• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sjw

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  1. Patent Laws to be Revised

    Notice: I will no longer be posting replies to this thread. I find it impossible to debate in a manner I deem authentic and conform to the FORUM posting guidelines at the same time. I have had several posts deleted by the moderator which I am unwilling to rewrite since I think my meaning would become distorted. That is unacceptable to me given the importance of the topic; it is preferable to me not to debate at all. You are welcome to PM me and I will probably answer you via email.
  2. Patent Laws to be Revised

    At this point I'm confused about why you bothered to post--you have not provided a single argument, just a bunch of incontroversial generalities and empty assertions strung together.
  3. Patent Laws to be Revised

    Such a system is immoral. It clearly contradicts one's fundamental right to think and act. You don't see the basic contradiction because you think of a market as something someone can "own"--but this ignores the fact that the market is individuals who have a right to think and choose independent of that arbitrary conceptual or geographic divisions. I have a right to think and act--to create. I have a right to offer my creations to others. They have a right to buy it. That right does not magically go away just because someone else exercised the same right earlier than me. This "metaphysical fact" that somebody happened to do something earlier has no logical bearing on the issue of whether I can morally create and sell my creations. The connection is completely arbitrary, unjustied and unjustifiable. Only pragmatic arguments can give it a veneer of plausibility.
  4. Patent Laws to be Revised

    You are missing something I referred to earlier. In China and the US it is impossible to protect yourself against reverse engineering. In fact, in the US you can't enforce a reverse engineering clause even if the customer agrees not to do it. Yet that is one of the key means to protect your IP in my system. So I do not sanction China's or the US's lack of respect for IP; in my system there would be far stronger protections of IP. What the US did in effect is say "make your invention public, as a reward we'll give you a monopoly" (meaning: we'll punish later inventors). What I would do is say "we'll create a legal system that allows you to prohibit customers from copying you".
  5. Patent Laws to be Revised

    The false premise behind this is an intrinsicist notion of ideas, as if they exist like a plat of land that only one person can have. That is the deepest reason why the notion is arbitrary. But even if we don't go to that level, notice that you have not in fact given any reason why it is not arbitrary to limit the rights of the man who thought of the same thing later. You merely point out that it is later, and expect your restatement of the indisputable fact to stand for an actual argument. Sorry, but your restatment of basic facts and subsequent sarcasm are not an argument. The fact that you resort to such illogical devices should highlight something to you.
  6. Patent Laws to be Revised

    I don't need to observe the practical effects of stealing to figure out that it's wrong. It would be empiricism to think that I did. One of the hallmarks of pragmatism is evident in debates on patents: a one-sided view of the "practical consequences". E.g., looking only at the "practical consequence" that an inventor would lose a government-enforced monopoly, without looking at the consequence that other inventors who are innocent of any wrongdoing are punished.
  7. Patent Laws to be Revised

    Again, I agree with you in principle. But it is absolutely non-objective to have the arbitrary standard that lets one man say "well I came up with the idea first" as a basis of stripping away the fruits of another man's efforts when this other man thought of the same thing independently. You can't be both for the inventor and for this kind of thing. Particularly if you recognize that prolific, integrative inventors are going to be completely stalled if they can't freely invent without having to worry about what the rest of mankind might have thought of in the last 20 years: with the non-objective system we have now, the greater the inventor, the more likely he'll accidentally "trespass" on another inventor's "property".
  8. Patent Laws to be Revised

    Something I invented with a co-worker was patented, but I asked them not to put my name on it because I thought it should not be patented--given a reasonable level of competence, I thought any engineer could have created it. They awarded the patent to my co-worker and a few others who did not actually take part in the invention. Since then I've invented many things that were far more patent-worthy than that but have not sought patents for them.
  9. Patent Laws to be Revised

    mrocktor: Before I address your points I'd like to ask some questions about the wheel patent. You say that Og should be able to patent the stone wheel, but not a wooden wheel. Suppose that someone else from a different tribe who didn't know Og invented the stone wheel too, but let's say it was a year after Og. Does Og have a claim (i.e., license fees in the form of, say, food) on him if they happen to meet? Or does right to such a claim require a government? How does your answer change if the other tribe is on the same continent or on a different one? You claim that "facts of realty" should not be patentable. Isn't it a fact of reality that logs roll downhill by virtue of their roundness? Isn't it also a fact of reality that the log could have a narrower section of wood on the inside part (i.e., an "axle") and roll even better over bumpy terrain? Isn't it also a fact of reality that the material in this case, wood, is a non-essential aspect, that any hard material would behave similarly? Isn't it true that knowledge of the behavior of round hard objects is an element of scientific knowledge, and that once you know this, the "creative" part, the actual building of the wheel, is more an issue of carpentry and/or masonry than of true creative insight?
  10. Patent Laws to be Revised

    My statements are consistent. You need to check your premises, and upon finding your mistakes, introspect on your attitude here.
  11. Patent Laws to be Revised

    The real contradiction is your declaring that I contradict myself and then asking me what I meant.
  12. Patent Laws to be Revised

    My compliments to mrocktor. He's just made the debate too difficult for me to deal with in the little time I've got at the moment (I'm finishing my basement). I'll come back when I have more time, probably in about a week. For now I'll just say that I still think I am right, but his argument is not easy enough to address with the time I have.
  13. Patent Laws to be Revised

    You should do some philosophical detection on your phrase "serve the interest of all". I will agree with you on one thing. That "serving the interest of all" is the idea behind the patent system we have today. There's a word for this: altruism. And ironically, the man on the sacrificial altar is the inventor.
  14. I have more respect for my own mind than I do for Ayn Rand's: I give strong weight to what she says because she said it. But I get the final call. When that bothers someone who thinks that everything she said was perfect, it disappoints me and I think it would disappoint her too.
  15. Patent Laws to be Revised

    You've in effect done nothing more than say the word "context". You've not specified anything about the particular context of the modern patent system that makes it moral. "Context" is not a "get out of jail free" card that lets you run roughshod over moral principle--and over innocent inventors who "tresspass" on existing patents. You've made no argument that furthers your postion.