Curious George
Veteran Member
Maybe he doesn't realize you were joking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Copyrights and patents
- Thread starter Curious George
- Start date
Shhhhhh!!
Curious George
Veteran Member
I agree with you, but I did initially catch that this was the point you were going for.
O'Brien or the Barbarian?
What is LEGAL FICTION?
Believing or assuming something not true is true. Used in judicial reasoning for avoiding issues where a new situation comes up against the law, changing how the law is applied, but not changing the text of the law.
Believing or assuming something not true is true. Used in judicial reasoning for avoiding issues where a new situation comes up against the law, changing how the law is applied, but not changing the text of the law.
What is LEGAL FICTION? definition of LEGAL FICTION (Black's Law Dictionary)
What is FICTION?
An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may befalse is true, or that a state of facts exists--which has never really taken place. New Hampshire Strafford Bank v. Cornell, 2 N. H.324; Hibberd v. Smith, 07 Cal. 547, 4 Pac. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 720. A fiction is a rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Best, Ev. 419.These assumptions are of an innocent or even beneficial character, and are made for the advancement of the ends of justice. They secure this end chiefly by the extension of procedure from cases to which it is applicable to other cases to which it is not strictly applicable, the ground of inapplicability being some difference of an immaterial character. Brown. Fictions are to be distinguished from presumptions of law. By the former, something known to be false or unreal is assumed as true; by the latter, an inference is set up, which may be and probably is true, but which, at any rate, the law will not permit to be controverted. Mr. Best distinguishes legal fictions from presumptions juris et de jure, and dividesthem into three kinds . .
What is FICTION? definition of FICTION (Black's Law Dictionary)
See also:
Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory
Everything you said in #75.
The goal of a patent should be to encourage disclosure of a new invention. Toward that end it offers exclusive rights for a time to the first person to patent. This sometimes creates winners and losers when multiple people are researching in the same direction. For example the original inventor of the first laser called the ruby laser (he called it a maser) did not get the patent, because someone else filed first. If, however, no patent had been offered then there would have been less reason for either party to disclose how to make ruby lasers, and today we might have a world in which lasers were nearly unheard of.
Yes. Patents and copyright exist to encourage new development and disclosure, so that more ideas come into public use. That is why some things do not deserve patent protection, such as ideas already in use and trivial changes. For example if a computer program merely does in computers what people already do on paper its not eligible for a patent.
Copyrights are and should be less limited than patents. Copyrights include designs and art that aren't technical innovations but are unique. Microsoft Windows is under a copyright despite being similar to Xerox original windowing system, but it couldn't stand up as a patent.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Because if you did, you would not ask the questions you do.
(I trained as a patent agent and subsequently worked in a business in which I had to deal with patentable inventions.
)
exchemist
Veteran Member
Good points. Patents, which give a time-limited monopoly on an inventive principle , have to pass tests of novelty and utility and many new ways of doing or making things do not qualify. Copyright relates only to a specific text, drawing etc, rather than a principle or idea underlying it.
On one point of detail, the maser is microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, whereas the laser is light amplification...etc etc. Thus although the principle is the same, a maser is not quite the same as a laser, and the two need different materials. Ruby (Al2O3 doped with Cr) is for used for red light lasers, relying on excitation of electrons in chromium. The first maser used the inversion of ammonia (NH3), in which the turning inside-out of the umbrella-shaped molecule gives rise to two energy states, separated by an energy gap corresponding to emission in the microwave region.
The maser came first.
Laser - Wikipedia
Curious George
Veteran Member
Care to elaborate an argument?
Color me unimpressed(I trained as a patent agent and subsequently worked in a business in which I had to deal with patentable inventions.
.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Not sure how you think this upsets anything I have said...
Curious George
Veteran Member
Did or did not. It seems to me that this has escaped a great many.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I've elaborated plenty of arguments already but in the absence of a coherent explanation, from you, of what you mean by "nanny state", it seems impossible to progress them.Care to elaborate an argument?
Color me unimpressed
Since you admit you are not really arguing seriously, I'm rather losing interest in what you have to say on the subject, though others are raising some interesting points.
Curious George
Veteran Member
What exactly do you think a nanny state is? Haven't we been over this in posts 32 and 35? You remember, when you tried to insert counterproductive into the definition of nanny state. We do agree that patents and copy rights limit individual freedoms, correct?
We also agree that copy rights and patents are not strictly necessary, correct?
And we agree that copyrights and patents constitute and interference with the free market, correct?
Where exactly is our disagreement?
It seems to me that it comes down to the use of the term Nanny state. Now far be it from me to chastise you from yelling "your using the term nanny state wrong and that offends me!" But, you have not shown how my use is incorrect. I would hazard a guess to suggest that the only way of doing so is to acknowledge the term itself as meaningless rhetoric. Were you to take that plunge, I might agree.
If something is outside of one's zone of skill, they are apt to find that something boring. I certainly cannot blame you for that nor wpuld I encourage you to persist in pursuing such endeavors.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Zzzzz. Go and waste someone else's time.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I am trying but you keep replying.
Legislatures don't create legal fictions, courts do in order to facilitate their reasoning in cases before the court.
Curious George
Veteran Member
That was nowhere in any of your definitions. Legal fictions are creations that are assumed true in order to reach a specific legal outcome. They are used by the courts yes, that does not mean they cannot be created or enshrined by the legislature.