Re: communism, slavery, and richard evans schultes
- From: Mark Monson <MMONSON1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:50:22 -0500
Publius wrote:
(...)
Have you read the actual patent? It *should* specify, in detail, a particular, non-obvious use of USB in a "gaming environment." If it purports to protect any use of USB in a gaming environment, i.e., loading a game from a USB drive, then it should not have been patentable.
Don't tell royls, whose IP notions I just poured cold water on, but you're right that patent law needs a lot of cleanup. Like all other law it is a creature of politics, and hence suffers all the distortions, corruptions, and sleaze that politics entails.
intellectual property is useful sometimes
but it is also a tool of aggression used by corporations
to secure economic strangleholds
and has no basis in reality
Intellectual property rights have the same basis in principle as all other rights.
How do you figure that? Property in tangible products of labor can be said to
naturally derive from the labor itself. How can a twenty year government grant of
exclusion be anything but an arbitrary number? The justification for invention
patents is that they promote the common good. That is, patent grants make for more
inventions and a higher general prosperity. Whether or not patents actually live
up to this ambition is debatable. One thing is certain: patents belong to the
category of things government actively does in attempt to promote the common good;
they belong with farm subsidies, research grants, and welfare, not with houses,
cars, and crops.
Mark M.
.
- Prev by Date: questionable economic stat of the day
- Next by Date: Clarke-Groves Mechanism!
- Previous by thread: questionable economic stat of the day
- Next by thread: Clarke-Groves Mechanism!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
