What about patents?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"oh no i've gone cross-eyed..."

good debate tho. I say that since it is not in the constitution, these laws should be left to the states. Kinduv a copout...but watev

can they be left any other way? I don't think there's a way for the Federal government to pass laws on behalf of every state?

 

[synapz]

Sam used force of theft to steal the product of Bob's intellect without compensation. Let's say it wasn't a hammer tha Bob invented, but a novel. Your argument is that Sam should be able to buy a copy of Bob's novel, and then reprint it and sell the same novel without compensating the author. Can you not understand how that is theft?

What has been stolen? Profits? If profits, then you are speaking of, essentially, money. But this money had never entered the hands of the author, so how has it been stolen?

No, I do not recognize as stolen goods anything that anyone has come to without using force or coercion against another person.

 

[nickcoons]

Sam used force of theft to steal the product of Bob's intellect without compensation.

How? What force?

Let's say it wasn't a hammer tha Bob invented, but a novel. Your argument is that Sam should be able to buy a copy of Bob's novel, and then reprint it and sell the same novel without compensating the author. Can you not understand how that is theft?

Right, that would not be theft. When you steal something (if I take your shoes), you deprive someone of the use of their property. If I use someone's idea, I have not deprived them of the use of that idea.

 

[nickcoons]

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Yes, because he deprived Bob the use of it.

Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Yes, again, because he has deprived Bob the use of it.

Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?

No, because Bob still has full use of his property (the blueprint).

 

[nickcoons]

I say that since it is not in the constitution, these laws should be left to the states. Kinduv a copout...but watev

Unfortunately, it is in the Constitution.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Unfortunately, it is in the Constitution.

The Constitution can be changed.

 

[jyakulis]

How can you protectionists define the lifespan of patents? Your whole argument is the belief that an idea is property. The solution is always to revamp the patent office to stop frivolous lawsuits, but then the government gets to decide on what is obvious. How is that not regulating thought? Who's to say that someone else couldn't think of the same improvement or process? Companies spent more money on lawsuits last year than they did on research and development.

the government just doesn't say something is obvious. legal obviousness does not equal literal obviousness. you just can't say anything is obvious if you are an examiner. i should know i've been doing it for 3 years. and it's not something i can explain to you in two sentences.

as an examiner, i believe getting rid of intellectual property would be a really bad move. some companies were single handedly formed based on one patent. others have succeeded by keeping things trade secrets. the system itself does promote the sciences though.

if company A makes a new widget that prevents companies from producing that widget. in exchange for the monopoly the companies gives a full disclosure of how to make the widget to the government. this however, doesn't prevent company B from adding a new and useful feature to that widget or a method of manufacturing said widget more efficiently, hence the promotion of sciences.

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.


my main gripes with the current system are:

i feel the the patent term is a little too long in this day in age with technology is doubling so fast. (though it would help if we weren't 3-4 years behind)

i disagree with a lot of biological patents

big companies tend to bombard us with repetitive patents having 100's of redundant claims hoping to patent any combination they possibly can. of course when the office tried to stop this and limit the claims they can file the pharmaceutical companies complained and got the courts to put an injunction on the new rules.

i also find it unfortunate that corporations have gotten so large that nearly 95% of inventors don't see a dime from their inventions.

i believe in theory this wasn't how it was supposed to work though. but i hardly think it's the patent systems fault, but more having to due with the federal reserve allowing big government to come about and big government allowing for massive corporations to exist. just my two cents....

this is unrelated but i don't know if you realize how the medical industrial complex operates. the reason they don't promote "natural" remedies is because there ain't no money in natural remedies. they'd much rather create a drug that mimics something in nature that they can create chemically in a laboratory because they can patent it. you can't patent herbs.

 

[AutoDas]

this is unrelated but i don't know if you realize how the medical industrial complex operates. the reason they don't promote "natural" remedies is because there ain't no money in natural remedies. they'd much rather create a drug that mimics something in nature that they can create chemically in a laboratory because they can patent it. you can't patent herbs.

I want to talk about this because I believe I've already addressed everything you talked about earlier (what is new and an improvement is arbitrary). This is why the health care system in America is so screwed up as it is. If we don't address the problem causing this then we'll end up with national health care by corporate America.

Herbs and vaccines follow the rules of mother nature so both shouldn't be patentable. AIDS treatment in Africa can't be done because world patent laws won't allow it.

If you're worried about foreign competitors stealing inventions from America then I would put tariffs up because they do not compete on a fair level. I fear most of this rhetoric comes from fear of the Marxists who wanted to abolish the patent system. Not everything they do is planned evil, but only when it's forced upon.

 

[jyakulis]

I want to talk about this because I believe I've already addressed everything you talked about earlier (what is new and an improvement is arbitrary). This is why the health care system in America is so screwed up as it is. If we don't address the problem causing this then we'll end up with national health care by corporate America.

Herbs and vaccines follow the rules of mother nature so both shouldn't be patentable. AIDS treatment in Africa can't be done because world patent laws won't allow it.

If you're worried about foreign competitors stealing inventions from America then I would put tariffs up because they do not compete on a fair level. I fear most of this rhetoric comes from fear of the Marxists who wanted to abolish the patent system. Not everything they do is planned evil, but only when it's forced upon.

hmm not sure how to respond. i also agree that herbs and natural remedies shouldn't be patentable or any naturally occuring thing from nature for that matter. don't know how you took my statement from your response. but yeah that's why health care is messed up.

it's kind of funny heroin is illegal. drug companies make oxycontin and it's legal with prescription? it makes no god damn sense. it's like every drug that comes from the damn drug companies is the gospel and completely safe. i guess when you have billions of dollars to lobby the fda that's what happens heh.

 

[jyakulis]

I want to talk about this because I believe I've already addressed everything you talked about earlier (what is new and an improvement is arbitrary).

no it's not. again if it is non-obvious it's considered new and useful. and there is a supreme court decision we use all the time in determining this. it's not just some arbitrary thing that the examiner decides. we need references, motivation for combining the references and, reasonable predictability of success amongst other tests. and they have 3 different courts to appeal through if they are unhappy with our decision. anyway, i would advocate reforming the system as opposed to outright doing away with it. i think limiting the patent term wold especially be a good start. i think corporations would think twice about trying to patent every little thing and we would see more "groundbreaking" patents more regularly. again just my two cents...feel free to disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.

also, you can only obtain a patent for something tangible that you create not "ideas".

 

[AutoDas]

no it's not. again if it is non-obvious it's considered new and useful. and there is a supreme court decision we use all the time in determining this. it's not just some arbitrary thing that the examiner decides. we need references, motivation for combining the references and, reasonable predictability of success amongst other tests. and they have 3 different courts to appeal through if they are unhappy with our decision. anyway, i would advocate reforming the system as opposed to outright doing away with it. i think limiting the patent term wold especially be a good start. i think corporations would think twice about trying to patent every little thing and we would see more "groundbreaking" patents more regularly. again just my two cents...feel free to disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.

also, you can only obtain a patent for something tangible that you create not "ideas".

uhhhh

Have you been to a blog? What's all this I read about Apple patenting some new and simple schemes?

An improvement is not definite like a property right.
kthxbai