Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
DavidV

Are patents stifling innovation in mobile devices?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That's not what I said. Reread what I wrote. I said that being the CAUSAL derivative of another person's work is a necessary precondition for being property.

And abstractions are not caused?

Why would you stress the word CAUSAL unless you think that causation does not apply to concepts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that happens in the academic world with ideas all the time. The correct way to deal with them is similar to the correct way to deal with those who market bad ideas that are versions of good ideas and is simply to require that retailers give factually correct information about who produced them. Then the producers of this faulty camera would actually HAVE to make the same product or market their improvements independently.

I doubt you understand how important reputation is for a product or a brand. Once either acquires a bad reputation, by whatever means, it's very hard to overcome.

By your reasoning an inventor who comes up with a new product should have to bear the additional responsibility of overcoming whatever bad consequences arise from misuse of his ideas. and for what? So that people who can't come up with new ideas should benefit from his work? For some egalitarian ideal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are agreed there, which is why this discussion is about establishing what is indeed properly "property" so that we can identify the proper rights. My statements on how the sporting technique patents would be bad for the sport were simply direct answers to your challenge to show that they would indeed be objectively bad for the sport, that's all.
Good; now the question that remains is whether you acknowledge, in the light of my most recent observations, that such a patent would not in fact be bad for the sport to the point of making an exception to the general rule about property (that government should protect property rights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good; now the question that remains is whether you acknowledge, in the light of my most recent observations, that such a patent would not in fact be bad for the sport to the point of making an exception to the general rule about property (that government should protect property rights).
With all due respect, David, re-read my very last post (the one you just quoted above). No one is arguing for an exception to government protection of property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all due respect, David, re-read my very last post (the one you just quoted above). No one is arguing for an exception to government protection of property rights.
With all due respect, BD, you appear to be arguing that whether or not a thing that a man creates with his mind is or is not property, depending on pragmatic effects on others. This is an incomprehensible notion from the Objectivist perspective. Unless you are now supporting the notion of a sports method patent, you must recognize that your apparent notion of property is in fact philosophically wrong. The concept "property" is not defined in terms of "effect on others". Do you recognise that fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all due respect, BD, you appear to be arguing that whether or not a thing that a man creates with his mind is or is not property, depending on pragmatic effects on others. This is an incomprehensible notion from the Objectivist perspective. Unless you are now supporting the notion of a sports method patent, you must recognize that your apparent notion of property is in fact philosophically wrong. The concept "property" is not defined in terms of "effect on others". Do you recognise that fact?

I recognise that fact and it is the strawman I'm trying to identify for you.

Let's go back a few pages.

Do you recall saying this?

I think we would be better off with something like the Fosbury Flop, where secrecy is not an essential element of utility. Then a man could patent a method of jumping higher than anyone else, having discovered that you can gain an extra foot of altitude by coughing and looking to the left just before you leap. It's useful and non-obvious, so it is patentable. And so what. Other people can learn how to jump, and can invent their own novel methods of jumping higher. It is not bad for the sport. Surely you must agree that in this kind of case, there is no harm to such a patent. (Surely if you disagree you will state your reasons for disagreeing).
-my bold.

You said that since it is not bad for the sport, there is no harm to such a patent. and you said i should state my reasons for disagreeing if I do disagree. So, i stated my reasons for disagreeing by showing why it is actually bad for the sport - in response to your direct challenge. I was not saying that this is what makes it NOT property. I was merely answering your challenge of showing that it is actually bad for the sport, as you requested.

You then took that answer - an answer to your question - as my argument for what defines property, even after I had stated that this is not my argument for that, but merely a response to a claim you had made about the effects of the patent on the sport.

This, is what i was referring to when i asked you to re-read my last post.

Now, just to get perspective, recall that you also said this:

I've move [sic] on to the next question -- "So what?". You haven't demonstrated the evil, so why should we avoid it?

This means that if I demonstrate that the patent is "evil", we should avoid it, right? So, this is how we got into the discussion of demonstrating how it is bad for the sport. Now you say this approach is an incomprehensible notion from the Objectivist perspective. And yet you endorsed it above. You suggested that the patent should be avoided if it has these "evil" effects. If you say it is not Objectivist because it is about an effect on "others," no one here is focusing only on others, but on the sport itself (see above), as per your suggestion. Unless you meant something else by "evil"? (I just assumed by that you meant what you said above: "bad for the sport")

So how would you demonstrate "the evil"?

[but keep also in mind that this part is not a discussion on the conception of property, but on the effects of patents (or at least some patents). Our conception of property will have to be challenged if, as you also suggest above, we are forced to abandon (some) patents because of "the evil," if those patents protect property according to our present formulation. If you forget those two aspects/stages of the discussion, you will inevitably construct another straw man about my Objectivist notions. With all due respect. :confused:]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And abstractions are not caused?

Why would you stress the word CAUSAL unless you think that causation does not apply to concepts?

What I mean is that IP protects a type of thing. Yet the fact is that a type of thing cannot be owned. Instances of things manifest in the physically concrete can be protected from certain kinds of influences, and that includes acquiring enough interaction with it to produce a copy FROM the original when said interaction occurred without the consent of who owns the physical concrete.

This is why I stress causalty. Two people on opposite sides of the planet who have not influenced one another were both the cause of IP. A thing's similarity to something else is not a basis for determining protection. Rather, it's whether or not there was a causal relationship between the creator and the creation that determines whether or not it is protected.

If I'm in Canada and you're in Australia, and we both come up with a gravitational manipulator that works the same way, save for details, your inventing of the gravitational manipulator in Australia did not exert a causal influence on me inventing the gravitational manipulator in Canada.

Furthermore if I read a book, and then I get in a serious accident which made me get amnesia, then I write a book which is not the same but has a lot of similarity, I own the book that I created just as the original author owns theirs, because there was a break in the causal chains of connection from me getting amnesia that caused me to write something entirely of my own effort without any influence of the original book I read all that time ago.

This is why I emphasize CAUSALTY. While the law doesn't respect IP my way, it should, because what matters is a causal relationship between creator and creation, not simply that the type of creation was first created by its particular creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how would you demonstrate "the evil"?
If you have an argument to make, please feel free to make it. My conclusion is that patent law of adequate, that at worst the practice of PTO has been over-generous in granting patents which are not novel, non-obvious or well-defined, and that as an example of something that could in principle be patented, a method of jumping higher in sports could be protected by patent. That last fact does not necessitate any change in patent law. I reject any allegation that such a patent wrongly harms anyone by restricting their rights, or has any consequences for "the sport itself". I also reject the suggestion that my saying this means that I am endorsing a pramatist view of property.

Read Rand's essay on patents and copyrights to get what I consider to be the only rational effect-based principle regarding IP (namely duration of IP), which, as she clearly shows, is because of the nature of IP.

If you are not interested in exploring the intellectual issues and making a case for a particular position, you don't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt you understand how important reputation is for a product or a brand. Once either acquires a bad reputation, by whatever means, it's very hard to overcome.

By your reasoning an inventor who comes up with a new product should have to bear the additional responsibility of overcoming whatever bad consequences arise from misuse of his ideas. and for what? So that people who can't come up with new ideas should benefit from his work? For some egalitarian ideal?

Are you'assuming a definition of new that means 'new in the context of the physical events on earth' or 'new in the context of a person's individual knowledge'?

Basically, do you mean 'new to the world' or 'new to me'? If something is not new to you then you shouldn't be able to claim that you created it, and thus don't have the rights for it.

Also, I won't respond to your straw man in the second paragraph unless you can rephrase what you said in a manner not so presumptuous. Like I care about the rest of the world. All I want to do is be able to develop things of my own without other people who had nothing to do with my creative process being able to stop me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also reject the suggestion that my saying this means that I am endorsing a pramatist view of property.

I said no such thing.

If capitalism is the right political system, it will also objectively have the good results on society. Is this pragmatism? I don't believe so.

Similarly, if ip patents are a right system (within capitalism), then they will also have good results (within their particular fields). Is this pragmatism? I don't believe so. I think the thread starter had that point in mind.

By examining whether a principle has good or bad results, we can work backwards to see what is wrong (or right) with the principle.

My discussion so far has been to see if particular "valid" patents do not objectively do much more harm ("evil") than good and to explore if there is something in common among those patents that tend to lead to harm - or if indeed this common principle applies to all patents in general. I'm not sure I understand why you consider this a sign that I am not interested in "exploring the intellectual issues." I wanted to make this exploration through a discussion testing (the objective results of) those cases that i "intuitively" thought were absurd even though they were qualified by our conception of property stated by many here, and to come up with a principle from this integration and differentiation that could reformulate that conception. That's where we got stuck, apparently.

Surely this is not an irrational method of investigation?

[i will now read Rand's essay to see where you're coming from.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is that IP protects a type of thing. Yet the fact is that a type of thing cannot be owned. Instances of things manifest in the physically concrete can be protected from certain kinds of influences, and that includes acquiring enough interaction with it to produce a copy FROM the original when said interaction occurred without the consent of who owns the physical concrete.

You assert ideas can't be physically protected, but concrete things can. But a patent system is precisely a method of protecting ideas about "types of things", so as a factual statement it is false. I think what you really mean is the normative sense of the statement: ideas about "types of things" should not be physically protected. But because intellectual products still retain the essential characteristic of being man-made they should be protected.

This is why I stress causalty. Two people on opposite sides of the planet who have not influenced one another were both the cause of IP. A thing's similarity to something else is not a basis for determining protection. Rather, it's whether or not there was a causal relationship between the creator and the creation that determines whether or not it is protected.

If I'm in Canada and you're in Australia, and we both come up with a gravitational manipulator that works the same way, save for details, your inventing of the gravitational manipulator in Australia did not exert a causal influence on me inventing the gravitational manipulator in Canada.

Ah, the independent inventor problem. Perhaps we can repair the patent laws to prevent such a situation? For example, in these exerpts from U.S. law:

35 U.S.C. 273 Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor.

(a) DEFINITIONS -

(B) DEFENSE TO INFRINGEMENT.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- It shall be a defense to an action for infringement under section 271 of this title with respect to any subject matter that would otherwise infringe one or more claims for a method in the patent being asserted against a person, if such person had, acting in good faith, actually reduced the subject matter to practice at least 1 year before the effective filing date of such patent, and commercially used the subject matter before the effective filing date of such patent.

(4) BURDEN OF PROOF.- A person asserting the defense under this section shall have the burden of establishing the defense by clear and convincing evidence.

(9) INVALIDITY.- A patent shall not be deemed to be invalid under section 102 or 103 of this title solely because a defense is raised or established under this section.

Hypothetical example of application:

Coca-Cola Inc. protects its formula for Coke as a trade secret. I later patent the method for making Coca-Cola. I cannot use my patent to destroy or take over the business of Coca-Cola because they have this independent inventor defense available to them.

If the independent invention is less than one year earlier than the filing date of the patent, the independent inventor has simply lost the patent race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you'assuming a definition of new that means 'new in the context of the physical events on earth' or 'new in the context of a person's individual knowledge'?

I'm assuming adults have no need to play semantic games.

All I want to do is be able to develop things of my own without other people who had nothing to do with my creative process being able to stop me.

How is stealing other people's intellectual property a creative process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm assuming adults have no need to play semantic games.

I suspect you are the one playing games, by not giving an exact clarification of what you mean by 'new'.

How is stealing other people's intellectual property a creative process?

How is independently inventing something stealing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After finally reading Ayn Rand's article in the online ayn rand lexicon, I see that in her theory she makes a distinction between discovery and invention.

So far, this is how I understand that distinction with respect to my discussion above with David and others:

A new chess opening is a discovery. So, not patentable.

The Fosbury Flop in high jump is also just a discovery, i think. it is a discovery of how to jump better or higher. To patent that is to demand that people jump in a way that they know is not the best. it is to demand that they work with backward knowledge or ignorance, in short. This is not patentable. Neither is any novel way of throwing a basketball.

A new way of sowing seeds quickly by making particular novel movements is also just a discovery. Can't be patented.

New ways of moving the camera or rearranging lighting in movie production for certain effects is a discovery. It is not a new object. Not patentable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After finally reading Ayn Rand's article in the online ayn rand lexicon, I see that in her theory she makes a distinction between discovery and invention.

So far, this is how I understand that distinction with respect to my discussion above with David and others:

A new chess opening is a discovery. So, not patentable.

The Fosbury Flop in high jump is also just a discovery, i think. it is a discovery of how to jump better or higher. To patent that is to demand that people jump in a way that they know is not the best. it is to demand that they work with backward knowledge or ignorance, in short. This is not patentable. Neither is any novel way of throwing a basketball.

A new way of sowing seeds quickly by making particular novel movements is also just a discovery. Can't be patented.

New ways of moving the camera or rearranging lighting in movie production for certain effects is a discovery. It is not a new object. Not patentable.

So what are the defining characteristics of Discovery vs Invention? Would a new procedure for surgical operation be a discovery or an invention?

More importantly, why is preventing other people from doing the same as you do so important? Sure you shouldn't want them to copy you, but I define copy as this: A method whereby a person or group of persons acquire a replica BY MEANS OF INTERACTING WITH THE ORIGINAL AS OPPOSED TO INTERACTING WITH NATURE. You can see that if we both are on opposite ends of the world and we both invent a new kind of car, it is not essential that they are the same type of thing, only whether or not your product is acquired from the effort you put into nature or acquired from another person's effort.

The 'from' is an important part, and is why I refer to causality as being an essential prerequisite for valid intellectual property theft claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what are the defining characteristics of Discovery vs Invention? Would a new procedure for surgical operation be a discovery or an invention?

More importantly, why is preventing other people from doing the same as you do so important? Sure you shouldn't want them to copy you, but I define copy as this: A method whereby a person or group of persons acquire a replica BY MEANS OF INTERACTING WITH THE ORIGINAL AS OPPOSED TO INTERACTING WITH NATURE. You can see that if we both are on opposite ends of the world and we both invent a new kind of car, it is not essential that they are the same type of thing, only whether or not your product is acquired from the effort you put into nature or acquired from another person's effort.

The 'from' is an important part, and is why I refer to causality as being an essential prerequisite for valid intellectual property theft claims.

Your proposed "interaction with nature" basis cannot be objectively determined.

Once patented, any subsequent inventor would have the burden of proof that his invention was derived independently from the patent. Proving the negative proposition that the inventor did not see or read about the original invention is practically impossible, except for the case of an invention that predated the patented one (which is not subsequent after all).

Patents are granted on a "first-come, first-serve" basis because it is the only objective basis. Causality is the basis of property but the requirement that law be objective limits the claims that can be made.

The defining characteristic of a discovery versus an invention parallels the distinction of kinds of facts as metaphysical or man-made. Mere declarations of truth do not create those truths. Practical applications qua facts exist only because someone created them. Embedding a previously undiscovered truth in a new patented invention creates no claim on the underlying truth.

And yes, surgical methods are patentable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your proposed "interaction with nature" basis cannot be objectively determined.

Once patented, any subsequent inventor would have the burden of proof that his invention was derived independently from the patent. Proving the negative proposition that the inventor did not see or read about the original invention is practically impossible, except for the case of an invention that predated the patented one (which is not subsequent after all).

Patents are granted on a "first-come, first-serve" basis because it is the only objective basis. Causality is the basis of property but the requirement that law be objective limits the claims that can be made.

First-come first-serve is NOT the only objective basis. In fact it's only objective in situations where there only exists a limited number of possible results regardless of how much effort is put into it.

Documenting your personal creation process is a perfectly valid method to prove that you actually invented it on your own. There are also such things as business espionage laws, and those have their own methods of enforcement. A person can be caught doing certain things and this would prove guilt.

Just because you can't think of a way to do something doesn't mean that such a way can't exist. Likewise, just because you think there is a flaw in something doesn't mean that the flaw makes the situation impossible.

As for who has the burden of proof, patents would be guided by civil law, and both sides stand to have their property rights violated if arbitration is not done objectively. There should be no special privilege of altering the burden of proof just because someone was the first in time to invent someone.

The defining characteristic of a discovery versus an invention parallels the distinction of kinds of facts as metaphysical or man-made. Mere declarations of truth do not create those truths. Practical applications qua facts exist only because someone created them. Embedding a previously undiscovered truth in a new patented invention creates no claim on the underlying truth.

And yes, surgical methods are patentable.

It sounds to me like you're reading something out of a book. Can you explain what 'qua facts' and 'only because someone created them' mean and why those two are not contradictory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First-come first-serve is NOT the only objective basis. In fact it's only objective in situations where there only exists a limited number of possible results regardless of how much effort is put into it.

For as long as you care to propose alternate basis I will be happy to demonstrate their shortcomings.

Documenting your personal creation process is a perfectly valid method to prove that you actually invented it on your own. There are also such things as business espionage laws, and those have their own methods of enforcement. A person can be caught doing certain things and this would prove guilt.

Patents are published and public. The very standard of novelty incorporates a standard a familiarity with all of the prior art by one of ordinary skill. Ignorance of the prior art is no excuse for infringement. In general, ignorance of the law is never a defense. Patents have the status of laws for their duration.

Just because you can't think of a way to do something doesn't mean that such a way can't exist. Likewise, just because you think there is a flaw in something doesn't mean that the flaw makes the situation impossible.

As for who has the burden of proof, patents would be guided by civil law, and both sides stand to have their property rights violated if arbitration is not done objectively. There should be no special privilege of altering the burden of proof just because someone was the first in time to invent someone.

The burden of proof is not being switched around arbitrarily, or at all. Official actions by governments have a presumption of validity, because they are official. Patents are granted on a first-come first-serve basis because everyone who comes after the first is presumed to be familiar with the prior art. Ignorance is not a defense.

It sounds to me like you're reading something out of a book. Can you explain what 'qua facts' and 'only because someone created them' mean and why those two are not contradictory?

Well I did consult the Lexicon entry for patents and copyrights just before writing that, so it is a paraphrase.

qua –adverb as; as being; in the character or capacity of: The work of art qua art can be judged by aesthetic criteria only.

Discoveries and inventions are both facts, and in the character or capacity of being a fact can be judged as metaphysical or man-made. The man-made facts are the ones that exist only because someone created them, the metaphysical facts are all the others. As the two kinds of facts are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive no contradiction is possible.

Don't try to be clever by pointing out that discoveries are made by people. That would be the logical fallacy of equivocating the meaning of discovery, because discovery is used in the first sense as referring to the subject matter discovered, and in the second sense as an act by a person. In contrasting discoveries and inventions it is not the act of discovery that Rand (and I) compare with the act of invention, but the thing discovered with the thing invented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For as long as you care to propose alternate basis I will be happy to demonstrate their shortcomings.

Patents are published and public. The very standard of novelty incorporates a standard a familiarity with all of the prior art by one of ordinary skill. Ignorance of the prior art is no excuse for infringement. In general, ignorance of the law is never a defense. Patents have the status of laws for their duration.

Why should they have the status of laws? You have never explained that. Rights come before laws, and you have, in demonstrating the validity of patents, gone to law first rather than explain why the natural right exists in the first place.

The burden of proof is not being switched around arbitrarily, or at all. Official actions by governments have a presumption of validity, because they are official. Patents are granted on a first-come first-serve basis because everyone who comes after the first is presumed to be familiar with the prior art. Ignorance is not a defense.

Well I did consult the Lexicon entry for patents and copyrights just before writing that, so it is a paraphrase.

qua –adverb as; as being; in the character or capacity of: The work of art qua art can be judged by aesthetic criteria only.

Discoveries and inventions are both facts, and in the character or capacity of being a fact can be judged as metaphysical or man-made. The man-made facts are the ones that exist only because someone created them, the metaphysical facts are all the others. As the two kinds of facts are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive no contradiction is possible.

Don't try to be clever by pointing out that discoveries are made by people. That would be the logical fallacy of equivocating the meaning of discovery, because discovery is used in the first sense as referring to the subject matter discovered, and in the second sense as an act by a person. In contrasting discoveries and inventions it is not the act of discovery that Rand (and I) compare with the act of invention, but the thing discovered with the thing invented.

Man may have made the product, but the fact that the product works is not man-made, nor is the fact that IF the product is put together the way it is it will work. WHY it works isn't man-made, and the only man-made aspect is simply that things like that don't arrange themselves, but this is true of even discovery, because the facts of nature are being put together in people's minds. You aren't explaining enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More importantly, why is preventing other people from doing the same as you do so important? Sure you shouldn't want them to copy you, but I define copy as this: A method whereby a person or group of persons acquire a replica BY MEANS OF INTERACTING WITH THE ORIGINAL AS OPPOSED TO INTERACTING WITH NATURE.

Just so I understand you, let me ask you this: do you believe that if a person independently comes up with a tune that sounds exactly like a Beatles' song, he should be allowed to publish (and sell) that tune if he can prove that he never heard the Beatles song (perhaps because it has never been played in his part of the world)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should they have the status of laws? You have never explained that. Rights come before laws, and you have, in demonstrating the validity of patents, gone to law first rather than explain why the natural right exists in the first place.

Thomas M. Miovas first addressed the validation of property in post #16 of this thread. There was some further discusion after that. Property rights lead to property laws. Next.

Man may have made the product, but the fact that the product works is not man-made, nor is the fact that IF the product is put together the way it is it will work. WHY it works isn't man-made, and the only man-made aspect is simply that things like that don't arrange themselves, but this is true of even discovery, because the facts of nature are being put together in people's minds. You aren't explaining enough.

WHY anything works (knowledge) can't be patented, not because knowledge is not man-made but because it is not actual value but only a potential value. Due to the requirement for objectivity, products and methods with economic consequences are the domain of law and abstractions are not. That abstractions are not property has already been discussed in this thread starting with blackdiamond's question about equations.

If you have any new questions or objections, please state them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thomas M. Miovas first addressed the validation of property in post #16 of this thread. There was some further discusion after that. Property rights lead to property laws. Next.

So if I want to own a slave, and I buy one, it's my right? After all, property rights lead to property laws. Next!

...

You have to explain more than that. Why is it a property right for the first-to-invent and not for the second-to-invent and so on?

WHY anything works (knowledge) can't be patented, not because knowledge is not man-made but because it is not actual value but only a potential value. Due to the requirement for objectivity, products and methods with economic consequences are the domain of law and abstractions are not. That abstractions are not property has already been discussed in this thread starting with blackdiamond's question about equations.

If you have any new questions or objections, please state them.

I will read through it. Personally, I think it's an arbitrary line drawn around SOME things to make THEM property and not others. I will read through it to see which arguments were being missed, and which arguments were fallacious.

Just so I understand you, let me ask you this: do you believe that if a person independently comes up with a tune that sounds exactly like a Beatles' song, he should be allowed to publish (and sell) that tune if he can prove that he never heard the Beatles song (perhaps because it has never been played in his part of the world)?

Yes, exactly. Copyright is not a monopoly on the song itself, it is simply a protection against copying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I want to own a slave, and I buy one, it's my right? After all, property rights lead to property laws. Next!

Stolen concept. Next!

You have to explain more than that. Why is it a property right for the first-to-invent and not for the second-to-invent and so on?

Objectivity and logic. It is not logically consistent to use the prior art standard to prove an invention is not novel, and then ignore the prior art standard for a second-to-invent case.

Yes, exactly. Copyright is not a monopoly on the song itself, it is simply a protection against copying.

But that can never be proven. It would require a complete inventory and re-examination of a life and evertything in it. Short of that, the only rational way to interpret the exact recreation of the Beatles song would be that it was heard, somehow.

Even if the Beatles song was honestly recreated, the inability to disprove the default hypothesis that the song was the product of hearing the original song would require any judge or jury to find copyright violation. Law is practiced by human beings, none of whom have access to the omniscient perspective of a theoretical God. If you consider this a fault you are simply unreasonable.

That the copyright is on the form of work regardless of how it was created is the only objective and practical way to enforce copyright law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stolen concept. Next!

Inability to detect sarcasm. Next!

Objectivity and logic. It is not logically consistent to use the prior art standard to prove an invention is not novel, and then ignore the prior art standard for a second-to-invent case.

Well prior art is not a valid MORAL basis UNLESS by 'prior' they mean 'known and used'.

>>Yes, exactly. Copyright is not a monopoly on the song itself, it is simply a protection against copying.

But that can never be proven. It would require a complete inventory and re-examination of a life and evertything in it. Short of that, the only rational way to interpret the exact recreation of the Beatles song would be that it was heard, somehow.

Even if the Beatles song was honestly recreated, the inability to disprove the default hypothesis that the song was the product of hearing the original song would require any judge or jury to find copyright violation. Law is practiced by human beings, none of whom have access to the omniscient perspective of a theoretical God. If you consider this a fault you are simply unreasonable.

That the copyright is on the form of work regardless of how it was created is the only objective and practical way to enforce copyright law.

You are equivocating meanings of the word Objective, focusing on the pragmatic issue of whether or not it is easy to enforce the law. Objective does NOT mean exclusively materially practical. Morals such as "it is wrong to violate the rights of the innocent" are also Objective.

Not only that but such laws ARE enforceable without an omniscient perspective. You forget that facts of reality cannot be destroyed. Someone will find them if they exist and if the appropriate methods are used. Yes it would involve a lot of money and a lot of training, but the burden should be on the prosecution, not the defendant, to provide this, in the same way that enforcement of any other law works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, exactly. Copyright is not a monopoly on the song itself, it is simply a protection against copying.

Interesting. So i guess I should be allowed to even call my company "Microsoft" and trade as such for as long as I can show that I never heard of Microsoft when I thought of the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...