Copyrights and patents

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Good grief yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you misunderstood my point. Because you no longer can exclusively possess an idea or a process once other know that idea or process, we created a legal fiction that would allow you exclusive rights.

I in no way suggested that this was about keeping others from knowing. I just said that you cannot exclusively possess an idea the same way ypu can exclusively possess a dead fox.

Sure you can. Just do not tell anyone your idea and hope no one else arrives at it independently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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 do not agree that they are part of some so called nanny state. I think they are an integral feature of our rights that is open to protection by the state. I do not think this country would have been so successful if intellectual property were not protected.

 

[Curious George]

Behold, esmith's emotional appeal:

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.

I suppose you could also bring a small violin, perhaps the worlds smallest, and play a song for me. Don't worry though, without copyrights you will pay no royalties for your performance.

 

[Curious George]

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

You leave those kind creative souls out of this.

 

[Curious George]

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

I find it inspiring and uplifting. Each to their own.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Are you suggesting we were founded as a nanny state? Now that is an intriguing concept.

 

[Curious George]

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.

You seem to have read more than I said.

 

[Curious George]

Sure you can. Just do not tell anyone your idea and hope no one else arrives at it independently.

That is not the same way. That is similar, but not the same.

 

[Curious George]

I do not agree that they are part of some so called nanny state. I think they are an integral feature of our rights that is open to protection by the state. I do not think this country would have been so successful if intellectual property were not protected.

Well recognizing that the country would not be as successful were it not a nanny state is hardly indicative of copyrights and patents not being a symptom of the nanny state.

 

[exchemist]

I find it inspiring and uplifting. Each to their own.

You know nothing whatsoever about patent law. But I suppose we should learn not to take you seriously.

 

[exchemist]

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

The law is certainly rather dull, but the business of analysing supposed inventions for their true originality is more interesting.

 

[Nous]

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 haven't read the entire thread. In case it hasn't been noted: Patent
and copyright laws are governmental methods to stimulate creativity and invention, which seem to be almost universally considered to be beneficial to humans. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution has been attributed in part to the widespread adoption of patent laws.

 

[Nous]

But intellectual property is a legal fiction.

Is it? My understanding is that "legal fictions" are created by courts, not legislatures.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't read the entire thread. In case it hasn't been noted: Patent
and copyright laws are governmental methods to stimulate creativity and invention, which seem to be almost universally considered to be beneficial to humans. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution has been attributed in part to the widespread adoption of patent laws.

You're wrong.
Patent protection was devised by Josef Stalin & Josef Mengele (it's a Josef thing) to
foist big government upon us, turning us into a socialist nanny state in order to liberate
the people, & put marketing executives up against the wall when the revolution comes!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you suggesting we were founded as a nanny state? Now that is an intriguing concept.

No. I am not suggesting that. Patents and copyrights are not an example of 'big government' out of control.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You seem to have read more than I said.

I do not think so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well recognizing that the country would not be as successful were it not a nanny state is hardly indicative of copyrights and patents not being a symptom of the nanny state.

You are confused. I said that our level of success can be attributed, in part, to the protection of intellectual property that is an integral part of our system of government. I did not say that we were successful because of big government.

I think that you would consider any government to be a nanny state, whatever that means, since it has no useful definition and is merely an emotional modifier.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're wrong.
Patent protection was devised by Josef Stalin & Josef Mengele (it's a Josef thing) to
foist big government upon us, turning us into a socialist nanny state in order to liberate
the people, & put marketing executives up against the wall when the revolution comes!

I believe that Josef Carl Marx and Joseph Adolf Hitler were also key in devising that insidious nanny state policy under the direction of alien influence from Josef Marvin the Martian.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe that Josef Carl Marx and Joseph Adolf Hitler were also key in devising that insidious nanny state policy under the direction of alien influence from Josef Marvin the Martian.

I see that someone else is also a keen student of history.