Capitalism and Patent Rights. Is it a contradiction?

[RKMBrown]

IP is always in direct opposition to real material property rights.

What does "real" material property rights mean? Do you mean a design is not real?

No, a design is real enough. But if You come to a production design at the same time that someone else does, and you file patent first, should the other guy get screwed out of his material property? Or even if he unknowingly comes to it after you did?

The answer is obvious and I posted the information regarding the arguments against IP laws.

IMO no. And that's why the rules for simultaneous invention and disclosure are usually in flux. Some countries use first to publish, some use first to file, ... some use evidence that you had the idea in hand before they published or filed as evidence of simultaneous invention. I agree this needs work.

 

[RKMBrown]

AHHHHH hahhah LMAO. Look who is upset now. Funny. You realize though, you were the dickhead first in the other thread when you jsut called me an idiot, rather than rationally discussing this issue. You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

No noob. You were just as wrong in that thread as you are in this thread. As I explained in that thread idiot means foolish. Grow some skin.

>> You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

Wrong. I was correct about my view of your statements there, just as I'm correct about your statements here. As to my statements about my views and the facts, I believe them to be correct. If I said something incorrect, show me where.

>> You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

It does do this. Do you need evidence? Are there cases where the government employees of ours are lazy? yes. Are there cases where the government employees of ours break the law? yes

>> In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

One of the roles noob, not the only role. Yes I believe the soldiers of this nation will in fact protect the citizens of this nation when called upon. I believe this based on personal experience. I also believe our other government employees will from time to time protect our property rights. Again, I've witnessed said activities in person.

As per your attempt to assign self as a property right, I think you mean assets and labor. I have no idea what you mean by the circular definition of personal property of self.

 

[originalthought]

AHHHHH hahhah LMAO. Look who is upset now. Funny. You realize though, you were the dickhead first in the other thread when you jsut called me an idiot, rather than rationally discussing this issue. You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

No noob. You were just as wrong in that thread as you are in this thread. As I explained in that thread idiot means foolish. Grow some skin.

>> You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

Wrong. I was correct about my view of your statements there, just as I'm correct about your statements here. As to my statements about my views and the facts, I believe them to be correct. If I said something incorrect, show me where.

>> You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

It does do this. Do you need evidence? Are there cases where the government employees of ours are lazy? yes. Are there cases where the government employees of ours break the law? yes

>> In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

One of the roles noob, not the only role. Yes I believe the soldiers of this nation will in fact protect the citizens of this nation when called upon. I believe this based on personal experience. I also believe our other government employees will from time to time protect our property rights. Again, I've witnessed said activities in person.

As per your attempt to assign self as a property right, I think you mean assets and labor. I have no idea what you mean by the circular definition of personal property of self.

Ok grandpa. You are wrong that patent rights=private property rights. You were wrong in the other thread and you are still wrong.

You asked ,"Where did I say the state "will" protect me you ass hole? I said they are tasked with the job of protecting property rights. Are you stupid as well as ignorant?" that what you said

You said, "that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property" that's what you said

If you do not understand the "individual" you have no understanding of capitalism of free markets and freedom. You, your body and mind, is your property. Then since it is the government's purpose (along with other purposes) to protect private property, it is the government's role to protect you. This is what your arguement says.

That's where you said the state will protect you... This is the lie that you have bought into. As the nation has continued to exist, we have seen the government power grow, and personal liberty and freedom diminish. All governments in history have sought to control everything. Look at where we are going.

You have bought into the lie that government serves the people. Only on paper bud. Maby you think I'm young, but I think your ideas are old and proven to be false. Your system of government is falling apart before your very eyes. This is idiotic-foolish

 

[originalthought]

Now Mr RKMBrown, if you would like to debate this issue then let's do so.

How are patent rights private property rights? Why should we have patent rights?

You have only stated that these are necessary with out providing the philosohy. I have stated that in a capitalist economy, they should not exist because a capitalist economy is one where there are no laws from the government interfering with the economy.

Patent laws are laws from the government which interfer with the economy. Now can you explain how they are private property rights? Or will you only say they are, with no facts?

 

[RKMBrown]

AHHHHH hahhah LMAO. Look who is upset now. Funny. You realize though, you were the dickhead first in the other thread when you jsut called me an idiot, rather than rationally discussing this issue. You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

No noob. You were just as wrong in that thread as you are in this thread. As I explained in that thread idiot means foolish. Grow some skin.

>> You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

Wrong. I was correct about my view of your statements there, just as I'm correct about your statements here. As to my statements about my views and the facts, I believe them to be correct. If I said something incorrect, show me where.

>> You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

It does do this. Do you need evidence? Are there cases where the government employees of ours are lazy? yes. Are there cases where the government employees of ours break the law? yes

>> In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

One of the roles noob, not the only role. Yes I believe the soldiers of this nation will in fact protect the citizens of this nation when called upon. I believe this based on personal experience. I also believe our other government employees will from time to time protect our property rights. Again, I've witnessed said activities in person.

As per your attempt to assign self as a property right, I think you mean assets and labor. I have no idea what you mean by the circular definition of personal property of self.

Ok grandpa. You are wrong that patent rights=private property rights. You were wrong in the other thread and you are still wrong.

You asked ,"Where did I say the state "will" protect me you ass hole? I said they are tasked with the job of protecting property rights. Are you stupid as well as ignorant?" that what you said

You said, "that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property" that's what you said

If you do not understand the "individual" you have no understanding of capitalism of free markets and freedom. You, your body and mind, is your property. Then since it is the government's purpose (along with other purposes) to protect private property, it is the government's role to protect you. This is what your arguement says.

That's where you said the state will protect you... This is the lie that you have bought into. As the nation has continued to exist, we have seen the government power grow, and personal liberty and freedom diminish. All governments in history have sought to control everything. Look at where we are going.

You have bought into the lie that government serves the people. Only on paper bud. Maby you think I'm young, but I think your ideas are old and proven to be false. Your system of government is falling apart before your very eyes. This is idiotic-foolish

Sorry I can't read past you bull shit lies to discern anything worthy of response.

 

[originalthought]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

Is it theft when you put it out on the market and I copy it? I didn't steal it. I only copied it.

Patent Laws allow a company to make one product and enjoy protection from competitors, with the authority of the govenment (who has a monopoly on the use of force).

IBM uses open source, they don't scream about intellectual property and patent rights, correct?

Did the writer of Avatar create that story? Or did they take it from Pocahontas? LOL.

 

[originalthought]

No noob. You were just as wrong in that thread as you are in this thread. As I explained in that thread idiot means foolish. Grow some skin.

>> You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

Wrong. I was correct about my view of your statements there, just as I'm correct about your statements here. As to my statements about my views and the facts, I believe them to be correct. If I said something incorrect, show me where.

>> You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

It does do this. Do you need evidence? Are there cases where the government employees of ours are lazy? yes. Are there cases where the government employees of ours break the law? yes

>> In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

One of the roles noob, not the only role. Yes I believe the soldiers of this nation will in fact protect the citizens of this nation when called upon. I believe this based on personal experience. I also believe our other government employees will from time to time protect our property rights. Again, I've witnessed said activities in person.

As per your attempt to assign self as a property right, I think you mean assets and labor. I have no idea what you mean by the circular definition of personal property of self.

Ok grandpa. You are wrong that patent rights=private property rights. You were wrong in the other thread and you are still wrong.

You asked ,"Where did I say the state "will" protect me you ass hole? I said they are tasked with the job of protecting property rights. Are you stupid as well as ignorant?" that what you said

You said, "that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property" that's what you said

If you do not understand the "individual" you have no understanding of capitalism of free markets and freedom. You, your body and mind, is your property. Then since it is the government's purpose (along with other purposes) to protect private property, it is the government's role to protect you. This is what your arguement says.

That's where you said the state will protect you... This is the lie that you have bought into. As the nation has continued to exist, we have seen the government power grow, and personal liberty and freedom diminish. All governments in history have sought to control everything. Look at where we are going.

You have bought into the lie that government serves the people. Only on paper bud. Maby you think I'm young, but I think your ideas are old and proven to be false. Your system of government is falling apart before your very eyes. This is idiotic-foolish

Sorry I can't read past you bull shit lies to discern anything worthy of response.

Thank you for finally shutting up. You have not made any valuable comments, only claims that lack any logic and reason. Bye

 

[RKMBrown]

Now Mr RKMBrown, if you would like to debate this issue then let's do so.

How are patent rights private property rights? Why should we have patent rights?

You have only stated that these are necessary with out providing the philosohy. I have stated that in a capitalist economy, they should not exist because a capitalist economy is one where there are no laws from the government interfering with the economy.

Patent laws are laws from the government which interfer with the economy. Now can you explain how they are private property rights? Or will you only say they are, with no facts?

>> How are patent rights private property rights?

When you are granted a patent the ownership of the patent is an assigned property right.

>> Why should we have patent rights?

To provide an incentive for people to publish the designs of their products and also to provide a process by which the inventor holds exclusive rights to the claimed novel elements of his design. This of course for a limited period of time (17years from grant.)

>> You have only stated that these are necessary with out providing the philosohy. I have stated that in a capitalist economy, they should not exist because a capitalist economy is one where there are no laws from the government interfering with the economy.

The philosophy is that in order for capitalism to work there needs to be some means to protect property. Property includes intellectual property such as unique and novel designs. Otherwise there is no incentive to spend millions / billions building the first widget if others will simply come around and reproduce the novel features that you invented.

>> Patent laws are laws from the government which interfer with the economy. Now can you explain how they are private property rights? Or will you only say they are, with no facts?

As stated above, ownership of the patent is assigned by the US Government. In this case the USPTO. The property being the allowed claims of the patent, to be licensed and/or exclusively used by the inventor for the period not exceeding 17years.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

Is it theft when you put it out on the market and I copy it? I didn't steal it. I only copied it.

Patent Laws allow a company to make one product and enjoy protection from competitors, with the authority of the govenment (who has a monopoly on the use of force).

IBM uses open source, they don't scream about intellectual property and patent rights, correct?

Did the writer of Avatar create that story? Or did they take it from Pocahontas? LOL.

Copying of copyrighted material is prohibited by copyright laws.

You'll note the IBM copyright on all IBM source code. You'll also note copyright notices in most open source materials. Usually they require any modified use of the copyrighted code also be placed in open source along with the original copyright.

>> IBM uses open source, they don't scream about intellectual property and patent rights, correct?

IBM most certainly does scream about IP and Patent rights all the time. IBM is by far the largest holder of patents on the planet. IBM spends a massive amount of resources to ensure their codes bases are not corrupted with open sources, and vice verse, that they do not, accidentally, publish to open source corporate copyrighted materials.

Avatar was a great movie.

 

[originalthought]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

Is it theft when you put it out on the market and I copy it? I didn't steal it. I only copied it.

Patent Laws allow a company to make one product and enjoy protection from competitors, with the authority of the govenment (who has a monopoly on the use of force).

IBM uses open source, they don't scream about intellectual property and patent rights, correct?

Did the writer of Avatar create that story? Or did they take it from Pocahontas? LOL.

Copying of copyrighted material is prohibited by copyright laws.

You'll note the IBM copyright on all IBM source code. You'll also note copyright notices in most open source materials. Usually they require any modified use of the copyrighted code also be placed in open source along with the original copyright.

>> IBM uses open source, they don't scream about intellectual property and patent rights, correct?

Copying of copyrighted material is prohibited by copyright laws. But without that law, would it really be stealing if I just copy it and make it better?

IBM most certainly does scream about IP and Patent rights all the time. IBM is by far the largest holder of patents on the planet. IBM spends a massive amount of resources to ensure their codes bases are not corrupted with open sources, and vice verse, that they do not, accidentally, publish to open source corporate copyrighted materials.

Avatar was a great movie.

But without that law, would it really be stealing if I just copy it and make it better?
Avatar was a great movie, but it seemed awfully familar.....

 

[RKMBrown]

Is it theft when you put it out on the market and I copy it? I didn't steal it. I only copied it.

Patent Laws allow a company to make one product and enjoy protection from competitors, with the authority of the govenment (who has a monopoly on the use of force).

IBM uses open source, they don't scream about intellectual property and patent rights, correct?

Did the writer of Avatar create that story? Or did they take it from Pocahontas? LOL.

Copying of copyrighted material is prohibited by copyright laws.

You'll note the IBM copyright on all IBM source code. You'll also note copyright notices in most open source materials. Usually they require any modified use of the copyrighted code also be placed in open source along with the original copyright.

>> IBM uses open source, they don't scream about intellectual property and patent rights, correct?

Copying of copyrighted material is prohibited by copyright laws. But without that law, would it really be stealing if I just copy it and make it better?

IBM most certainly does scream about IP and Patent rights all the time. IBM is by far the largest holder of patents on the planet. IBM spends a massive amount of resources to ensure their codes bases are not corrupted with open sources, and vice verse, that they do not, accidentally, publish to open source corporate copyrighted materials.

Avatar was a great movie.

But without that law, would it really be stealing if I just copy it and make it better?
Avatar was a great movie, but it seemed awfully familar.....

Right two different subjects. One copying an idea (patent limited 17y exclusive license), two copying copyrighted works, such as a computer program, or book, or movie, or song... Should there be copyrights? I think so as long as it's also limited. It used to be limited like patents. Then Mickey Mouse came along and bought Washington DC, thus every year or so for the last number of decades the restriction on copying in the copyright law has been extended. Thus the right of the people to copy works and make the better became a restriction on the people that they are never allowed to copy anything younger than Mickey Mouse.

FYI you can't patent fiction. Your design has to be such that the reader of ordinary skill in the art could produce the product of the invention.

 

[oldfart]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

The statement that there is a limited role for government is your opinion, and it does not belong in this thread.The question here is, can a capitalist say they support patent rights? Capitalism, in it's true form, is an economy ran with out interference from the state.

You have saved me the trouble of responding. Have a nice life.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And yet you responded.

Good grief this place is a true moron convention.

 

[Norman]

Depends, capitalism is heavy on property rights, obviously.

Now do you consider intellectual property, property or not?


Besides that, I don't think these words like "capitalism" and etc. are absolute definitions by any means.

 

[L.K.Eder]

free market and IP rights, now there is a contradiction.
IP rights work against free markets.

where kinsella et al have problems is to replace IP rights with something that rewards sharing intellectual property.

contract law clearly does not work. and that is their problem.

just dismissing IP rights as not justified is a clown car option.

you have to come up with an alternative.

 

[RKMBrown]

free market and IP rights, now there is a contradiction.
IP rights work against free markets.

where kinsella et al have problems is to replace IP rights with something that rewards sharing intellectual property.

contract law clearly does not work. and that is their problem.

just dismissing IP rights as not justified is a clown car option.

you have to come up with an alternative.

No more a contradiction, than having laws to protect liberty. Patents is a system that rewards sharing intellectual property. Contract law clearly does work. The problem is people providing dis-information from other people that have an aversion to laws protecting property.

 

[L.K.Eder]

free market and IP rights, now there is a contradiction.
IP rights work against free markets.

where kinsella et al have problems is to replace IP rights with something that rewards sharing intellectual property.

contract law clearly does not work. and that is their problem.

just dismissing IP rights as not justified is a clown car option.

you have to come up with an alternative.

No more a contradiction, than having laws to protect liberty. Patents is a system that rewards sharing intellectual property. Contract law clearly does work. The problem is people providing dis-information from other people that have an aversion to laws protecting property.

err?

what i was trying to say was that contract law cannot replace IP laws.

and that is the problem the anarcho-capitalists like kinsella rothbard et al are having for decades. they feel and argue that IP rights are unjustified. but they do not offer a solution to protect intellectual property besides keeping it a "trade secret".

let's hear from the resident LOLbertarian, maybe he can WIKIwall a text.