131–140 of 240 posts
It seems like patent laws are a barrier to grow your business up to a certain size in the US. Would it be more sensible to incorporate in a jurisdiction - say, Canada - which does not allow such broad patents?
One would think after years of getting trolled by SCO IBM would be over this.
I remember when I worked at IBM Hursley research labs 20 years ago. The lab director told us all "patents are very important to IBM". I expected him to tell us that IBM made billions from licensing them. He didn't say that though. I don't think he even _mentioned_ that. Instead he stated: "It raises the entry barrier for the competition". Patents were (narrowly) created to _encourage_ the spread of knowledge. Instead…
And they are entirely one sided. Try suing Google for patent or trademark infringement. I've seen the attempts: it's impossible to get justice. The entire system is rigged and serves as yet another way for powerful interests to extract value from productive members of society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thought would be, if there was no duty implied in the specific enumeration of this power and it's implied goal, then why wouldn't it just be part of the necessary and proper clause?
I think a much more obvious question is why wouldn't they just write down what they meant instead of obfuscating their intentions? You are literally looking for something that isn't there, because it is not written down. I would love for a lawyer to chime in, because admittedly this is not my wheelhouse.
It seems like patent laws are a barrier to grow your business up to a certain size in the US. Would it be more sensible to incorporate in a jurisdiction - say, Canada - which does not allow such broad patents?
Unfortunately entire system is built around protecting monopolies / giant corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true some of the founders were skeptical, I never said otherwise and I never said it was "uncontested. What I said was that it's inclusion in the Constitution is for a clear reason, whether or not the reasoning is valid is a different debate. As I pointed out, the constitution grants congress the EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION you refer to, for the very purpose of promoting the PROGRESS of the arts and sciences. I guess…
"Framers" is more correct. Not all the Founding Fathers participated in authoring the constitution. Secondly, an explicit reason implies a condition: Is current patent law actually fit for the stated purpose? Lastly, another comment here refers to the language of "amendments," presumably the Bill of Rights. The Copyright Clause is a clause, not an amendment, and not part of the BoR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could give us a reason why
not that I'm agreeing, but doesn't the burden of truth lie with the one who made the original claim about AirBnb not caring about laws historically?
IBM made a large investment in Prodigy the bbs/internet service of the 90's and came out of it with a lot of patents.
Wouldn’t those patents have expired? The 90s is now more than 20 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Constitution requires that Congress setup laws for both copyright and patent, for the good of the nation. Patents were always intended for the overall wellbeing of the nation. That's not to say that is what has always been achieved by the patent system, but it's not some sort of conspiracy. If anything, in history, they were always OSTENSIBLY for good, but perhaps ACTUALLY bad. So I find your statement to be A) h…
The Framers were skeptical of enabling government to give out patent and copyright monopoly grants. Jefferson wrote: Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they are entirely one sided. Try suing Google for patent or trademark infringement. I've seen the attempts: it's impossible to get justice. The entire system is rigged and serves as yet another way for powerful interests to extract value from productive members of society.
Right, but this is because institutions like Google use their power to weaken patent rights.