high. We invest time in making sure the comments are free of nonsense (i.e., spam and advertising) and that comments are not coming from members of the flat earth society.

There were a couple things running through my mind when I said that. First, at times over the last week or 10 days I have been particularly cantankerous. The holidays have been a difficult time this year.

Second, I did with Max what I don’t appreciate others doing to me, which is putting words in my mouth. I thought I knew what he meant, and maybe I was right, but maybe I was wrong. I didn’t give any latitude to develop. The rules have always been that regulars get latitude, and that has to be whether I agree or not. Maybe we could have had an interesting discussion. I don’t know.

Finally, and probably most importantly, this article is already a bit out of our normal mainstream. I may try and write a bit more about Internet issues since IP can also stand for “Internet protocol” in some circles, which if done right won’t be far afield from an intellectual property, tech/innovation policy blog. But since it was already a bit out of the mainstream when Max said something about not wanting to take the discussion off topic I wanted to specifically address that. I know I try and keep things on topic, but that is hopefully the topic or tangentially related subjects brought up by the article. This article could lead to an intellectual, ideological and/or philosophical discussion in many avenues.

I greatly appreciate the comments from regulars and passers-by. As always, if you see something inappropriate that I miss please let me know. I think we all want to keep the forum vibrant but not dominated by folks who wallpaper their bedrooms with aluminum foil.

Cheers.

-Gene

You have a penchant for misconstruing what I tell you and misunderstanding my points.

In no way should what I said confirm your assessment, as I clearly do not think that the type of “liveliness” that is found at Patently-O is anything worthwhile to aim for.

Thing is, this is not the first time that I end up correcting your re-statements of my posts and it is something that I have a rather low tolerance for. It is a form of gamesmanship running rampant at Patently-O and that Gene (rightfully) does not tolerate too much here.

Additionally, I fully understand when you choose to reply – but “when it pleases you” is also when it least serves the dialogue that is trying to be established. This is the “run away and re-post the same message later” syndrome. This is not developing a topic and it certainly is not recognizing what should be recognized as points of law or fact. This, too, is typical of ‘conversations’ at Patently-O and is a primary reason why my colleagues don’t bother with the comments section at Patently-O.

As far as choice goes I do not agree with you that all must be accepted. Gene has made a difference in his blog that has not happened at Patently-O. Gene polices his blog to minimize “the rough” and, to me, is the better blog for that reason. I reject your view that that is life. That is the point I am making, and the point that you are missing.

To me, you seem to be missing this on purpose.

So, in quoting from Macbeth, anon ends up telling us that Patently-O reminds him of “it” that is to say “Life”. Just so. The Crouch blog is indeed lively, as I said above. Thanks for confirming my assessment, anon.

I reply when it pleases me to reply, and that’s when, in my absolute judgment, I think my reply will interest the readership and when I’m not getting bored by it. As I explain above, in reply to Gene, this is an advantage of posting anonymously. If I choose to abandon a conversation with you, anon, take it how you please. Feel free.

PS I do agree with you though, that there is dross on the Crouch blog. Readers have no choice but to take the rough with the smooth. That’s life.

I implore you to not aim for a “lively” comment stream like that of Patently-O. If having something “going on” is the aim, then critical thinking is the casualty, judging from what happens at Patently-O.

The “liveliness” there stems from points of law and fact too often being ignored by one side, resulting in a perpetual repetitious rehash of positions. Here, with your control of posting that must conform to actual law and the elimination (or at least several orders of magnitude reduction) of junk posts, those that want to be lively can be without the liveliness of trying to combat the same false positions taken against patents. Don’t confuse flurry of activity with worthwhile comments. The “anything goes” at Patently-O too often reminds me of a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

I would be interested in replies to points made though, but that would include not only the authors of the articles but the authors of the posts as well. MaxDrei, for example, has left several of my posts unanswered (for recent examples, see the threads: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/12/14/no-one-is-patenting-your-genes-the-ripple-effect-if-isolated-dna-claims-are-made-patent-ineligible/ [my posts at 20, 35 and 42] and the follow-up article at
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/12/20/cafc-sanity-on-permanent-injunctions-a-twisted-sister-moment/ ).

Let’s let Patently-O be Patently-O and let IPWatchdog be IPWatchdog.

Same here

At least here in Europe, some of the nicest people, face to face, change character when safely anonymous behind the wheel of a car on the freeway, becoming uncharacteristically aggressive. I wonder whether we see the same phenomenon with anonymous postings to blogs.

When you Gene put so much effort into maintaining a stream of interesting new items, it would be such a shame to see the comment stream fizzle out. Dennis Crouch has the liveliest readership but after him there is nothing going on except what happens on your pages.

So, Happy New Year, cheers, and let’s both hope for many lively comment streams to come.

To tell the truth, what I was hoping for, and still miss, is a reaction from the writer, Carol Permentier.

We can have that discussion here certainly. While this is an IPR blog this post was tangential to the focus to start, about the Internet and regulation. Such a discussion would seem appropriate.

I apologize if I jumped to the wrong conclusion about your comments, or unnecessarily cut short what could be an interesting debate. I also apologize for “everyone with half a brain…” Shouldn’t have gone there.

Cheers.

-Gene

Thank you taking the time to revealingly inform me in your usual uncompromising way what you think in my remarks I was “suggesting” to you. As far as I am concerned, with my mention of subsidiarity I was supporting rather than mocking Jefferson’s philosophy. In my mention of gated communities I was trying to expose the consequences of suggesting that what national and local government does can be done better by your private “groups” of people. But never mind. This is an IPR blog rather than one on politics, and the theme of this thread is international relations between sovereign States yet it was you who got us into the politics of the local police and fire services.

You say: “BTW, why do we need public servant local police, fire services and teachers? What’s wrong with gated communities? Can’t good honest citizens instead pay protection money to adequately armed private enterprise and employ private tutors?”

If you want to have a serious discussion then let’s have it. If you want to mock then I’m not interested and you should go elsewhere to get your fill.

Obviously, good honest citizens cannot pay protection money to armies and employ private tutors unless they are rich. You know that, I know that and everyone with half a brain knows that to be true. So either you are suggesting that those who are not rich be left to their own devices or you are mocking the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson that I explained. Either is asinine.

-Gene

I think the author should of spent a little time actually going through the proceedings of the Dubai WCIT before they wrote this article.

BTW, why do we need public servant local police, fire services and teachers? What’s wrong with gated communities? Can’t good honest citizens instead pay protection money to adequately armed private enterprise and employ private tutors?

The internet is so new that, still, we have difficulty seeing clearly enough how to manage it. Why, even the UK Government’s 2012 Leveson enquiry into the freedom of the press, prompted by industrial scale phone-tapping by Rupert Murdoch’s journalists, ducked out of assessing the problems of regulating the internet. We will see in the end what’s needed but by then it will be too late to do it right. One just has to do the best one can. Politics is the art of the possible.

First, I did not write this article.

Second, the article is not about the Paris Convention or sensible regulation. The article is about a capricious power grab by ambush in an attempt to control the Internet.

Third, perhaps what you quote is over broad, but there are many that believe that to be a very true statement, including me. There is a difference between regulation to keep things working and enable private agreement through commerce and a power-hungry government that wants to dictate to the masses. An enabling government is fine. A disabling government that doesn’t think its citizens have enough sense so need to be dictated to is not fine.

Fourth, none other than the great Thomas Jefferson would agree with the quote you take issue with. He famously wrote that the government that governs least governs best. That seems to me to be a self-evident truth.

Finally, the role of government should be extremely limited. Also a Jeffersonian principle— government is justified only to the extent that is provides that which could not individually be provided by individuals or groups. So the federal government has no reason to be involved with local police and fire because that can be handed most competently on the local level. The role of the federal government should be limited to military and ensuring commerce by and between the states be regulated, as well as by and between countries.

-Gene

Yet, above, I read the hackneyed, stale and simplistic words

“…the more we keep government on any level out of our lives, the better our lives will be….”?

and wonder how any sane and rational patent attorney, dependent for his or her income on international trade, can possibly agree with them. Would anybody reading this care to explain to me iIn what sense clients would do “better” without the Paris Convention?