5 ms·

Is the system Working As It Should when a 6-year-old has to lawyer up?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Drakim 8y ago
If anything he got off easy, think about all the patents he is probably violating. If you can get a patent for "Combination hamburger and hotdog bread bun" I don't see how anybody can be safe. You need a lawyer to walk across the street. https://patents.google.com/patent/USD584478?oq=hot+dog https://patents.google.com/patent/USD584478?oq=hot+dog
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rory096 8y ago
  What's wrong with that design patent? It seems both unique and non-obvious to me, if a bit silly. I would be very surprised if its issuance put any existing bun manufacturer into infringement.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    What’s wrong with you? Sticking together a hamburger bun and a hot dog bun should not be patentable. How is that non-obvious?
    - rory096 8y ago
      "Easy" and "obvious" are very different things. Making a bun in that shape may not be difficult, but presumably no prior art exists — nobody's ever done it before, at least in public. The patentholder is not a patent troll, but an entrepreneur working on international franchising for the 'hamdog' concept. Silly yes, terrible business idea definitely, misuse of the patent system no. [0] http://wnep.com/2016/09/22/meet-the-hamdog-a-hot-dog-and-hamburger-all-in-one/ http://wnep.com/2016/09/22/meet-the-hamdog-a-hot-dog-and-ham... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/the-hotdog-and-hamburger-unite-to-become-the-hamdogand-its-coming-to-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/the-hotdog-and-hamburger-uni...
      - nybble41 8y ago
        > Making a bun in that shape may not be difficult, but presumably no prior art exists — nobody's ever done it before, at least in public. There should be a distinction between "trivial, but no one ever wanted to do it" and "wanted, but no one knew how to do it". There is no remotely rational case that granting a patent in the former situation would ever bring any net value to society to offset the cost. (Even just considering the paperwork involved, never mind the cost in liberty from barring everyone else from doing something this obvious without begging for permission.)
Someone1234 8y ago
You mean protecting wealthy incumbents? I'd argue it is working as it is designed to ("should" is a whole different barrel of fish). I've lived in both the US and EU, and counter-intuitively the amount of incumbent regulatory capture* in the US seems worse, even though one would assume it would be quite the other way around. The US has a population that is "anti-regulation" and a pro-capitalism agenda. You'd think it would result in a highly competitive landscape, but instead it results in many duopolies. *Edited
- ISL 8y ago
  The term I think you're looking for is "regulatory capture": https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > amount of incumbent regulatory protectionism Call it what it is: Crony Capitalism. Lobby all you can to cement your market position and prevent competition. Works pretty well, because politicians are corrupt and like to be showered with lobby money.
ekianjo 8y ago
The system is made to make everyone a criminal, so that the full power of the Law can be used at any moment's notice against you if needed. We are literally producing dozens of thick volumes of new laws every year that citizens are not supposed to ignore, so there's that as well.
- amelius 8y ago
  America, land of the free ...
  - ataturk 8y ago
    We can fix this if we wish to.
throwaway5752 8y ago
Where do you draw the line. Equal protection is far more important than ensuring 6 year olds access to the free market. Would Starbucks be immune from health inspections and the other standard obligations of running a food business if they simply put a 5 year old as a figurehead CEO and had the COO run the ship? I'm not trolling. A company is obligated to maximize shareholder value within the law. It's like AAPL and GOOGL's tax maneuvering with the double Irish/Dutch sandwich techniques - unless they are illegal a company can be sued for not doing them. edit: seriously, and how do you define "stand" ... can a 6 year old have a fleet of food trucks? what if they unintentionally (or intentionally, if you actually have spent time with 6 year olds...) adulterate the food and harm people? Can they be tried as adults? This is a silly controversy to whip up indignant people that aren't willing to think the issue through sufficiently. It's below the dignity of this forum, such as it is. edit 2: to explain to downvoter(s) ... part of the obligation of writing laws is to prevent abuse. It's hard, and you have to consider aggressive seekers of loopholes. In a better world, and with better people you'd avoid having any law in the first place and leave it to the discretion of local authorities. But if that's the case, the downside is silly exceptions like this when local authorities judgement is something you disagree with.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  I think a sole proprietorship with no employees run by a 6 year old should have a degree of latitude. There's no situation I can imagine where a C-corporation or organization with employees would be off the hook, no matter how old their mascot is.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ben509 8y ago
  > Equal protection is far more important than ensuring 6 year olds access to the free market. We don't have equal protection for children under the law. Children aren't culpable for many criminal offenses and have reduced culpability for most others. > Would Starbucks be immune from health inspections and the other standard obligations of running a food business if they simply put a 5 year old as a figurehead CEO and had the COO run the ship? The 5 year old wouldn't be able to perform any legal actions as an executive of the company, so that's not an issue.
draw_down 8y ago
Depends whose interests you think the system operates on behalf of.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

If anything he got off easy, think about all the patents he is probably violating. If you can get a patent for "Combination hamburger and hotdog bread bun" I don't see how anybody can be safe. You need a lawyer to walk across the street. https://patents.google.com/patent/USD584478?oq=hot+dog https://patents.google.com/patent/USD584478?oq=hot+dog

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rory096 8y ago
What's wrong with that design patent? It seems both unique and non-obvious to me, if a bit silly. I would be very surprised if its issuance put any existing bun manufacturer into infringement.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  What’s wrong with you? Sticking together a hamburger bun and a hot dog bun should not be patentable. How is that non-obvious?
  - rory096 8y ago
    "Easy" and "obvious" are very different things. Making a bun in that shape may not be difficult, but presumably no prior art exists — nobody's ever done it before, at least in public. The patentholder is not a patent troll, but an entrepreneur working on international franchising for the 'hamdog' concept. Silly yes, terrible business idea definitely, misuse of the patent system no. [0] http://wnep.com/2016/09/22/meet-the-hamdog-a-hot-dog-and-hamburger-all-in-one/ http://wnep.com/2016/09/22/meet-the-hamdog-a-hot-dog-and-ham... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/the-hotdog-and-hamburger-unite-to-become-the-hamdogand-its-coming-to-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/the-hotdog-and-hamburger-uni...
    - nybble41 8y ago
      > Making a bun in that shape may not be difficult, but presumably no prior art exists — nobody's ever done it before, at least in public. There should be a distinction between "trivial, but no one ever wanted to do it" and "wanted, but no one knew how to do it". There is no remotely rational case that granting a patent in the former situation would ever bring any net value to society to offset the cost. (Even just considering the paperwork involved, never mind the cost in liberty from barring everyone else from doing something this obvious without begging for permission.)

Someone1234 8y ago

You mean protecting wealthy incumbents? I'd argue it is working as it is designed to ("should" is a whole different barrel of fish). I've lived in both the US and EU, and counter-intuitively the amount of incumbent regulatory capture* in the US seems worse, even though one would assume it would be quite the other way around. The US has a population that is "anti-regulation" and a pro-capitalism agenda. You'd think it would result in a highly competitive landscape, but instead it results in many duopolies. *Edited

ISL 8y ago
The term I think you're looking for is "regulatory capture": https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...
ekianjo 8y ago
> amount of incumbent regulatory protectionism Call it what it is: Crony Capitalism. Lobby all you can to cement your market position and prevent competition. Works pretty well, because politicians are corrupt and like to be showered with lobby money.

ekianjo 8y ago

The system is made to make everyone a criminal, so that the full power of the Law can be used at any moment's notice against you if needed. We are literally producing dozens of thick volumes of new laws every year that citizens are not supposed to ignore, so there's that as well.

amelius 8y ago
America, land of the free ...
- ataturk 8y ago
  We can fix this if we wish to.

throwaway5752 8y ago

Where do you draw the line. Equal protection is far more important than ensuring 6 year olds access to the free market. Would Starbucks be immune from health inspections and the other standard obligations of running a food business if they simply put a 5 year old as a figurehead CEO and had the COO run the ship? I'm not trolling. A company is obligated to maximize shareholder value within the law. It's like AAPL and GOOGL's tax maneuvering with the double Irish/Dutch sandwich techniques - unless they are illegal a company can be sued for not doing them. edit: seriously, and how do you define "stand" ... can a 6 year old have a fleet of food trucks? what if they unintentionally (or intentionally, if you actually have spent time with 6 year olds...) adulterate the food and harm people? Can they be tried as adults? This is a silly controversy to whip up indignant people that aren't willing to think the issue through sufficiently. It's below the dignity of this forum, such as it is. edit 2: to explain to downvoter(s) ... part of the obligation of writing laws is to prevent abuse. It's hard, and you have to consider aggressive seekers of loopholes. In a better world, and with better people you'd avoid having any law in the first place and leave it to the discretion of local authorities. But if that's the case, the downside is silly exceptions like this when local authorities judgement is something you disagree with.

landryraccoon 8y ago
I think a sole proprietorship with no employees run by a 6 year old should have a degree of latitude. There's no situation I can imagine where a C-corporation or organization with employees would be off the hook, no matter how old their mascot is.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ben509 8y ago
> Equal protection is far more important than ensuring 6 year olds access to the free market. We don't have equal protection for children under the law. Children aren't culpable for many criminal offenses and have reduced culpability for most others. > Would Starbucks be immune from health inspections and the other standard obligations of running a food business if they simply put a 5 year old as a figurehead CEO and had the COO run the ship? The 5 year old wouldn't be able to perform any legal actions as an executive of the company, so that's not an issue.

draw_down 8y ago

Depends whose interests you think the system operates on behalf of.