2 ms·

I don't agree that one is unable to do something before somebody files a patent on something. you could have been doing the exact same for years but treating i

I don't agree that one is unable to do something before somebody files a patent on something. you could have been doing the exact same for years but treating it as a trade secret. of course, in that situation, you can keep doing it in secret. And you could still figure out that solution yourself. The collective is taking away the individual's rights to get some perceived benefit. I don't think that's a moral act. I believe in property rights and realize you can't have any sort of economy without them. But is this property? If so, why do you only own it for a limited time?

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
If you were doing it before and can prove it then you can render the patent void. You can make submissions to the patent office if you want to be clear that the patent won't be granted. Hence, something you're already doing can't be stopped by patents (in theory, given a perfect system). To recapitulate the collective is not taking away a right to do something you could do before. It is property inasmuch as it is owned, bought and sold, licensed, mortgaged as if it were property. Property is not immutably owned - bricks and mortar can be retrieved for the public good (eg compulsory purchase; at least in Europe). The deal is that the right to the newly created/discovered intellectual property is vested by power of the people to the individual as a reward for their efforts and on the understanding that the people then later receive unencumbered access. That is why a disclosure of an invention is required for a patent to be granted and why (historically and optionally in the USA) a registered copyright requires submission of a copy: the copy disclosure are held to ensure they can be released at the end of the term. As the pace of technology accelerates this naturally lends itself to shorter terms of monopoly. Sadly the purpose of the law has been lost and longer terms have been forced for private financial interests.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  To make the case for intellectual property, I'm not sure I would point to the fact that physical property can be stolen from an individual by the group.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

If you were doing it before and can prove it then you can render the patent void. You can make submissions to the patent office if you want to be clear that the patent won't be granted. Hence, something you're already doing can't be stopped by patents (in theory, given a perfect system). To recapitulate the collective is not taking away a right to do something you could do before. It is property inasmuch as it is owned, bought and sold, licensed, mortgaged as if it were property. Property is not immutably owned - bricks and mortar can be retrieved for the public good (eg compulsory purchase; at least in Europe). The deal is that the right to the newly created/discovered intellectual property is vested by power of the people to the individual as a reward for their efforts and on the understanding that the people then later receive unencumbered access. That is why a disclosure of an invention is required for a patent to be granted and why (historically and optionally in the USA) a registered copyright requires submission of a copy: the copy disclosure are held to ensure they can be released at the end of the term. As the pace of technology accelerates this naturally lends itself to shorter terms of monopoly. Sadly the purpose of the law has been lost and longer terms have been forced for private financial interests.

stretchwithme 16y ago
To make the case for intellectual property, I'm not sure I would point to the fact that physical property can be stolen from an individual by the group.