Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt

Expand Messages
  • John David Kromkowski
    If you truly reverse engineer a product you are not violating any patent laws. It gets more complicated with copyrights. I d rather not get into with you. We
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 6, 2012
      If you truly reverse engineer a product you are not violating any patent laws.  It gets more complicated with copyrights.

      I'd rather not get into with you. We have a legal framework within which society creates laws, so sometimes it makes sense to understand the system.  Not all patent lawyers are crooks and liars, nor greedy as you propose. But whatever.


      On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > Where did you get your law degree from again, Roy.

      <yawn> Where did you get the erroneous notion that politicians' laws trump economic laws?

      > To get a patent from the government, you must give the plans and details of
      > the invention to the government. Everything becomes public knowledge,
      > ieanyone can go to the patent office and look up the details.

      I have just finished informing you that IN PRACTICE, they CAN'T, because of the greed of patent holders and the dishonesty of patent lawyers.

      > For giving
      > the details, the government protects the patent holder for a limited time from someone USING the invention.

      No, it does not, because the patent holder would in no way be harmed by someone else using the invention. To claim government "protects" the patent holder against some sort of harm by violating everyone else's rights to liberty is nothing but dishonest and disgraceful question-begging propaganda. You could with equal "honesty" and "logic" pretend that government "protected" slave owners from someone emancipating their slaves.

      > Quid pro quo. If you don't share the
      > invention, you don't get the time limited protection.

      But that's clearly NOT "sharing the invention." It's monopolizing it.

      > I've laid out the theory behind the law.

      You misspelled, "rationalization."

      > 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.

      I.e., I am right: the patent system blocks sharing of knowledge.

      > 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.

      Garbage. Any invention can be reverse engineered, and keeping technology secret is so difficult these days that governments have to resort to extraordinary measures to keep military technology from being copied by other countries.

      > 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.

      I have already described three better ways. Patents are themselves just an obsolete technology that date from the era before economists had explained how harmful monopoly privileges are.

      -- Roy Langston

      Very truly yours

      John D. Kromkowski
      6803 York Road -- Suite 207
      Baltimore, MD 21212

      Tel     410-377-6248
      Fax     410-372-0624
      Mobile  443-271-0500

      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.
    • roy_langston
      ... So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said. ... No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers.
      Message 142 of 142 , Dec 10, 2012
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- 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!

        So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.

        > 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.
        > >
        > > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
        > > OWN effort, creating a new product which
        > > others did not create.
        > He did not.

        He indisputably did.

        > 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 company
        > > > > > 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.

        Because 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.

        > 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.