Copyrights and patents

[Curious George]

They do, but no where comparable to other nations.

So if you did have an idea of how nanny of a state China could be, would it correlate with nanny states imposing IP laws. But you don't...

That would be a bad use of logic were we to have gone that route. That coughing is a symptom of the flu does not mean the flu is not present when there is no coughing.

I personally do not see a correlation between IP laws and how nanny a state can be.

I believe we should be able to protect our ideas and inventions.

I think most would agree.

There is a statute of time imposed so eventually the rest of society can bank on it also. It's a necessity of invention, being able to own "intellect."

Now hold on...you went a step too far. Invention occurred, occurs, and will occur even when there was/is no copyright or patent involved.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, people wrote music long before IP was a thing.

I have never said that patents and copyrights are not fair, I never even said that we ought not have them. I thought I have been pretty clear in my words. I just don't get why people aren't say hold the phone George cars can be blue copyrights and patents are part of the nanny state.

I spent almost 2 years & millions of dollars (all GM's) designing a new air brake
control system for heavy trucks. Our friend would say that anyone should be able
to copy it, & make money from my efforts & GM's investment (patented).
I think I'll just walk into his house, & set up camp in the biggest bedroom.
Why not....private ownership of real estate is also a fiction because
government can take it for private use if it ever wants (Kelo v New London).

 

[exchemist]

I'm in favor of a reasonable, rational system of copyrights and patents. But in this era of patent trolls and big business trying to get extremely long copyrights, my take is that it's gone too far. Gigantic corporations try to suppress innovation based on too long existing legal protection by lawsuits that a small business or individual can't fight.

So keep them but reform them.

You can't get longer copyright, so far as I know. In the UK it is 50 years. For patents it is usually 20, though corporations can game the system by adding tweaks and getting a 20 years patent for the tweak, to keep the monopoly for longer.

But frankly, if you had no patent system you would have hardly any new drugs, to give just one example.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

… I have no desire to win such arguments. Rather I am amusing myself …

Then I think you need to get a life.

 

[exchemist]

Lol, people wrote music long before IP was a thing.

I have never said that patents and copyrights are not fair, I never even said that we ought not have them. I thought I have been pretty clear in my words. I just don't get why people aren't say hold the phone George cars can be blue copyrights and patents are part of the nanny state.

If you say they are fair and that we ought to have them, what do you mean by saying they are a manifestation of a "nanny state"?

 

[Curious George]

I spent almost 2 years & millions of dollars (all GM's) designing a new air brake
control system for heavy trucks. Our friend would say that anyone should be able
to copy it, & make money from my efforts & GM's investment. I think I'll just walk into
his house, & set up camp in the biggest bedroom. Why not....private ownership of real
estate is also a fiction because government can take it for private use if it ever wants.

You can occupy space. You cannot occupy knowledge. If I am in your space you can contest that. If I am holding one of your ideas in my head you cannot contest that.

Btw you failed to address anything in my post, was there a particular reason you quoted that one?

 

[Curious George]

Then I think you need to get a life.

Don't be bitter.

 

[exchemist]

I don't think I am using any personal definitions here. My comment was based on the text I quoted of yours. Your comment was indicative of a misunderstanding. I simply elaborated.

When you think I am using personal definitions for terms like nanny state, SJW, or the like, then you shpuld probably clue in that I have no desire to win such arguments. Rather I am amusing myself at the absurdity of such terms (lovingly, of course).

You mean you are adopting a stance you don't believe in, just for the sake of an argument?

 

[Revoltingest]

You can occupy space. You cannot occupy knowledge. If I am in your space you can contest that. If I am holding one of your ideas in my head you cannot contest that.

I can occupy your space because you don't own it.
What time is dinner?

 

[Curious George]

If you say they are fair and that we ought to have them, what do you mean by saying they are a manifestation of a "nanny state"?

That copyrights and patents are interference with individual freedom in an effort to protect. This protection is not strictly necessary and even hinders competition. That is all I mean by such a sentiment.

 

[exchemist]

That copyrights and patents are interference with individual freedom in an effort to protect. This protection is not strictly necessary and even hinders competition. That is all I mean by such a sentiment.

I assume you are Chinese.

 

[Curious George]

I can occupy your space because you don't own it.
What time is dinner?

As long as might makes right, I do.

Before supper.

 

[esmith]

That copyrights and patents are interference with individual freedom in an effort to protect. This protection is not strictly necessary and even hinders competition. That is all I mean by such a sentiment.

Then build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Ralph Waldo Emerson
But when I get there I'm taking your better mousetrap and mass producing it because I have more money than you do and since it will be mass produced I can sell it at a lower cost than you can.
You lose I win.

 

[sun rise]

Then build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Ralph Waldo Emerson
But when I get there I'm taking your better mousetrap and mass producing it because I have more money than you do and since it will be mass produced I can sell it at a lower cost than you can.
You lose I win.

Aka what the Chinese are doing with our IP.

I give the current regime in DC credit for almost nothing, but if there's a decent outcome that at least slows down the Chinese theft of our IP (or insisting that we give it to them as a condition of doing business in China), I'll give credit for that accomplishment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Ralph Waldo Emerson
But when I get there I'm taking your better mousetrap and mass producing it because I have more money than you do and since it will be mass produced I can sell it at a lower cost than you can.
You lose I win.

That's the Chinese (PRC) way.
Maybe he's a lobbyist for them, eh?

 

[esmith]

That's the Chinese (PRC) way.
Maybe he's a lobbyist for them, eh?

Possibly, but I think he's a lobbyist for Margret and H.A. Rey and PBS

 

[Ellen Brown]

What are your opinions on copyrights and patents?

Is this a symptom of the nanny state? If you think not, why should the government intervene in this matter and not other matters?

Ought there be a limit regarding what can and cannot be copyrighted or patented?

I wish that Copyrights were more effective. I've had some of my written work stolen. On of the reasons that I don't work harder at writing is the likelihood of theft.

As to Patents, they are often stolen.

 

[Audie]

What are your opinions on copyrights and patents?

Is this a symptom of the nanny state? If you think not, why should the government intervene in this matter and not other matters?

Ought there be a limit regarding what can and cannot be copyrighted or patented?

I will tell you this much. Patent law is about as
dreary as you can get.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What are your opinions on copyrights and patents?

Is this a symptom of the nanny state? If you think not, why should the government intervene in this matter and not other matters?

Ought there be a limit regarding what can and cannot be copyrighted or patented?

Since it has a Constitutional basis, it has been a part of our nation since its birth.

It is a contract between our nation and the inventor. The inventor is granted limited authority in the form of a patent allowing the inventor to prevent others from creating and using the invention without permission in exchange for publicly disclosing the invention. This has value for both sides. The inventor can recoup investment costs and make a profit and society has access to the information. There is historical evidence that failing to protect intellectual property has impeded progress.

There are limitations to patents and they do not last forever. In the United States it is 20 years from filing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Copyrights and patents are a form of monopoly.

Sure. A temporary monopoly under the conditions of the patent. Do you not think that an inventor should be able to reap the benefits of the invention? They can invent and turn it over to the world. No one is stopping them. Sometimes that has been done.