My assumption was based on the knowledge that, as you said, the process of turning a bill into a law is so involved that anything so technical that did not have significant information backing it would be shot down. Politicians may have poor principles but they don’t get far without good STAFFS.
I am familiar enough with the history of copyright and patent law to know that current term limits for intellectual property were _ not _ arrived at by any objective or scientific process. If you wish to present evidence to the contrary, it is welcome. However, until then, your “assumption” that current limits are backed by “significant information” is just that – _ an assumption _ – and an erroneous one at that.
Existing law does NOT equate IP and physical property except in some very specific ways, i.e. one can steal both of them. Equating physical property with intellectual property because they are both “protected by the government” is definition by non-essentials. You could equally equate intellectual property with mallard ducks because THOSE are both “protected by the government”.
I have ALREADY explained and in DETAIL the essential difference between intellectual property and physical property. It is hardly MY fault that you fail to UNDERSTAND my arguements, and that CERTAINLY doesn’t mean that I’ve somehow “failed” to prove them.
I should think we can agree that existing law protects the owners of both physical and intellectual property. However, in the case of intellectual property, owners are protected only for a limited term. So, the question is, why provide limited but _ not _ indefinite protection for IP? You have defended term limits on IP by stating that man must “KEEP PRODUCING and not lay back and vegetate on the rewards of one single acheivement.” But you have not shown why that should be the case _ only _ for intellectual property and not for physical property.
I have explained the distinction. My “defense” of intellectual property time limits is simply that they fulfill the requirements of man’s life and thus are a moral necessity. I then proceeded to give several examples of why this is so. Do not attempt to substitute an example as the sole definition of my arguement. If you wish to argue with my examples, demonstrate that they are NOT true and thus, that my reasoning has improper premises.
I have not challenged the idea that man must “KEEP PRODUCING and not lay back and vegetate on the rewards of one single acheivement.” I am simply asking why this consideration should apply via the legal code to the owners of intellectual property but _ not _ to the owners of other forms of property.
My reasoning is simply this: Those laws are moral which fulfill the requirements of man’s metaphysical nature and survival qua man. Time limits on intellectual property fulfill one of those requirements. Thus, time limits on intellectual property are moral.
Fine. Now explain why we cannot in similar fashion argue thus: “Those laws are moral which fulfill the requirements of man’s metaphysical nature and survival qua man. Time limits on physical property fulfill one of those requirements. Thus, time limits on physical property are moral.”
It is a basic syllogism, the same as if I were to say A equals B under these circumstances, C creates these circumstances, thus, under C circumstances A will equal B. The way to demonstrate that a syllogism is an example of incorrect reasoning (IIRC) is to demonstrate that you can have true premises and a false conclusion. If you cannot demonstrate this regarding my syllogism, you must demonstrate that my premises are false, and you have done neither of those things, you have simply compounded error upon error.
I do not question the soundness of your reasoning. I am merely wondering why it applies _ exclusively _ to one category of goods. If term limits are valid with regard to intellectual property, then we need to know _ why _ it is not appropriate to apply such limits to physical property.
I cannot declare that I have sufficient statistical knowledge to determine a PRECISE numerical limit. However, I have FULLY enough knowledge to declare that NO ONE can make a sufficient profit off a product it took 10 years, 100 people, and 10 million dollars to create in SIX MONTHS or even FIVE YEARS. I am doubtful they can be sure of doing so in 20! Why? Because I WORK in a business.
Here your argument appears to be that the duration of the IP’s term should be determined by the time it takes _ to make a profit _ . You say that if “it took 10 years, 100 people, and 10 million dollars to create” a device, the IP owner may need 20 or more years to make “a sufficient profit.” But, JMeganSnow, what if it took 20 years, 200 people, and 20 million dollars to create the device? Should the term be extended to 40, 50 or 60 years? By the same token, what if the IP is a code that a software engineer wrote on his iMac _ in a couple of hours _ ? If the purpose of IP protection is simply to assure “sufficient profit,” the law could justly _ shrink _ the period of protection in a case where little capital is expended.
Your argument is tantamount to declaring that one cannot be permitted to make a statement such as “a water molecule contains 1 oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms” unless one is prepared to discuss the chemical makeup of DNA and Amino Acids. There is knowledge and there is knowledge. My knowledge is sufficient for me to make SOME declarations but not ALL declarations, capisce?
Your knowledge is praiseworthy. The problem is threefold: 1) you assume (above) that “professionals” and the “science of law” can arrive at some objectively “correct” number of years for patents and copyrights. Yet nothing in the history of U.S. IP law indicates that those terms have been anything other than the product of compromise, caprice and a fixation for numbers evenly divisible by 10. 2) You criticize six-month and five-year term limits as “ridiculous,” but your argument rests on the difficulty of recouping research and development costs in that time. However, as I have shown, some IP requires few man-hours to create and profits can be realized within days of public release. This is true even for some expensive undertakings. Many hit movies show a profit after less than a week on theater screens. 3)If you are willing to surrender the decision about what is the objectively “correct” IP term limit to “professionals,” you have to have some confidence that a one-size-fits-all objectively “correct” term is attainable. And thus far, you have not provided any _ evidence to support _ such confidence.
You brought up those ridiculous numbers precisely BECAUSE they were absurd. You are rationalizing in that you have started arguing your point from the middle of nowhere, engaging in package-dealing and ignoring essential differences.
On package dealing: I explicitly reject the package deal that a single term limit can be objectively correct for all patents. I have yet to see how one can arrive at a certain limit in a non-arbitrary fashion. On ignoring essential differences: I acknowledge the differences between intellectual and physical property. What I don’t acknowledge is something that has never been shown: why physical property owners are entitled to perpetual government protection while IP owners are not.
You do KNOW what Rationalism is, don’t you? Your argument has been that either intellectual property should exist in perpetuity (physically impossible) or that it shouldn’t exist at all or so close as to make no difference. THAT is why it is an “all-or-nothing” approach.
In fact, I have not made that argument at all. I will repeat what I said at the beginning of the thread: why grant a perpetual title to a lot in Manhattan but not to a patent on the Polaroid camera? There is indeed a difference between physical and intellectual property, but _ why _ that difference should result in term limits for the latter and not the former has never been made clear. Also: I look forward to your explanation as to why perpetuity in IP is any more physically impossible than perpetuity in other forms of property.
As I said, my ability to detect absurdity does not mean I can give an OPINION on what falls within that realm. Much like I can detect that if a surveyor says that the distance from my home to the river is 2 feet or 3000 miles I know he’s joking, whereas if he declares it’s 135.7 meters I could not tell whether he was right or not without performing my own survey. A survey, as I HAVE STATED, that I do not have the TIME TO PERFORM.
Excellent example. I do not know the exact number of acres that my house sits on. However, I _ do _ know that it is possible to make a mathematically precise determination of its size to within a thousandth of an acre. I know this because, while not a surveyor myself, I am familiar with the process and tools used to arrive at the desired figure. On the other hand, in all the works I’ve read on IP, I’ve yet to come across any evidence that a methodology exists to determine an objectively “correct” term limit for IP. It is an arbitrary number arrived at through political compromise and “dickering.” It is no more objective than the federally mandated minimum wage.
Because, yet again, you are ignoring a crucial distinction: one does not copyright specfic WORDS, one copyrights an IDEA, whether that be a work of fiction, a poem, or a work of nonfiction. As Daved Odden pointed out, there is considerable gray area there, which must be properly decided by experts.
Because you did not create the idea “Tom Robinson”, hence it is not copyrightable. Thus, forbidding someone from using the name falls under the question of a trademark, and I have explained the conditions under which you could do that AND the fact that it doesn’t prevent anyone from using it in a non-commercial way.
Please read the following poem:
Title: “Who Am I?”
Full text: Tom Robinson.
Now explain why I should not be permitted to copyright the poem and thereby legally prevent others from reproducing it in any written form without my permission.