Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Are So Many on the Right Helping the Left Undermine Our Patent System?
Townhall.com ^ | December 1, 2015 | Seton Motley

Posted on 12/01/2015 6:00:59 PM PST by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: RedStateRocker

You are begging the question on the most important issue. It is by no means clear, and I would hold that is it is false, that the Constitutional power given the Congress to grant monopolies under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, creates “property”. Yes, lots of lawyers like the fact the courts now treat it as such, as do lots of rent-seeking commercial interests that never penned a sentence worth reading or invented anything, but is it really property?

Property rights are not time-limited, but the monopoly rights Congress may grant are specified as “for a limited time”, though we’ll see whether that really has any meaning, or when Steamboat Willie is about to pass into the public domain, whether it becomes “life plus 120 years”, then “life plus 200 years,”... a plain violation of the Founders’ intent.


41 posted on 12/02/2015 6:35:03 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

“Most inventions and indeed most progress is incremental improvements on what already exists.”

No argument there. Seminal patents are rare.

“I would argue that they retard innovation and freeze creativity at a point in time.”

The costs in “participating” in the patent process are prohibitive for the little guy—no doubt about that. Thank the US govey for tapping into another source to pull money into the general coffer. However, patents also give the little guy a way to compete with the big boys—to get into or stay in the marketplace.

A prime example in support of patents is the company R&D costs. Why expend to innovate if the next company down the street can simply copy your invention and use it. China is a perfect example of copying and attempting to push products into the market at little cost. If China can copy and push such copies back into our industry, many jobs would be lost here that otherwise would be viable with IP protection.


42 posted on 12/02/2015 8:09:40 AM PST by SgtHooper (Anyone who remembers the 60's, wasn't there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

Trade secret law may be fine for chemicals, compositions, etc., but not so much for mechanical inventions or even electronics, for that matter. Reverse engineering in electronics is sophisticated.


43 posted on 12/02/2015 8:17:30 AM PST by SgtHooper (Anyone who remembers the 60's, wasn't there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Didn’t mean to beg the question, merely it seems that one person’s ‘patent troll’ is another person’s ‘rightful property owner’. *AND* that lawyers and the courts have gotten away from the purpose of those granted monopolies....

As to if it constitutes “property” in the actual sense, as opposed to the common phrase “Intellectual Property”, you raise a most interesting point indeed!


44 posted on 12/02/2015 8:18:42 AM PST by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegal We make it clear- abolish the IRS, DEA and ATF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
That's a good point. I think that's why it doesn't pay to "squat" on an IP address just for the sake of holding onto it. If you don't do anything with the address then I believe it's pretty easy for another user to simply take it over and assert their true "ownership" of it.

If John Smith were to buy an IP address called www.fordmotorcompany.com, I don't think he's going to own it for very long.

45 posted on 12/02/2015 2:36:44 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m not sure what this is about, but everybody is so effing sick of Disney and their copyright laws, that I can almost understand taking it out on all forms of intellectual property.


46 posted on 12/02/2015 2:39:18 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

I agree. Trade secret status is a limited alternative to patent protection. It certainly does not work for most inventions.

When people have their inventions stolen, or the costs are too prohibitive to exploit them through patent protection, many will simply not innovate. This defeats the whole purpose of patents and is the reason reform is needed.


47 posted on 12/03/2015 12:16:20 AM PST by unlearner (RIP America, 7/4/1776 - 6/26/2015, "Only God can judge us now." - Claus Von Stauffenberg / Valkyrie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

labor” is just a metaphor, and a bad one. One cannot “mix” labor. It is an activity, not a substance. ..

ill need to look at this later and you raise interesting opposition to locke . but my trademarks are yes modification of something in my mind but i did make them up. if i have a product named chew this. do i not have a write to market the product under that name? and have some control over that. and why do you oppose all ip? just curious on the foundation of that.


48 posted on 12/05/2015 12:40:55 AM PST by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kvanbrunt2
I oppose IP because it's an aggression against other people's property. Copyrights and patents restrict what other people can do with there own property, and they create artificial scarcities in order to inflate the prices.

Trademark comes into the law both as IP and as tort law, with tort being the older common law source and IP a more recent invention. I think the IP laws regarding trademark are clearly unjustifiable. However, mislabeling a product in order to deceive potential buyers can be an act of fraud. Current law makes this a tort against the trademark holder and the buyer, but I consider it to be a tort against the buyer only.

49 posted on 12/05/2015 5:57:28 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

you know more than i. about this i just use the system at this point to protect my branding. i’ll have to re-look at it philosophically.


50 posted on 12/08/2015 12:47:32 AM PST by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson