2 ms·

This conversation is becoming absurd. I do not understand how you read that definition of secure to mean that the master cannot sell their own shop. I’ve repeat

This conversation is becoming absurd. I do not understand how you read that definition of secure to mean that the master cannot sell their own shop. I’ve repeatedly asked you for your support on what is a very esoteric reading of the word secure, as opposed to the plain reading I keep providing to you. It’s one thing for you to speculate, but to insist that your forced reading is the plain one is a bit ridiculous IMO. I’m well aware that the law needs to be written clearly for plain understanding, it is. You are the one advancing a meaning that says by giving something to someone, they can’t also then sell it? That doesn’t mesh with the founder’s understandings of property rights at all or the definitions themselves. It’s a bit of a joke, and I guess you don’t realize it. But the point about academic references is that you are making an academic argument. You’d think that if your point was true, that it is SO OBVIOUSLY beyond the plain meaning of the word, SOMEONE else would have said something in the ensuing 200 years. Yet here we are, you telling me you know what the founders meant, despite all the evidence and common sense running against you. Okay buddy - good luck with that.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
It's not just "secure". It is "exclusive". "Exclusive" has always meant "exclusive". The Constitution only allows congress to "exclusively secure" IP rights to the originators of the material. It does not allow congress to "exclusively secure" rights to anyone else. The only way I can make this work is through an originator licensing a work to a single other entity, and in said license guaranteeing that other entity that the originator will not otherwise use any rights they own except to the extent of the exclusive license to the other entity. This works. I still think it only really works if the originator has the unilateral power to break the agreement. But I can understand someone legitimately making a counter-argument. In an originalist sense, the founders were very much against royal grants of monopoly, so limited the power of the government to grant monopolies solely to the originators of ideas. I'm no longer confused, so yes we can drop this line of discussion. I hope you understand that I wasn't talking about just one word, but the word in the context of the rest of the clause.
- freejazz 3y ago
  It doesn't work and the only historical evidence you can point to is the merchant of venice, not the actual theories of property rights the drafters had in mind. This is an asinine argument. Exclusive here doesn't mean the owner can't sell, it means he's the only person who can decide to sell. That's why it's their exclusive right.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    It's asinine to expect citizens in a democratic republic to have to accept the word of experts as to the rights that they enjoy.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      You don't, use the damn dictionary as I insisted to you several times. Nothing I've pointed out relies upon some expert meaning of those words.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> You’d think that if your point was true, that it is SO OBVIOUSLY beyond the plain meaning of the word, SOMEONE else would have said something in the ensuing 200 years The only people who would advance an argument against transfer of IP rights are those who don't have standing to make such an argument.
- freejazz 3y ago
  I ask you about any actual writing on this topic to demonstrate that you are making this up wholesale on your own. You haven't rebutted that. You just made my point for me with this ridiculous argument that in the entire history of the constitution of the united states, and all the years of interpreting it since then, everyone has been so invested in being pro-patent, that nobody besides you ever realized that the founders OBVIOUSLY meant that IP owners can't transfer their rights (what could they do with it then? you realize not all inventors are interested in running businesses? licensing was not a new concept to the founders. obviously you have no rebuttal to this, but I just want to hit the point home because I find your argument so obnoxious in the profundity you think it belies) including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    YOU ARE TOO USED TO ARGUING WITH OTHER LAWYERS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO CONVERSE AND LEAD PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH. In my "arguments" as you call them I am not citing jack shit other than the constitution, time-specific definitions, and some recollections. AGAIN I AM A CITIZEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW BY READING THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE LAW. > including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents. There were a lot of distinctions written into the constitution that separated it from preexisting common law and royal prerogative. Titles of nobility, etcetera. So when trying to understand the basis of the law I necessarily revert to the knowledge that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and thus it's text is definitive as to jurisdiction and powers. AGAIN, I SAID THAT I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY CAN EXCLUSIVELY LICENSE THEIR RIGHTS. BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINATOR. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS. *I NOW UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS!!!!* I still think there are holes in it, or of my understanding of it, but these aren't killer holes. FOR GOD DAMN SAKE. HOW IS IT OBNOXIOUS TO WANT A COMMON CITIZEN TO UNDERSTAND THE VERY LAWS HE LIVES UNDER? AND THEN CALL HIM ASININE AND OBNOXIOUS FOR TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT VIA DIALOGUE?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

It's not just "secure". It is "exclusive". "Exclusive" has always meant "exclusive". The Constitution only allows congress to "exclusively secure" IP rights to the originators of the material. It does not allow congress to "exclusively secure" rights to anyone else. The only way I can make this work is through an originator licensing a work to a single other entity, and in said license guaranteeing that other entity that the originator will not otherwise use any rights they own except to the extent of the exclusive license to the other entity. This works. I still think it only really works if the originator has the unilateral power to break the agreement. But I can understand someone legitimately making a counter-argument. In an originalist sense, the founders were very much against royal grants of monopoly, so limited the power of the government to grant monopolies solely to the originators of ideas. I'm no longer confused, so yes we can drop this line of discussion. I hope you understand that I wasn't talking about just one word, but the word in the context of the rest of the clause.

freejazz 3y ago
It doesn't work and the only historical evidence you can point to is the merchant of venice, not the actual theories of property rights the drafters had in mind. This is an asinine argument. Exclusive here doesn't mean the owner can't sell, it means he's the only person who can decide to sell. That's why it's their exclusive right.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  It's asinine to expect citizens in a democratic republic to have to accept the word of experts as to the rights that they enjoy.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    You don't, use the damn dictionary as I insisted to you several times. Nothing I've pointed out relies upon some expert meaning of those words.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> You’d think that if your point was true, that it is SO OBVIOUSLY beyond the plain meaning of the word, SOMEONE else would have said something in the ensuing 200 years The only people who would advance an argument against transfer of IP rights are those who don't have standing to make such an argument.

freejazz 3y ago
I ask you about any actual writing on this topic to demonstrate that you are making this up wholesale on your own. You haven't rebutted that. You just made my point for me with this ridiculous argument that in the entire history of the constitution of the united states, and all the years of interpreting it since then, everyone has been so invested in being pro-patent, that nobody besides you ever realized that the founders OBVIOUSLY meant that IP owners can't transfer their rights (what could they do with it then? you realize not all inventors are interested in running businesses? licensing was not a new concept to the founders. obviously you have no rebuttal to this, but I just want to hit the point home because I find your argument so obnoxious in the profundity you think it belies) including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  YOU ARE TOO USED TO ARGUING WITH OTHER LAWYERS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO CONVERSE AND LEAD PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH. In my "arguments" as you call them I am not citing jack shit other than the constitution, time-specific definitions, and some recollections. AGAIN I AM A CITIZEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW BY READING THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE LAW. > including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents. There were a lot of distinctions written into the constitution that separated it from preexisting common law and royal prerogative. Titles of nobility, etcetera. So when trying to understand the basis of the law I necessarily revert to the knowledge that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and thus it's text is definitive as to jurisdiction and powers. AGAIN, I SAID THAT I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY CAN EXCLUSIVELY LICENSE THEIR RIGHTS. BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINATOR. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS. *I NOW UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS!!!!* I still think there are holes in it, or of my understanding of it, but these aren't killer holes. FOR GOD DAMN SAKE. HOW IS IT OBNOXIOUS TO WANT A COMMON CITIZEN TO UNDERSTAND THE VERY LAWS HE LIVES UNDER? AND THEN CALL HIM ASININE AND OBNOXIOUS FOR TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT VIA DIALOGUE?