2 ms·

No. A bill setting patent or copyright terms to less than what they are now is constitutional. Some might argue the opposite side of that, but I don't think any

by Zigurd 4y ago

No. A bill setting patent or copyright terms to less than what they are now is constitutional. Some might argue the opposite side of that, but I don't think anyone can deny the Framers were wary of the kinds of monopolies monarchs granted, much less did they think a patent is property.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
My point is all ownership is a legal concept. Congress can abridge many property rights, including real estate, and the only thing keeping them from going further is the custom enshrined in our Constitution.
- Zigurd 4y ago
  It's more than "custom." Since we have judicial review, courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of property. It goes back to WWKGD? ("What would King George do?") ...and doing the opposite. So we have constitutional protections against seizing private property, but arbitrary terms, except they must be limited terms, for grants of monopoly. Not perfectly observed of course. The Mouse always stretches the definition of "limited term." But the intent is there for anyone to see.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > more than "custom." Since we have judicial review, courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of property The custom cited is the power of the Constitution. The point is all property is an invented construct. This isn’t some neo-Marxist hot take. It’s reflecting that IP is simply a novel form of e.g. drawing lines on a map and calling them deeds. One is older and more precedented. That’s a huge advantage. But neither is more “fake” than the other.
    - Zigurd 4y ago
      That's all true. Likewise I am just pointing out the underlying reasons why property deeds get more protection than stuff that the people writing the constitution thought was less worthy of protection. Where we stand now is that courts are less likely to say that congress has no right to shorten patent and copyright terms, than to allow congress to take land without compensation based on market value. And, in the case of non-competes, that may say even existing contracts cannot lay a proprietary claim to something between your ears.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  That's the point of the Second Amendment. If you try to take my property, I will shoot you.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > you try to take my property, I will shoot you Now map this attitude to intellectual property and you see the problem.

by Zigurd 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

My point is all ownership is a legal concept. Congress can abridge many property rights, including real estate, and the only thing keeping them from going further is the custom enshrined in our Constitution.

Zigurd 4y ago
It's more than "custom." Since we have judicial review, courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of property. It goes back to WWKGD? ("What would King George do?") ...and doing the opposite. So we have constitutional protections against seizing private property, but arbitrary terms, except they must be limited terms, for grants of monopoly. Not perfectly observed of course. The Mouse always stretches the definition of "limited term." But the intent is there for anyone to see.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > more than "custom." Since we have judicial review, courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of property The custom cited is the power of the Constitution. The point is all property is an invented construct. This isn’t some neo-Marxist hot take. It’s reflecting that IP is simply a novel form of e.g. drawing lines on a map and calling them deeds. One is older and more precedented. That’s a huge advantage. But neither is more “fake” than the other.
  - Zigurd 4y ago
    That's all true. Likewise I am just pointing out the underlying reasons why property deeds get more protection than stuff that the people writing the constitution thought was less worthy of protection. Where we stand now is that courts are less likely to say that congress has no right to shorten patent and copyright terms, than to allow congress to take land without compensation based on market value. And, in the case of non-competes, that may say even existing contracts cannot lay a proprietary claim to something between your ears.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
That's the point of the Second Amendment. If you try to take my property, I will shoot you.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > you try to take my property, I will shoot you Now map this attitude to intellectual property and you see the problem.