Join The Trading Room

Why Patents Are Essential to Free Markets

By Rick Ackerman Posted on June 1, 2012, 12:01 am EDT Last Updated June 1, 2012, 6:32 am EDT

[Rick’s Picks once again goes off the beaten path with a guest commentary on patents from forum regular Ben Rositas. For reasons that he makes clear, patents and free markets go hand in hand. Moreover, to the extent tariffs support this, they are justified. RA]

Today I hope to illustrate — by explaining what they are not– why patents allow free markets to exist at all. Consequently, the link between patent and tariff will be revealed, in turn revealing the inextricable link among patent, tariff, and free market. I will begin with two interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, Article I , section 8, cls 8. Brackets denote separations that aren’t readily apparent.

“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.”

Here, exclusive right belongs to someone, thus granting monopoly for the patent duration. And since it doesn’t say “for a limited time,” it is infinitely renewable. Conflicting with founding and framing principles, that interpretation is surely invalid. But if the brackets are expanded to include “to authors and inventors” the innovators are instead given limited, renewable durations, while

exclusive right is secured to the patented thing. In the broader context of Article I, section eight — Congressional powers in foreign/domestic matters — the exclusive right is in the domestic market (otherwise it contradicts founding principles). Taken this way, competitive economic freedom is neither hindered nor obliterated.

Free People Want Patents

Exclusive right by patent means that foreign copies are infringement via smuggling. Ideas can be traded, explored, modified, reproduced, and patented, even if these are already done in multiple countries. And since domestic copies aren’t infringement, nor domestic competitors barred from discovering or importing new ideas, improvement is actually encouraged. Copies being the same, consumer choice cannot be trampled. And price competitiveness should be a slim-to-nonexistent factor — provided that a domestic and foreign copy alike were produced and sold without price/wage controls and/or internally hindered competition in copying and innovation.

But this is interventionist policy, right? Well, free people naturally want patents. All else aside, they are reliable and useful information. When products A,B and C cannot enter countries D, E and F, fear and blind speculation disappear to more efficient and available capital. With less risk and malinvestment, but more available capital and competitive production, the alternatives — authorities and the wild cycles of total economic freedom — become unappealing nonsense.

And what of tariffs? It should now be easier to see and justify one — and perhaps only — purpose of tariffs. While benign in nature, legal foreign imports are the potential means through which infringement can occur. Naturally, tariffs pay the cost of providing port security that can both adequately inspect and expediently clear shipments. (Click here for a free trial to Rick’s Picks, including actionable daily trading recommendations and access to a 24/7 chat room that draws veteran traders from around the world.)

  • Peter Jennings June 5, 2012, 1:39 pm

    Hey Rick, you need to talk to Monsanto and get some tips.

    I believe the patent system makes people greedy and lazy and is not all it’s cracked up to be. It wasn’t created to protect the common genius, but to protect big business cash cows.
    Tesla had hundreds of patents in his lifetime and it didn’t do him much good at the time, JP Morgan saw to that. Whilst the American people stood by and let a true genius get crushed by a tyrant and die in relative obscurity.
    Regards

  • mava June 3, 2012, 10:27 pm

    It doesn’t matter how or why you may want your idea to be protected. Protect it yourself then. Yet, you main and overriding point is that you want ME to protect your idea, and I don’t want to. That is the crux of the argument. I have an advice for you, however, – just don’t publish your idea, and you will be very safe with your ownership of it. You can still use it at your own residence.

    I am NOT going to expend any effort to insure that you can profit from what you stole from others. And in a rare case where it is really, really, a 100% a result of your own imagination, not fed by anyone else work or ideas, my position would still be rightful.

    Am NOT going to expend any effort to insure that you can sell thousand times what you have never surrender the ownership of even once.

    Feel free to bloat of borders and tariffs as if it had any relevance to our discussion here. Besides, your argument is so pro-state, it reeks of violence. Do you realize that you don’t need any tariffs, all you need is to voluntarily pay your own home industries more that you pay to foreigners? (If you were truly concerned with what you pretend to be concerned with here, that is.)

    Man, you have a whole lot of waking up to do.

    • Mark Uzick June 4, 2012, 12:33 am

      Feel free to bloat of borders and tariffs as if it had any relevance to our discussion here.

      Mava, these are all forms of protectionism – they’re more interconnected and mutually reinforcing than you may realize – they’re all rooted in a common philosophy that says that “liberty is anarchy” and must be held in check by the “reason, justice, order and enlightened wisdom of the state.”

    • mava June 7, 2012, 4:42 am

      Mark Uzick,
      I didn’t think we were having a discussion in context of protectionism. I thought we were discussing so-called IP, – i.e. certain monopoly rights not necessarily designed to achieve protectionist goal, but certainly useful with regards to it. If I am wrong, – thank you for correcting me.

  • Mark Uzick June 3, 2012, 7:25 am

    Well, let’s challenge the notion of my useful idiocy, then…

    I’ve restrained myself from using that term; let’s just say they find your and all of our cultural indoctrination to be useful. I can’t be unsympathetic to your biases as I was indoctrinated too; however, I’m not sympathetic to dogmatic adherence to it.

    If borders, patents, tariff, national currencies… If any of those inventions of Man are responsible for the way the history books look, then the written and spoken word are also responsible for the rise of Hitler (among many others).

    I’m not interested in assigning blame. If I believed in a mythical all wise and loving God, I know that He would refrain from dictating morality to Man, the creature He created whose very nature requires the use of his reason to maintain his survival – to pursue and fulfill his purpose: independence, achievement and happiness – that the discovery of Man’s proper morality, being one of these achievements, as would any branch of philosophy, be, in keeping with his God given nature, Man’s responsibility to discover for himself – to prosper from his success in the discovery of the good or perish from his embrace of the evil. But it’s important that we learn from our mistakes; there’s nothing more evil than willful blindness to our errors – the defiance and rejection of God’s (or nature’s) holiest gift: Reason.

    It’s never a good idea to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

    I’m not a Utopian; we need to work with and build upon what we already have, although it isn’t perfect; but that doesn’t mean we can afford to evade the pursuit of truth, seeking at every opportunity to improve the cleanliness of Baby’s bath-water – not pretending it doesn’t stink.

    No one today or yesterday has enough ESP and brain capacity to do without what the boundries alone can provide.

    I know what prison cell bars provide: security against criminals. Treat all men as criminals and you’ll have a prison society of victimless criminals ruled and victimized by prison trustees.

    And since it is out of the question that a single person will have those on this side of the eon, it is out of the question that enough people will accquire them over the course of this new century.

    You’re saying that people are too stupid to rule their own lives – that they need put their trust in the wisdom of the state and its oligarchs – and to put their faith in the “ESP and brain capacity” of the bureaucracy.

    To the extent that they believe such nonsense, then it’s possible that people really are too stupid to be ready for liberty – that we are jail birds who have created our own (well deserved) prison.

    Anyway, Mark… Seems we actually got along this time around. I’m glad for that 🙂

    I’ve been, if anything, even more unapologetically scathing in my criticism than ever. I’m not trying to get along with you or anyone, but merely conduct my battle of words with the same civility and respect for reason that I always try to adhere to. Of course I’m human, but I try my imperfect best to direct my anger at the ideas that I perceive as evil – not the person espousing them. I can’t help it if some people take my attack on their beliefs as a personal offense.

    • Mark Uzick June 3, 2012, 7:35 am

      Sorry, the 3rd and 4th last paragraphs are my words; they should not be italicized.

  • mava June 2, 2012, 4:16 am

    BladeMcCool,

    Yes, Sir! Just let them see tomorrow. As folks have already mentioned the 3d printing, just imagine what will we do to the corporations once the 3d technology (currently being tested on electronic components already), combined with Rep-Rap technology, and our existent peer to peer sharing traditions will make it possible for a kid in Africa to have his friend’s Rep-Rap style 3d printer print a copy of itself for him, then have some dude who just purchased the latest auto 3d-scan it and upload the specs, to finally have the kid printing the whole toy out for himself. This, is what is coming, the relief of scarcity and consecutively the narrowing of the gap between the ultra rich and ultra poor not by violence or theft, but simply by the technological progress, and that is what they are trying to prevent, and this is why they are so strongly coming out in favor of patents.

    • Benjamin June 2, 2012, 1:19 pm

      3-d printing won’t eliminate the need for exclusive right. Whatever is used as money — even the monetary metasl– there will always be disparities among national currencies/coin, and therefore prices.

      There will always be national currencies because there will always be borders (morph as they will). And there will always be borders because they serve a benign purpose that neither you nor Mark (and many others) have yet to understand.

      Anyway, mava, I’d like to know what makes you think of me as one of Them. Let’s have it. I’d very much like to know. I’d also like to know which part of the article (which you didn’t even bother to read and understand) supports your accusations.

    • Mark Uzick June 2, 2012, 2:50 pm

      Anyway, mava, I’d like to know what makes you think of me as one of Them. Let’s have it. I’d very much like to know. I’d also like to know which part of the article (which you didn’t even bother to read and understand) supports your accusations.

      I don’t think you’re one of “them”. I don’t think that Mava thinks you’re one of “them”. I don’t think that “they” think you’re one of “them”; but I’m sure “they” consider your and others’ belief that your interests align with “theirs'” to be a great propaganda victory.

      They need us to be our own willing inmates and jailers. There’s no more complacent inmate than one who thinks that he’s the jailer.

    • Benjamin June 2, 2012, 4:15 pm

      Mark,

      Well, let’s challenge the notion of my useful idiocy, then…

      If borders, patents, tariff, national currencies… If any of those inventions of Man are responsible for the way the history books look, then the written and spoken word are also responsible for the rise of Hitler (among many others).

      It’s never a good idea to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. And to reiterate, I’m not supportive of the strawman that so many have been flogging away at. For some reason, almost no one seems to have grasped what exclusive right actually is (from what it isn’t). I give up after this last attempt…

      No one today or yesterday has enough ESP and brain capacity to do without what the boundries alone can provide. And since it is out of the question that a single person will have those on this side of the eon, it is out of the question that enough people will accquire them over the course of this new century.

      So for now, like it or not, we need the borders, exclusive right and tariff (currencies of silver and gold would be nice, too). To write any of them off as silly or dangerous or whatever, at this point in time, is just…

      Well, it’s idiotic. No offense, but all things considered, that is what this resistence to borders and patents is. It’s silly to argue for a borderless world when there’s not a single person let alone sufficient collective that can do without them. Especially when they’re not even the problem.

      Anyway, Mark… Seems we actually got along this time around. I’m glad for that 🙂

  • mava June 2, 2012, 4:01 am

    This was quite an exercise to represent government monopoly as a tool or freedom. What a load of propaganda.

    All that you seek is simply to use the power of the tyrannical state to protect your interests against everyone else’s interests.

    I am eager to hear a next installment of that, say… on how trade unions help us into the freedom. Why shouldn’t we deny everyone the employment in a particular area that a single individual had thought of?

    And nice try attempting to mask the horror of patents by equating them to property rights. Except, these two have nothing in common. Property rights stem from the concept of scarcity, where the use of property is reserved to those making the best of it, while the concept of patents stem from artificial creation of scarcity from something that is in natural abundance, through the coercive powers of government monopoly on force. Ideas worth exactly as much as you can get from them, and not a penny more.

    Really cute turn by limiting the time the rights are protected. Sounds like a theft to me. What you are doing is setting the time period of protection just short enough so that you could comfortably steal from the prior work, while protecting your own little addition. Because, obviously, had you not been gracefully limiting yourself to a short period of protection, you’d have to deal with the rights of the other people before you!

    I suggest you work on private property of thoughts and feelings, desires and perceptions, as soon as it becomes technically feasible to violently control them.

    Typical brainwashed statist agitprop.

    • Mark Uzick June 2, 2012, 9:31 am

      Typical brainwashed statist agitprop.

      It’s peoples’ desire to get wealth or security at the expense of others’ rights, especially if these others belong to a different group that they can dehumanize, that makes it so easy for tyrants to enslave them; a slave-master at heart always make the most willing slave.

      We live in a society of jailbirds where we are our own jailers. The walls we erect at the borders are not to protect us, but are the symbol of our own prison bars and of all the figurative walls we erect between peoples’ right to freely interact for mutual benefit.

    • Mark Uzick June 2, 2012, 9:36 am

      One good thing about this essay, though, is that it made you angry enough to come back from hibernation.

    • Benjamin June 2, 2012, 1:22 pm

      “One good thing about this essay, though, is that it made you angry enough to come back from hibernation.”

      Mark, I never was angry about anything. Nor even, as you like to think, afraid. Disgusted? Yes. Frustrated? Yes. Angry and afraid? Only in your own self-gratifying mind.

    • Mark Uzick June 2, 2012, 2:25 pm

      Mark, I never was angry about anything.

      Why would I say that your own essay made you angry? It should be obvious that the reply is to Mava.

    • Benjamin June 2, 2012, 4:18 pm

      Mark,

      Sorry ’bout that, then. I really did think you were refering to me.

  • Chris T. June 1, 2012, 7:40 pm

    Ben,
    one comes across so many interesting articles/comments, its hard to archive them all.

    Here is an citation (from an article I would otherwise not bother with, not from the people critical of the whole issue):

    “The key case for constitutional law purposes is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). Curiously, if one carefully reads Justice Harlan’s decision in that case, one will find neither a clear statement nor a citation of authority concerning whether corporations are “persons.” That point, instead, is made in the syllabus by the Reporter, who related that at oral argument the Chief Justice had stated that:

    The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. ”

    On the face of this, it is already absurd.
    A hearsay-type comment by the court reported of something a Justice (may have) said, is supposed to be the ultimate stare-decisis forming reasoning?

    Completely absurd. No other Scotus case prior to that addressed the issue.
    All other Scotus cases subsequent to it, even those using the words “well settled princple”, utlimately go back to this case.

    So much for the deities in black robes.

    But what about the Chief’s reported comment itself?

    How absurd is that one? As a court, they had never up to then addressed this issue, so it can hardly be deemed as having been settled as a question of const. law.
    Yet, so long as they all have that opinion (one must assume as individual persons of a legal background), that’s fine.
    Great argument.

    Then again, it is the MO of the court:
    The individual Justice finds arguments that support their already held personal beliefs.
    Rare is the jurist who who will shape their beliefs from the argument.

  • Mark Uzick June 1, 2012, 12:19 pm

    No. I’m saying that a single incident of infringement cannot illustrate aggression and fraud. A single, or even a handful of violations, won’t cause the instablities that I proceeded to explain.

    Benjamin, I’m finding your reasoning too confusing to follow: Aggression and fraud are an ethical issue, even if they have practical implications; my point being that I’d be willing to overlook the massive economic damage of protectionism if you can show me a convincing ethical argument supporting the idea that the absence of protectionism amounts to aggression and fraud.

    Economic instability is, strictly speaking, a practical issue and cannot in itself show aggression and fraud, although it has a strong correlation with the suppression of aggression and fraud, i.e., a relative state of liberty where creative destruction reigns.

    “Economic stability” is just a euphemism for the stagnation that’s foisted on the people by the oligarchs and the entrenched politico-bureaucratic state who live in perpetual fear of progress undermining their entrenched interests.

    where is it said in either the Constitution or my presentation and posts that the state and/or federal government can and should force anyone to patent something or to renew or drop a patent?

    Does this question address something I said or implied?

    “Patents ARE ownership of ideas, just as slaves are ownership of people. Patents aren’t even used as property in many cases, but as hostages to be used to protect a company’s rights against other companies’ aggressive use of patents. ”

    I made it sufficiently clear that they are no such thing. That they are treated as such today is no fault of the Constitution, nor of my presentation of it. Anyway, and again, patents are the exclusive right of a thing in domestic commerce,

    To own something can be generally defined as “the right to control something”. Ownership of ideas and people are exactly what the Constitution is allowing with both patents and slavery.

    While it’s true that according to my morality – one that’s based on natural rights – you can have no right to own people or ideas, I don’t have a monopoly on moral codes; and some people may enact laws based on a different moral code – one where aggression by kings and other tyrants is permitted or even considered a virtuous duty – one where ideas and people may be controlled by “authority” or someone granted this ownership of ideas and slaves on a temporary or on-going basis by this “authority”.

  • mario cavolo June 1, 2012, 11:08 am

    Sorry for the respite from patent-related discussions…. you think that letting the air out of oil prices, as we watch them genuinely PLUNGE, isn’t part of the grand plan of O’s reelection, and everything related to it?
    I smirk as I ask the obvious…

    With all due respect to the markets, soft economies, especially when its global, should be met by falling commodity prices to ease the pain in people’s and company’s expenditures, to help the next “recovery” come along including allowing the stock markets to maintain levels more easily.

    Enjoy the weekend folks, Mario

    Cheers, Mario

    • Mark Uzick June 1, 2012, 12:38 pm

      Mario, there’s a temporary oil glut; the only thing that has held up the price are the drums of war which Obama is apparently downplaying until after his presumed re-election to temporarily boost the economy and his polls.

      The wild card is Iran; they desperately need oil revenues to maintain economic and political stability; I wonder whether Obama has secretly offered them anything to play nice and tone down the rhetoric, forgoing high oil prices for now.

    • gary leibowitz June 1, 2012, 3:18 pm

      So the rise over the last 3 years is another controlled price hike? It’s called supply and demand. The US demand has been going down for quite some time. The use of alternative fuel and more efficient cars helped. I mentioned over 3 months ago that Saudia Arabia was supplying the largest oil barge delivery to the Unitede States ever. Over 40 barges left their shores. I stated then that it would drive down prices during the heavy driving season. No surprises, no conspiracies, no hidden agenda.

      As for this “correction” I do believe the lows should be seen today followed by a month of bouncing around. The consumer is spending despite the economic slowdown of late. When businesses revamp their spending, all indications are they will, than we will see a strong finish to the year.

      Had Oil stayed above 100 dollars everyone would assume that figure was accurate even though demand is down ans supply is up. I find that strange.

    • gary leibowitz June 1, 2012, 4:08 pm

      Once again employment trails YET manufacturing index is strong. In fact the future orders have spiked.
      Not an indication of a falling economy.

      Watch the consumer and business pick up their spending over the next 9 months. I do believe we have reached a low for this year. Expecting some bouncing around till Spain/Greece receive some resolution on the current crisis.

    • mario cavolo June 2, 2012, 6:04 am

      Hi Gary,

      I appreciate your analysis and views of many items. A couple of points:

      I don’t doubt for a moment that our political and other elite leaders include “timing” in many of their decisions to favor their own agendas, that agenda including, for example, the seated party getting reelected. With that said, its a push to call it an outright conspiracy.

      I must question oil zooming to 110 and then plunging to 84 just on supply/demand? Hard for me to swallow such a simple explanation, though thanks for mentioning the big Saudi delivery. Speculative games play a huge part in open market price movements, hard to convince otherwise. Take a look at the commodity charts for corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, etc. if you want to get dizzy.

      Midterm wise, while as noted. U.S. consumption is soft, China’s is skyrocketing, driven in part by the sale of 1,000,000 new cars sold per month. Even with softening, that number dropping by 20-30% is still a strong driving impact on oil consumption. The auto party here, while already the largest auto market in the world, a staggering economic reality, is just getting started. 90% of the adults I know still don’t even have a driver’s license, including my wife and the vast majority of employees of every company I work with. Nuts! Five years from now, there will be at least 40 million more cars on Chinese roadways.

      Cheers, Mario

    • Mark Uzick June 2, 2012, 9:05 am

      To Gary and Mario,
      An important part of the supply/demand dynamic are projections into the future and perceptions of political risk/disruption to supply. It should be obvious that those with the power to cause disruption of supply will use bluffing as a a tool to manipulate the market when they believe it to be to their advantage.

      Also: sending tankers of oil to America, outside of what this conveys about the political situation, has no effect on the price of oil, but increasing production, regardless of where it’s sent, does.

      It does, however, send a message to the markets that is opposite in its effect on price of what Gary thinks: The message is that we expect to engage in hostilities and so have asked for an emergency back-up supply; and this puts pressure on users and speculators to bid up prices.

  • Chris T. May 31, 2012, 6:14 pm

    “Firstly, I somehow doubt that the Founders could possibly have considered corporations to be ‘people’.

    You can go beyond “somehow doubt” to “they did not”.

    There is a whole movement of legal thought out there, that has been advocating for a test case in the Scotus to get rid of the “legal personhood” of corporations as being unconstitutional.

    The concept, at least in US (constitutional) law, was improperly introduced only about 150 years ago, but just in the case’s syllabus, which was then used in subsequent cases as reference, as if had been part of the decision’s reasoning.
    Because it is only in the syllabus, it has even less standing than obiter dictum.

    A fascinating issue, but I somehow doubt it will ever get back to the court, because of what is at stake for who rules this place if that “decision” is ever overturned.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 6:34 pm

      Seems I sort of misunderstood Jaime Frontero’s point on that matter. Sorry ’bout that JF!

      Anyway, you seem to know a lot about this matter, Chris. It’s not one I’ve quite gotten ’round to understanding. Got any good links to explain this?

    • Steve May 31, 2012, 8:53 pm

      Chris T. Now we throwing down the alley. Let’s address corporate nature in this way:

      Northern Senate Rebellion of 1867.
      The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 to present.
      Voluntary acceptance of the 14th amendment.
      Compelled acceptance of the 14th amendment to allow the several States into the federal union of states by registration in the next line.
      Military voter registration.
      Creation of an Administrative corporation called U.S. @ 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) “foreign” in Commander in Chief.
      Roman Civil Law, in that use of the benefits of corporate U.S. make adheasion contract by taking benefits voluntarily.
      Beneficiary cannot raise constitutional question against benefactor while in receipt of benefit from benefactor.
      Creation of hu’man corporations in trust for Men for the first time.

      There is nothing constitutional to question as the matter is Contract Law and Trust Law in assent to the rebellion of the Senate in 1867.

      Its a whole new hu’man corporate world since 1867, and voluntary use of fiat money is conclusive presumption of Trust in assent to the rebellion and lawlessness of said rebellion. The constitution has been held in trust since 1938 with – WE SHALL HOLD THE CONSTITUTION IN TRUST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PEOPLE TIRE OF THIS EXPIREMENT IN DEMOCRACY.

      Done with Democracy ? Done with fiat fraud? Done with hu’man corporations? Done with hu’man, or Man? Or hu’man work, hu’man music, hu’man corporation? There is no Original Constitution in Immutable Form to be accessed because every Person is presumed to be a person of hu’man corporation form under Contract Law. Please note what P and p mean.

      So, it would appear that it is best to quit crying about a Constitution that has been replaced by a corporate charter in executive military powers in Senate Rebellion in assent to outlawry in 1867.

      Each of you with a Fee Simple Absolute Deed to property – FEE, fife, feod, feud, feudal, tenant in fee, peon, serf, slave. Sign the line in Fee and admit to being what – a slave?

      Where are your words Allodial, Allodium, Allodialist?

  • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 5:52 pm

    “I will manufacture whatever I want thank you very much. If I like your patented idea, and feel it would be a profitable item to produce, I will do so and ship internationally to any who want to buy.”

    That’s fine, Blade. Producers aren’t the smugglers. The smugglers are the smugglers.

    Anway, what I find silly and “anachronistic” is how defensive and insulting some can get when no one is even attacking them, nor even suggesting they be attacked. Thanks for not bothering to understand a word I wrote before you got all cocky and “cool”.

  • BladeMcCool May 31, 2012, 5:23 pm

    I will manufacture whatever I want thank you very much. If I like your patented idea, and feel it would be a profitable item to produce, I will do so and ship internationally to any who want to buy. We will add our own marks to the units, lest there be any trademark confusion. Also, this notion of nation states or countries you keep referring to, we find to be silly and anachronistic. The sooner these violence perpetrating institutions are de-funded and made powerless, the better.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 5:55 pm

      Repost. Original caught in moderator filter…

      “I will manufacture whatever I want thank you very much. If I like your patented idea, and feel it would be a profitable item to produce, I will do so and ship internationally to any who want to buy.”

      That’s fine, Blade. Producers aren’t the smugglers. The smugglers are the smugglers.

      Anway, what I find silly and “anachronistic” is how defensive and insulting some can get when no one is even attacking them, nor even suggesting they be attacked. Thanks for not bothering to understand a word I wrote before you got all arrogant and “cool”.

    • Steve May 31, 2012, 8:29 pm

      BladeMcCool, one may absolutely manufacture anything for self use. Entering commerce is quit another thing.

      However, the rest of the commentary is why acts like those described are a violation of the Immutable Law and will always be worthless theft by worthless hu’man corporations of one foul body organizm.

      From one who holds many copyrights.

      @ Also, this notion of nation states or countries you keep referring to, we find to be silly and anachronistic.

      There is nothing anachronistic in the oldest crimes against Man identified by the Mosaic Law in the present. Many are those who will sell their soul for 30 pieces. There will always be theifs who will steal into another’s home and take what is not his to take.

      I am not always proud of Law Enforcement, but; it would bring great joy to lock the cuffs on another hu’man corporation living without value or law in theft from the home of a moral Man.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 9:22 pm

      Hi, Steve. Glad to hear from ya.

      “one may absolutely manufacture anything for self use. Entering commerce is quite another thing.”

      I don’t know that I can fully agree with that. Do you mean foreign entry, or just entry in general?

      Regarding foreign manufacturers who don’t give a hoot… I don’t see why they should be concerned. The importing party(s) would be the ones doing the infringing. Caveat Emptor. Their goods would either be refused entry or, if they managed to slip through, be dealt with in other ways. Whatever the case, it would be their loss to bear for breaking the law.

      Concerning a person living in a State of the U.S., though, it sure doesn’t seem that the clause pertaining to exclusive right bars them from entering either domestic or foreign commerce, to compete with their own copies (though another country can and will of course have it’s own rules that may forbid it).

      Are we on the same page?

  • Buster May 31, 2012, 2:56 pm

    I’m not sure where I would stand on the issue of patents, particularly in the context of a world where integrity is a rare thing, especially in the annals of money & power, but I do find myself with some conflicting feelings based on my own personal experience in this subject.
    On the one hand, I believe new ideas & technology must be available to people if we are to be allowed to progress, & if they are restricted too much, effectively hoarded like Banksters do with money when it suits their purposes, then society can be made to struggle unnecessarily. On the other hand though, I know how it feels to have spent years working on something & to know that just about everybody seems to want to steal it from you without so much as a thanks. This is a very real problem, believe me, with or without expensive patents. I think somewhere herein lies something to be understood about the way society’s lack of any real integrity is a hindrance to progress.
    Always I am drawn to believe that having just law is the foundation & the only way that any human society can really work. However, without this being possible due to the corruption from the top of the pyramid right down to the very bottom, I imagine that there may as well be no law at all & let us just accept the consequences of our lacking.
    Human beings have some very real issues with wanting to have things for nothing without paying respect or whatever where it is due. It seems to all boil down to the core issue of responsibility which is documented as being the root of our ‘illness’, & subsequently our suffering.
    Consequently, I am inclined to think that we may as well do away with the patent system entirely, since it appears to me to be used as a way for the powerful to hoard ideas more than it is effective at protecting the efforts of those doing the inventing.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 4:02 pm

      “Human beings have some very real issues with wanting to have things for nothing without paying respect or whatever where it is due. It seems to all boil down to the core issue of responsibility which is documented as being the root of our ‘illness’, & subsequently our suffering.”

      But do those who are truly brilliant need thanks… any more than they need permission to invent something better than those merely copying it?

      Anyway, I wouldn’t say it’s a disease. If someone sees I’m using a wheel, they’ll naturally want to invent it themselves, or tell someone who is better able to. Or take mine, but that’s another matter altogether! The important thing is that everyone has the opportunity to make and have wheels through the legitimate application of exclusive right.

    • Buster May 31, 2012, 4:40 pm

      It’s a fair point Benjamin, & as I said, I don’t really know where I stand on the issue.
      However, my experience is that many people are so sick as to try to even destroy whatever progress one might be trying to make in developing something, and many ideas take a lot of time & money to develope for the individual or corporation. The worker needs to get his wages or he’ll be unlikely to want to work, and inventiveness is surely work. Also, many ideas are of little value at an individual level, so the inventor sometimes has little chance of benefitting from his efforts by personal use. If we lived in a coherant ‘society’, probably we would all benefit from eachothers progress no matter what, but we don’t appear to have such a thing.
      Anyway, I generally lean toward ‘anarchy’ rather than the unfortunate reality of our present ‘corrupted order’, so total freedom of ideas etc is the lesser of the two evils that I would choose. No doubt many ideas would be kept hidden by the inventors in such a situation, just as they are now, however.
      As an aside, the issue of not taking responsibility is most certainly the disease that afflicts humanity, & wanting things without effort or thanksgiving is no doubt a symptom of this disease. It’s a complex subject which I won’t go into here, other than to offer the suggested reading of ‘The Road Less Travelled’ by N Scott Peck to further understand this critical issue.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 5:01 pm

      I understand where you’re coming from, Buster, but I just don’t see how having competition necessarily means losing all an inventor has invested in their idea(s). Sure, they can be out-competed altogether. But the thing is, in enforcing patents as the Constitution defines them, at least the economy around you won’t dry up and blow away elsewhere. In other words, you can work for a more successful competitor and try again later.

      To put this into further perspective, note that exclusive right only applies to science and useful art (utilitarian desigin, ie). Those in the arts and entertainment wouldn’t have it any better. And to my understanding, that is how things used to be (at least with music). Too, as competition drives things, the wage-earners are still susceptible to losing their job and having to look for another.

      But whatever one does, exclusive right encourages the domestic economy to stay strong and, most of all, stay put and keep doing what it always does. So we’re all in the same boat. That alone makes it not so bad, no? And it wouldn’t be so bad… even if one is defeated by their competitors. Pick up and try again
      🙂

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 5:17 pm

      By the way Buster (Keaton!), while I’ve not known the frustration of being stepped on by both the ruthless and the thankless, I do the know the experience of being stopped dead by the EPA. Sort of. It’s a long story. Suffice to say, it had already been patanted by Diamler Chrysler. They were sitting on it, awaiting some policy decisions that the EPA were making at the time (CO2, pollution, etc). They were also holding back due to the uncertain economic conditions in the U.S. I learned that in 2004, early 2005. Back then, I had no idea what they meant by _that_, but… here I am!

      Anyway, still, I was quite frustrated that something as good as that idea was not likely to see use any time soon (and perhaps not even my life time). Whether that counts as empathy or not… I think I completely understand what you’re sayin’.

  • steve4 May 31, 2012, 1:24 pm

    Buster…. To truly grasp the story of Paul Pantone you would have to know where he got the designs from and how he got them.

    • Buster May 31, 2012, 1:56 pm

      The designs were passed to him from a fellow researcher. These sorts of devices are quite abundant in the alternative research circles, believe it or not. Heck, I’ve got a couple of my own that I developed from my own research & testing, which I’ve never put on the market for various reasons. It may sound all conspiracy theory to those who haven’t had much to do with this side of things. Just to clarify, it was not the same fellow who gave Paul such a hard time after he made the designs public, as this person wanted to remain anonymous for good reason, as Paul soon found out. The attack came from much, much higher up the food chain.
      BTW.the Geet system was offered to BP as a possible solution to the Gulf oil disaster, as some testers have used it with a mixture of oil & sea water. Needless to say, they declined the offer.

  • Jaime Frontero May 31, 2012, 12:54 pm

    Interesting point of view. I really only see a couple of minor issues…

    Firstly, I somehow doubt that the Founders could possibly have considered corporations to be ‘people’. One problem with this (of many) is that this function: “…by securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” becomes a grant of exclusivity in perpetuity (i.e., forever) to any and all IP owned by a corporation – since corporations can, theoretically, ‘live’ forever. As to the bracketed “[for a limited time]”; well, talk to Disney about that.

    But secondly, and more importantly – if one subscribes to rigorous and statutory ownership of IP, then it must follow that enforcing this is proper. The only way I can think to enforce the violation of patent (or copyright, etc.) starts with being aware of that violation. And the only way to ensure that awareness is to monitor *all* speech and/or communication of any kind. Which is pretty much what our culture is now doing, with more in the pipeline.

    So really, at the end, it becomes a simple choice between IP and freedom (of speech, association, etc.). They’re actually not compatible.

    Nice hole we’re digging for ourselves…

    JF

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 1:20 pm

      Re corporations: Immortals cannot exploit a loophole that isn’t there. Patents have a limited time duration, after which they must be renewed if they are to be enforced. Too, the patent doesn’t belong to any entity, corporation or individual. Patents were meant to be a part of the border security, not something that can be owned or held.

      Re: Enforcement.

      There already exists a considerably strong multi-barrier.

      First, States can also conduct their own inspections.

      Second, transport companies and customs brokerage firms are already auidted (albeit for slightly different purposes, currently). This would not change under Constitutional exclusive right. In fact, in order to maintain their competitive edge, and to stay out of trouble, third parties would have to do their homework, to know what they’re importing.

      Third, anything that slips past this already considerable net would have to evade private enforcement. Wherever illegal imports are discovered to be included or sold, infringement can be claimed. Manufacturers and sellers would also police each other. They would also make it a part of their business to scruntize and select which third parties — the transport and brokerages — they deal with (else they risk sustaining unexpected and unnecessary losses from infringement).

      And as I said earlier… Technology only makes it more effective. Smugglers wouldn’t stand a chance, but it wouldn’t come at the expense of any part of our liberty.

    • Jaime Frontero June 1, 2012, 7:19 am

      Interestingly enough, thusfar the steering committees in the European Parliament agree with me – at least where ACTA is concerned. Good for them, and for the herculean efforts of the Pirate Party.

      http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/31/three-strikes-against-acta-in-european-parliament-today/

      We cannot ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ – advancing as we have for these past thousands of years – if the use of those shoulders is denied to us by patent and copyright law. It’s that simple.

  • Buster May 31, 2012, 11:01 am

    Just as a sidenote, when I was eight years old I designed a rotary clothes line cover, that allowed you to hang washing outside to dry even when it was raining. I tried to get it patented around 30 years later but found the present patent system to be just about useless for the little guy, in practice, for various reasons. The patent system, as everything else in this world has been gamed for the benefit of the few. There are so many great technologies that never come to market because of vested interests. Just google ‘Robert Krupa’, or for a real eye opener into how things work around here, ‘Paul Pantone’. Just one more endictment on the system we have.
    Anyway, with the advancement of 3D printers the patent system faces some obstacles for the Powerz,
    No doubt there is some scratching of heads from on high to figure out exactly how the’re going to control the access to digital designs of products, especially certain ones that we’re not allowed to have. In particular, certain technologies that would be game changers if they were in the public domain. The sort of things that some researchers & developers, particularly in the energy field, get abrupt visits from officials who confiscate all their aparatus & documentation if they allow knowledge of their research to slip out. But that’s another story.
    Control of the digital trafficways seems the only option for the Powerz if widescale access to advanced 3d printers is to be allowed to the slaves, hence the moves presently seen in this direction with the internet.

    • Buster May 31, 2012, 11:20 am

      Justthought I should take the opportunity to summarise the Paul Pantone story for those who haven’t got the time to hunt it out.
      Basically, Paul had been given some designs from anonymous sources of a type of fuel ioniser unit, known as a Geet, which allows the use of a mixture of water & oil to run an engine. Various adaptations of the unit have had increases in fuel efficiency of many hundreds of percent. Paul was incarcerated soon after making plans to the device available to the public, suffering, I think, three years of what amounts to torchure in a mental institution before supporters managed to raise enough money to get the fabricated legal charges against him overturned and his release. Paul has his faults, like us all, but I can only describe him as I have found him to be, a decent enough fellow who has suffered criminal abuse at the hands of the Powerz because of his refusal to allow them to bury this technology. All due respect to him & others who dare to make a stand. I’m sure the story has some points of interest in the debate over the patent system as a whole.

    • Mark Uzick May 31, 2012, 11:28 am

      Very perceptive Buster, they say we need I.P. to promote progress, but the real motive is to promote privilege, monopoly and power.

      They fear free exchange and technology that empowers the independence of individuals enabling them to sidestep the oppressive thumb of the oligarchs.

      They actually wish to stifle free trade and progress and do it under the guise of “protecting” it.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 11:31 am

      Do you mean this when you refer to 3D printing?

      http://www.shapeways.com/

      Probably. And how TOTALLY COOL is that?! It can be pretty expensive, though, and there are limits as to what can be done. Still, the bugs and cost will work themselves out.

      But as to the opening point you made… Yes, it is truly a great loss. I don’t think there is a person, dead or alive, that didn’t have some idea worth something to at least some portion of the market at some point in their lives.

      I know that the day will come, though. Tomorrow, 100 years from now… But things will change!

    • Buster May 31, 2012, 11:32 am

      Exactly, Mark.

      I spent some years studying & working in this particular field, & can only conclude this is what is going on.

    • Buster May 31, 2012, 11:53 am

      The 3D printer technology will revolutionise the way we buy products. I believe it can already make complex objects such as mobile phones etc. It will finally show why the Powerz sold the present production technology to the Chinese….It was already out of date technology!
      Along with huge energy resources it will allow the USA to turn the whole trade balance on it’s head, which is no doubt now a necessary developement due to the growing worldwide rejection of the petrodollar protection racket. It’s all there, quietly getting ready to be the next boom.
      Unfortunatley though, historically the Powerz always like to impoverish the sheeple with debt rapayments just before the next big economic advancement is let loose, so that they themselves have the predominant ownership of it from the get go, so we will have to sit through the fabricated austerty for the time being, just to pander to their greedy as pigs, twisted psychology.
      Something to contemplate when thinking of those stuck in the tent cities or living in their cars whilst their homes lay empty & boarded up, now owned by the banksters.
      Don’t you just love corporate fascism!

  • Mark Uzick May 31, 2012, 9:38 am

    Very interesting: I hadn’t considered the evils of trade war as an argument against patents; but, ethics being more important than economic fecundity, I will accept the validity of patents if, in spite of all the economic harm that they do – regardless of rationalizations to the contrary – someone can explain how their violation represents fraud or aggression.

    I doubt this case can be made though, as arguments that depend upon a divergence between the moral and the practical are usually some rationalization for special interests’ own practical benefit at everyone elses’ expense.

    Of course it makes sense that the rationalizations for the initiation of force to protect established interests against competition would be self reenforcing in this way – all socialistic/interventionist arguments are – it’s only a matter of how far you want to or dare to take the principle that: “Liberty is wasteful and inefficient – the ‘invisible hand’ represents conflict of interest, waste and foolish pursuits that our wise leaders will forbid for our own good and the good of society.”; we hear this kind of thing all the time, for example: “The safety-net of state welfare programs, social security and medicare are essential to a free society.” or “State and federal regulations are what allow a free market to function.”

    Corrupt established interests, whether political, financial or corporate, always use arguments that exploit people’s fear of liberty and concomitant responsibilities – their suspicions, envies and xenophobia to protect their wealth and power from competition.

    That war, suffering and death are the end result of nationalistic protectionism is obviously of less frightful portent than the chilling specter of liberty is to our society of jail birds.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 11:10 am

      Hi, Mark. I think this will acutally go well today! (what would Picard say to THAT, steve4?)

      You asked, and so I shall deliver. How are the violations of patent an act of fraud or aggression?

      No single violation of exclusive right can prove the harms of violation and/or not having patents altogether. Or rather, trying to illustrate at the micro level would seem to make patents a petty thing. To see why they are needed, we need to look at the big picture…

      First, in purely economic terms, and as I’m sure you know, innovation is an absolute must, for all peoples. But ideas mean nothing without the resources to manufacture them. Simply put, the more that manufactured goods take up on the ships, rails, etc, the more expensive it becomes to transport both the goods and the natural resources. And unfortunately, there is not a place on earth that has as much natural resources as the people there would like to have. Under the growing strain of stagnation and deficiency of natural resources (for persistent problems rarely if ever persist in static fashion), the soldiers and mobs would mobilize.

      Second — and I believe you already understand this point, but if not — in totally unrestrained trade, only the very few would be able to “nail it” (some of the time). The rest would be blind horses, blindly pulling their carts to who knows where, and to who knows what outcome. The logical conclusion is pretty simple to see: The horses will choose to not move or act only out of desperate courage. The resulting stagnation and deficiency of resources would see the soldiers and mobs mobilized. This is not surprising, though, as when only a relative handful can be successful, we have what is akin to (if not excatly like) central planning.

      And finally, if not borders and patents; and if not unrestrained trade; and if not for our own economic good…

      The only alternative is what patents are today, which is idea ownership. For all that the great innovators of the day are heralded as such — and I’m not saying they’re idiots, mind — there is not a one among them that doesn’t regard patents as ownership of an idea. Intentionally or not, this makes them not at all unlike the usurpers of the past and present. Kings, burearucrats, politiicians… The “idea owners” just use a different means to become the central force, the central plan of all markets. And because that is the inevitable result from the common trait of tyrannts, we can and do experience the stagnation and resource deficiencies that mobilize the soldiers and angry mobs.

      Your turn…

    • Mark Uzick May 31, 2012, 12:34 pm

      No single violation of exclusive right can prove the harms of violation and/or not having patents altogether. Or rather, trying to illustrate at the micro level would seem to make patents a petty thing. To see why they are needed, we need to look at the big picture…

      Are you saying that fraud or aggression on the individual is too petty to consider? You’re not going to make any headway with arguments based on violations of collective rights with someone that believes that natural rights are individual rights.

      First, in purely economic terms, and as I’m sure you know, innovation is an absolute must, for all peoples.

      I agree that innovation is a good thing; but to say that it’s an absolute must for all peoples flies in the face of the evidence of stagnant, superstitious and oppressive societies, both past and present.

      But ideas mean nothing without the resources to manufacture them. Simply put, the more that manufactured goods take up on the ships, rails, etc, the more expensive it becomes to transport both the goods and the natural resources. And unfortunately, there is not a place on earth that has as much natural resources as the people there would like to have. Under the growing strain of stagnation and deficiency of natural resources (for persistent problems rarely if ever persist in static fashion), the soldiers and mobs would mobilize.

      Actually, free trade increases the value and abundance of resources; spreads wealth and makes peaceful cooperation more profitable than theft and conquest. Your outlook seems both Hobbesian and Malthusian to me.

      Second — and I believe you already understand this point, but if not — in totally unrestrained trade, only the very few would be able to “nail it” (some of the time). The rest would be blind horses, blindly pulling their carts to who knows where, and to who knows what outcome. The logical conclusion is pretty simple to see: The horses will choose to not move or act only out of desperate courage. The resulting stagnation and deficiency of resources would see the soldiers and mobs mobilized. This is not surprising, though, as when only a relative handful can be successful, we have what is akin to (if not excatly like) central planning.

      I don’t think I have the time to write a book on free market economic theory right now, but the above is quite shocking to hear from a Ron Paul supporter.

      The only alternative is what patents are today, which is idea ownership. For all that the great innovators of the day are heralded as such — and I’m not saying they’re idiots, mind — there is not a one among them that doesn’t regard patents as ownership of an idea.

      Patents ARE ownership of ideas, just as slaves are ownership of people. Patents aren’t even used as property in many cases, but as hostages to be used to protect a company’s rights against other companies’ aggressive use of patents.

      Intentionally or not, this makes them not at all unlike the usurpers of the past and present. Kings, burearucrats, politiicians… The “idea owners” just use a different means to become the central force, the central plan of all markets. And because that is the inevitable result from the common trait of tyrannts, we can and do experience the stagnation and resource deficiencies that mobilize the soldiers and angry mobs.

      I must be completely misconstruing your point, as I agree with it. It’s as if you’ve finally awakened from a statist nightmare in which you found yourself to be a “progressive” professor of economics.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 2:00 pm

      “Are you saying that fraud or aggression on the individual is too petty to consider?”

      No. I’m saying that a single incident of infringement cannot illustrate aggression and fraud. A single, or even a handful of violations, won’t cause the instablities that I proceeded to explain.

      “I agree that innovation is a good thing; but to say that it’s an absolute must for all peoples flies in the face of the evidence of stagnant, superstitious and oppressive societies, both past and present.”

      It was a generally true statement, Mark, not an order for everyone to obey. Speaking of which, where is it said in either the Constitution or my presentation and posts that the state and/or federal government can and should force anyone to patent something or to renew or drop a patent? And bear in mind, the Congress only has the responsibility of establishing the patent office, so that they can be recognized and enforced.

      “Patents ARE ownership of ideas, just as slaves are ownership of people. Patents aren’t even used as property in many cases, but as hostages to be used to protect a company’s rights against other companies’ aggressive use of patents. ”

      I made it sufficiently clear that they are no such thing. That they are treated as such today is no fault of the Constitution, nor of my presentation of it. Anyway, and again, patents are the exclusive right of a thing in domestic commerce, which means that foreign copies are infringement via smuggling.

      As for the rest of your disagreements… I stand firmly by what I said, regardless of what Ron Paul or anyone else says. Patents and borders provide a necessary stabilization factor that originates from no other source. It is useful information precisely because it is binding, but limited in the area of application. If it is not binding, then it is not reliable information.

      Without that, the horses and carts are blind, afraid, and desperate. The only other alternative to that and patents is forced central planning, be it through technocrats, bureaucrats, royalty, etc. And from that certain outcome does Constitutional exclusive right spring. A single or handful of violations of exclusive right will never make that apparent. Only corrupting the patent or dropping them altogether will.

    • JimK May 31, 2012, 5:14 pm

      I hold five U.S. Patents and there are a couple of points that require further illumination. The ‘monopoly’ only lasts for a while – used to be 17 years from the date of issuance of the patent, and now is (I think) 23 years from the date of filing – some patents take years to secure, btw. In order to maintain the patent, the inventor must pay escalating fees every few years, which end up being something like 10k or more near the end of the term of the patent – and after that, it becomes public domain forever.

      For anything that is complicated to work out, there would simply be little incentive and innovation would proceed at a very slow pace. The idea that it is ‘fair’ for someone to spend years developing an idea, only to have some interloper copy the unveiled finished product and reap the benefits is ridiculous. I would argue that an invention is a piece of intellectual property that is ‘built’ and enjoyed by it’s producer – for a few years, anyway – and if the inventor drags their ass, the increasing fees they must pay to maintain their patent light a fire under them to manifest the idea – before it belongs to all of us.

      Copyright law is another matter – the heirs of the inventor can renew the copyright forever – I think this was a Disney provision to protect Mickey, but I’m not sure. I don’t think they should live forever, either.

      The patenting of life itself is in my opinion an abomination. I thought the patenting of natural compounds is supposed to not be legal, but that too seems to be creeping into the picture – I recently read something about the patenting of cannabinoids (fractions of MJ) that have profound abilities to safely treat a variety of neurological conditions and cancer.

      It seems easy to separate the ‘innovation’ goal of the patent framework from the ‘oppression’ goal, such as patenting the human genome or parts of it so as to monopolize genetic medicine.

      I find the current push by the ‘99%’ to eliminate patents to be a very regressive idea. The question, as usual, is in how it is enforced and whether the little guy gets the same shake as the big players. BTW, it costs a half million or more to defend a patent in a full blown lawsuit. When I learned this, I realized that for the vast majority of inventions, it is not worth getting a patent, and indeed only 1% of patents granted turn a profit for the inventor.

    • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 5:44 pm

      Jim K,

      Thanks for weighing in, Jim! I think your knowledge and experience sheds much light on what is wrong with how patents are regarded in our modern times. Basically, it comes down to this… The patent office (in a sane world) has three jobs. One, file. Two, checking new submissions to see if they’re already patented. Three, provide that information to those persons or parties who need it. So, yeah, things are pretty screwed up as they are. The job of the patent office really shouldn’t be a $10k/patent task. Not saying you’re full of it, just saying that things as they are, are a bunch of horse crap. Ten-thousand dollars… Get real!!! Same with infringement suits. No way they were ever meant to be that expensive. That is the dead-ringer that things are being done improperly, I think.

      And I completely agree on the bioethics issue. In as far as human beings go, anyway. Everything else would fall under the specific purpose of the sciences, stated in the Constitutional clause pertaining to exclusive right. That said, and it seems a number of people are missing this today, exclusive right in no way grants idea ownership. The powers that be, and all that, but the simple fact is that the Constitution would not agree. And that means we don’t have to agree with the corrupt. Anyone with the means and the will can produce anything protected by exclusive right. It is supposed to be “public domain” upon being patented.

      But I’m talking too much. So, thanks for the inside picture.

    • Steve May 31, 2012, 8:10 pm

      Copyright falls into Public Domain at a fixed point in time. As always there are ways to extend Copyright by putting the copyright into the person of a corporation, which in this case has rights superior.

  • steve4 May 31, 2012, 9:00 am

    Patents, tariffs, free trade…… Everyday the human race is looking more and more like the fe’rengi race from Star Trek. What would Picard say?

  • Benjamin May 31, 2012, 7:27 am

    Thanks for selecting the accompanying picture, Rick. I had completely forgotten about that. And quite illustrative it is; it really is possible in this modern world to uphold patents in that way. And as with all things, advancing technologies only make it more effective and expedient!


Exit From This Page Back to Trades