4 ms·
The first step is to stop using the word "compulsory licensing". Compulsory licensing sounds like some kind of crazily authoritarian evil government regulation;
by vbuterin 13y ago
The first step is to stop using the word "compulsory licensing". Compulsory licensing sounds like some kind of crazily authoritarian evil government regulation; if I didn't know what it actually is, and there were no triggers that convinced me the idea is worth taking an hour of my time to research, I would imagine I would instinctively oppose it. The language implicitly accepts that patents are a natural right, and that what it is proposing is an infringement on that right. In reality, of course, it's a limitation on a government-granted monopoly. Nobody is being "forced to give a license"; it's actually the derivative creator who is no longer forced to face unbounded cost when using something which was patented.
- twic 13y agoMaybe it could be called something like "licensing by right" or "right-to-use", so casting it as a defence of something positive, rather than the imposition of something negative.
- Zigurd 13y agoIsn't the word "statutory" used in similar contexts? So there would be a "statutory" maximum for, say, individual and total royalty costs in producing some product.
- asmithmd1 13y ago"Right-to-use" sounds like something people could get behind. Congress needs to pass "Right-to-use" patent reform to prevent Saudi oil companies from buying up patents that increase gas mileage and preventing US companies from developing them into products. I don't think this has ever actually happened, but current patent law would allow it.
- rektide 13y agoYou are hereby compelled to furnish the audience with an alternative less-authoritarian sounding substitution. I compel you to not "compel against" with merely strict negatives, and insist that you provide tenable positive alternates.
- vbuterin 13y agoI would say rename the whole thing to something like "intellectual use tax".