4 ms·

Are patents a right? If the artificial system is detrimental, then the rules need to change. It's not fair for citizens to be forced to give up their natural

Are patents a right? If the artificial system is detrimental, then the rules need to change. It's not fair for citizens to be forced to give up their natural rights and not get anything in return. I know a lot of nerds love simple rules, but let's get real. The point is for us to get more tech produced. If it's not meeting that end, then it should be changed.

sp332 17y ago
Patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property are not natural rights. They are artificial. Even Thomas Jefferson, who fought pretty darn hard for natural rights, knew that IP was different. http://www.tostepharmd.net/soapbox/ideas.html http://www.tostepharmd.net/soapbox/ideas.html
- akeefer 17y ago
  Interestingly (to me, at least), the foundation for IP law is different in the US versus the UK. In the US, they're not considered natural rights. The relevant clause of the Constitution is: "The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." In other words, intellectual property rights are artificial constructs that Congress is allowed to grant in order to promote progress. In the UK, however, the case law works differently, and IP law is more of an outgrowth of the theory of natural rights that a person naturally has a right to whatever it is that they've created, be it something physical or something intangible.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    The UK's view might be considered saner since if you can prove you came up with the intellectual property on your own and didn't copy it could be argued that you have a joiont right with the other patent holder. Not sure if they interpret it that way but it would be a logical outgrowth of the view.

4 ms·

Are patents a right? If the artificial system is detrimental, then the rules need to change. It's not fair for citizens to be forced to give up their natural

by doki_pen 17y ago

sp332 17y ago
Patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property are not natural rights. They are artificial. Even Thomas Jefferson, who fought pretty darn hard for natural rights, knew that IP was different. http://www.tostepharmd.net/soapbox/ideas.html http://www.tostepharmd.net/soapbox/ideas.html
- akeefer 17y ago
  Interestingly (to me, at least), the foundation for IP law is different in the US versus the UK. In the US, they're not considered natural rights. The relevant clause of the Constitution is: "The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." In other words, intellectual property rights are artificial constructs that Congress is allowed to grant in order to promote progress. In the UK, however, the case law works differently, and IP law is more of an outgrowth of the theory of natural rights that a person naturally has a right to whatever it is that they've created, be it something physical or something intangible.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    The UK's view might be considered saner since if you can prove you came up with the intellectual property on your own and didn't copy it could be argued that you have a joiont right with the other patent holder. Not sure if they interpret it that way but it would be a logical outgrowth of the view.