Re: [LandCafe] Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- Where did you get your law degree from again, Roy.To get a patent from the government, you must give the plans and details of the invention to the government. Everything becomes public knowledge, ie anyone can go to the patent office and look up the details. For giving the details, the government protects the patent holder for a limited time from someone USING the invention. Quid pro quo. If you don't share the invention, you don't get the time limited protection.I've laid out the theory behind the law. Could it be organized a different way, of course. Could the period of protection be shorter, I'd say yes. And are there things which should not really patentable at all like a naturally occurring gene.The reason those engineers don't look at the patents is because they are involved in independent engineering for which they are going to seek their own patents. But they will be looking at old patents whose protection time has expired. But if there is no patent system then the details of the invention are not shared at all so there is nothing to look at.There may well be better ways to encourage invention and the arts and secure the knowledge for posterity, but I think one needs to first understand the theory.JDKOn Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:46 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> Patents are a contract.
No, they are not.
> The inventor gives the invention to the public,
No, he does not.
> in exchange for
> a kind of non-compete privilege for a limited period.
I.e., he does not give it to the public.
> Thus the sharing of knowledge is promoted.
ROTFL!! Ah, no. I know, personally, a top engineer at Nortel (now working for Sienna) whose team designed or invented most of the switching technology the Internet has run on since the early 90s, and whose name is on dozens of patents. To deter lawsuits by other companies, he is NOT PERMITTED TO READ their disclosure documents, lest he get an idea that his employer could later be sued for using. Patents PREVENT the sharing of knowledge, at least among those who could most readily use it.
> Without patents, the inventor has to take steps to
> keep the secrets of the invention secret
Garbage. There are many ways we could ensure inventions reach the public domain without granting patent monopolies: prizes offered for solutions to problems; scholarly priority; awards after the fact like the Nobel Prizes; etc. Patent monopolies were just the traditional way royal favors were handed out, like monopolies on the cinnamon trade, or licenses to charge tolls on public roads.
> and that secrecy keeping costs
> something and no one can improve upon the invention and their is a risk that the secret is lost forever without the patent.
Some technology from ancient times was indeed kept secret and lost. These days, with modern information technology, that is virtually impossible, even assuming that prizes, etc. do not ensure inventions reach the public domain.
> So there is a trade off.
That is the theory, but in fact patent owners and lawyers get pretty much everything, and the public gets very little in return.
> I will be the first to argue that the time limitation is currently too long
> and that patent benefits should only accrue to natural persons and not corporations.
Patents are almost useless to natural persons because it is so difficult and expensive to defend them. It's hard even for large corporations.
> But there is a bargain going, the priviledge is being paid
> for with knowledge, just like exclusive right to land would be paid by lvt.
In theory, maybe, but in practice it does not work that way, and there are far better ways to pay for knowledge than with grants of monopoly privileges.
> copyright is a different thing. It is to promote the arts, so again there is a bargain between public and artists. Again, lasts too long.
Copyright does not promote the arts, it stifles them.
> Artists unlike normally laborers are not making or involved with the
> production of fungible things, but are usually making one of kinds.
Most artists are making things that they intend to be copied multiple times.
-- Roy Langston
Very truly yours
John D. Kromkowski
6803 York Road -- Suite 207
Baltimore, MD 21212
This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> > > > > If I write a book and it sells well for
> > > > > 5 years, where am I being paid many times?
> > > >
> > > > You are being paid each time someone buys one.
> > > > Surely this is obvious.
> > >
> > > I am not. Over 5 years if the book
> > > makes say £100,000 and then publication halts,
> > > then I have been paid once for that book run.
> > No. If you had been paid a flat fee,
> > that would be one payment.
> Roy, so what!
> If I get paid one fee at the end of a book run or drip fed each time a book is sold, it doesn't matter. One thing that is clear, it is MY book and MY work.No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers. For whose work YOU are being paid multiple times.
> The most recorded song in history, by countless artists, is "Yesterday" written by Paul McCartney. He gets a royalty for each record sold, or played on air, by those who copy.Getting paid millions of times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> Those who copy still make money as well.Some do, some don't. How would that be relevant?
> I see nothing wrong with that. Paul McCartney has never stopped any of them recording his song.Then why would they pay him for doing nothing?
> All the proceeds of his original go to him and rightly so..No, it is not just "his original," but all the other arrangements and versions as well.
> > > He took someone else's effort.He indisputably did.
> > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
> > OWN effort, creating a new product which
> > others did not create.
> He did not.
> He took the efforts of other authors R&D and rolled it into one book.No, he did his own R&D, making one better book using ideas from worse books.
> I have always thought of doing the same myself. Within a few weeks a "new" book can be knocked up by using other people's efforts. I am sure it happens all the time.And there is nothing wrong with it.
> > > > > What about the case of a large companyBecause they refuse to know the facts about how land titles and other privileges, which are no part of a free market, steal from the productive and give to the privileged.
> > > > > making millions using your work and you get nothing?
> > > >
> > > > Good for them: it means they are more productive
> > > > and efficient than their competitors, who have
> > > > access to the same knowledge and ideas. If you
> > > > want to get paid for your work, make an arrangement
> > > > to get paid before it enters the public domain.
> > >
> > > That is pure naivety.
> > It is fact.
> Many Socialists claim all the free market does is allow most money to gather with a few percent of the population.
> They claim a free for all does this so control, or state ownership is needed. We see it now with powerful corporations.I see powerful corporations enriching themselves through privilege, not the free market.
> The right never thought through their ideal - the repercussions of when the free-market is rigged or monopolized.The right thinks freedom consists in the privileged being free to remove others' freedom with government's help.
> Roy, you have this ideal of a free for all re: patents and copyright. I agree with it in principle. But when thought through it falls apart.No, it does not.
> The money will rise to the top.<sigh> How much money do Paul McCartney, DisneyCorp, etc. have under the CURRENT system, John?
> I know it is not right. I do not know the solution to the problem - because I have never thought it through.That's OK. I have.
-- Roy Langston