You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index You-Read-It-Here-First
A collection of textual novelties
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
If you want to read the articles here, go ahead, just click on a forum and find a thread that interests you...no need to register! If you want to post something... either new or in response to someone here, then click the Register link above. It's free... and it's fun to write your ideas here. You can even create a "blog" by starting a personal thread in the Daily Life Every Thread A Diary section...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> The Corporation as Person
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:10 am    Post subject: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 Reply with quote

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

For all the people who go around claiming to be Strict Constructivists with regard to the Constitution, they tend to ignore much of its intent...specifically that it is a document, along with the Declaration of Independence, that upholds and affirms the rights of individuals. ..to protect their rights in the face of an overpowering organization...not the other way round.

Obviously the colonists just spent years overthrowing a remote power that wanted to tax and rule them. They weren't about to write a document saying how "oh yes, let's create another tyranny because it was such fun fighting with muskets and all...".

The recent fights in upholding patent laws with regard to software display not the remotest regard with the intent...to protect the individual inventor. Nowhere, in all the litigation, is the inventor a part of the claim, the credit...or the reward.

So, a title..or deed...that was given to a single person, becomes a chip in a poker game. It's as if someone put their Medal of Honor up for sale on e-Bay, and then it was bought and used for some type of derivatives trading.

In my "strict" view of what the Founding Fathers intended, a patent can only be assigned to an individual. It cannot be traded, or bought and sold. A larger organization may work with the individual to help him market it, develop it, produce it, or utilize it in a larger work. But it cannot and should not be salable or transferable. If the inventor dies, the patent reverts back to the the public. [That last part might be tricky, given the current brutal state of business, and easy to find Romanian hit men...but for now...].
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 Reply with quote

jabailo wrote:
In my "strict" view of what the Founding Fathers intended, a patent can only be assigned to an individual. It cannot be traded, or bought and sold. A larger organization may work with the individual to help him market it, develop it, produce it, or utilize it in a larger work. But it cannot and should not be salable or transferable. If the inventor dies, the patent reverts back to the the public. ...


This sounds pretty good in several ways, John, but I wonder what is
the basis for your views? The wiki page suggest that there isn't much
in the way of background text, as would be found in documents like the
Federalist papers.

Meanwhile I assume you're making a little joke when you claim that
your approach is as what I guess would be called "strict intensionist".
Is it different from a "loose constructivist" approach?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The new Patent Law ramrodded through Congress this week and currently at the President's desk, disturbs me deeply and I wrote a comment in the Washington Post.

Here is that article:

<b>Major elements of the patent overhaul legislation</b>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/major-elements-of-the-patent-overhaul-legislation/2011/09/08/gIQAdnxYCK_story.html


My comment in the Washington Post...

Quote:
The problem I have with this legislation if the change from First to Invent to First to Patent. This is offered as a "cost savings" measure....but isn't everything? What this is says is that the actual process of invention and the creator of inventions is completely detached from the US Patent Process. That is a very, very dangerous thing. That means that the Patent process can now be used by those with the means to "run the tables" to grab up any and all materials ever published or ideas spoken and claimed, before the actual creative person gets to. Even more chilling is that it closes out any recourse to that person to make a claim. It's as if I said, on Jan 1, 2012, I am creating a new Real Estate system. If you don't file a form to claim your house, then I can file for $10,000 and own it. So, no doubt, the Biggies will be scouring the Internet and doing the usual claim to own everything.

This legislation is completely at variance with the intent and will of the patent process espoused in the Constitution, which was simply to allow creative Americans a period of time to bring their ideas to market. There is no reason to stray or change that intent. I am deeply disappointed that this legislation was rammed through especially during a time of confusion this week and by so many "conservative" members of Congress. Do any of them realize what they've created?

Our last hope is that the President might actually read this egregious bill and veto it. I would hope that a sane Supreme Court would strike it down for the absolute injustice that it is.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/major-elements-of-the-patent-overhaul-legislation/2011/09/08/gIQAdnxYCK_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#comments
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> The Corporation as Person All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group