You're free to apply for a driver's license or not. Does that make it property too? Both have specific requirements and several conditions to meet before getting one to get one and both are term-limited. Sure walks more like a license, talks more like a license. . .
Of course a liquor license might be even more comparable. You can transfer those. Thank goodness you can't do that with a DL.
Since you only seem to respond to links, here are a few:
Our legal system provides certain rights and protections for owners of property. The kind of property that results from the fruits of mental labor is called intellectual property. Rights and protections for owners of intellectual property are based on federal patent, trademark and copyright laws and state trade secret laws. In general, patents protect inventions of tangible things; copyrights protect various forms of written and artistic expression; and trademarks protect a name or symbol that identifies the source of goods or services.
Intellectual property (IP) rights are the legally recognized exclusive rights to creations of the mind.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights,trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.
In abstract, property is that which is had by or belongs to/with something, whether as an attribute or a component. For the significant context of this article, property is one or more components (rather than attributes), whether physical or incorporeal, of a person's estate; or so belonging to, as in being owned by, a person or jointly a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation or even a society. (Given such meaning, the word property is uncountable, and as such, is not described with an indefinite article or as plural.) Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things,[1][2][3] as well as perhaps to abandon it; whereas regardless of the nature of the property, the owner thereof has the right to properly use it (as a durable, mean or factor, or whatever), or at the very least exclusively keep it.
Property that jointly belongs to more than one party may be possessed or controlled thereby in very similar or very distinct ways, whether simply or complexly, whether equally or unequally. However, there is an expectation that each party's will (rather discretion) with regard to the property be clearly defined and unconditional,[citation needed] so as to distinguish ownership and easement from rent. The parties might expect their wills to be unanimous, or alternately every given one of them, when no opportunity for or possibility of dispute with any other of them exists, may expect his, her, its or their own will to be sufficient and absolute.
The Restatement (First) of Property defines Property as any thing, tangible or intangible whereby a legal relationship between persons and the State enforces a possessory interest or legal title in that thing. This mediating relationship between individual, property and state is called as property regimes.[4]
Important widely recognized types of property include real property (the combination of land and any improvements to or on the land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons, business entities or individual natural persons), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[5] An article of property may have physical and incorporeal parts. A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as the owner sees fit.
In summary, tangibility is not the final determinant of whether something is "real" or not. Intellectual property is property simply because its owner exercises free will to determine its use.
In summary, tangibility is not the final determinant of whether something is "real" or not. Intellectual property is property simply because its owner exercises free will to determine its use.
They'll obviously be no changing minds on whether a patent is simply a limited term assignment of monopoly rights or a piece of property with all the rights typically extended to it. Tomato, toMAtoe. . .
If you are a strong proponent of patents you should at least pray that the US government never consider patents as private property. Currently they do not to the benefit of the patent holder.
So not quite the vaunted intent of patents then? Apple intentionally trying to block technological progress by perverting the reason for protection of intellectual property to prevent others from progressing would be sad if it were true. Personally Id be pretty surprised to find that''s the case.
Impeding progress, an evil intent against the common good, is essentially the exact opposite of the reasons our forefathers .....
Mmmmmmmm please sir!
Mmmmmmmm please sir!
I think I know this one.
Lenin
Marx
Stalin
.........
Trotsky?
This is too good of a brawl to pass up, so I'm going to put on my flamesuit and step in. Despite all this back and forth about patents in general, what's relevant is the specific case of software patents.
Suppose software patents were abolished and developers went back to relying on copyright for protection. Then just like they used to before software patents became popular, developers would have to win solely by having the best implementations of ideas in actual code, rather than by having exclusive rights to a broad idea, which is what many software patents end up granting in practice. Would that be such a terrible thing?
Imagine if WebCrawler had gotten a broad patent for a "method and interface for performing internet searches" in which they locked up the idea of providing a text box for entering a search query and performing a full text search on an index of web pages, without specifying how the index is to be structured, how to actually match the query, etc. Then WebCrawler would have been essentially the only one allowed to iterate on the idea of a search engine, because any conceivable implementation of a search engine would embody those claims. Where would search engines be today in that alternative universe?
Instead, the search engine market evolved in a Darwinian fashion in which the players competed largely on the quality of their code, the efficiency of their algorithms, and the robustness of their hardware infrastructure, so that the fastest and most accurate search engines won out. Most software sectors have developed in a similar manner. For example, the makers of video editing software compete not by using patents to lock out competitors, but by trying to make their software more visually attractive, better performing, and feature rich. The software industry seems to have done just fine competing this way. Why do we suddenly need software patents?
Copyright prevents others from stealing your code, but it does not prevent others from independently coding a better implementation of your idea. Since it's the particular configuration of algorithms and their realization in code that ultimately determine the functionality of a software system, copyright would seem the most appropriate method of protecting individual work while promoting innovation in software.
With how broad software patents are these days, what incentive does one have to make the best possible implementation if one can just get a patent on the high level function and effectively block others from making their own implementations?
This is too good of a brawl to pass up, so I'm going to put on my flamesuit and step in. Despite all this back and forth about patents in general, what's relevant is the specific case of software patents.
Suppose software patents were abolished and developers went back to relying on copyright for protection. Then just like they used to before software patents became popular, developers would have to win solely by having the best implementations of ideas in actual code, rather than by having exclusive rights to a broad idea, which is what many software patents end up granting in practice. Would that be such a terrible thing?
Imagine if WebCrawler had gotten a broad patent for a "method and interface for performing internet searches" in which they locked up the idea of providing a text box for entering a search query and performing a full text search on an index of web pages, without specifying how the index is to be structured, how to actually match the query, etc. Then WebCrawler would have been essentially the only one allowed to iterate on the idea of a search engine, because any conceivable implementation of a search engine would embody those claims. Where would search engines be today in that alternative universe?
Instead, the search engine market evolved in a Darwinian fashion in which the players competed largely on the quality of their code, the efficiency of their algorithms, and the robustness of their hardware infrastructure, so that the fastest and most accurate search engines won out. Most software sectors have developed in a similar manner. For example, the makers of video editing software compete not by using patents to lock out competitors, but by trying to make their software more visually attractive, better performing, and feature rich. The software industry seems to have done just fine competing this way. Why do we suddenly need software patents?
Copyright prevents others from stealing your code, but it does not prevent others from independently coding a better implementation of your idea. Since it's the particular configuration of algorithms and their realization in code that ultimately determine the functionality of a software system, copyright would seem the most appropriate method of protecting individual work while promoting innovation in software.
With how broad software patents are these days, what incentive does one have to make the best possible implementation if one can just get a patent on the high level function and effectively block others from making their own implementations?
Since Oracle vs Google, copyright ain't worth shit.
Patents serve multiple purposes for the patent holder. Protecting new ground from invasion is the main one.
Another is to make sure that an innovation is available to the patent holder. That may be the case here. If you think a certain configuration or motion MAY be useful to you, and MAY be denied to you by some other party, then you patent it (assuming it is new and original, per patent law).
And just like that we're back in agreement. That's exactly what I pointed out in posts 6 and 14. Apple at some point considered using at least some of the patents claims. Their intent was not to simply block competitors and the public by filing one.
Wow! We agree. That's great!
Let's try to find some other points of common ground.
The reason patents are written in such a way as to be as vague as possible is so that it is nearly impossible to determine if they are in conflict or not and to provide a legal advantage if someone else patents something similar. If the patent office had to guarantee that there were no conflicts at the time of application, they would be sued by thousands of patent holders and applicants if any of their patents were challenged or refused. Besides, patents contribute to what makes America great. People invest in research and new inventions, create new technology which creates jobs, tax revenue, and increased gdp. Why wouldn't the USPTO want more patents?
This isn't what you were saying before. Patents are written as broadly as possible so as to cover as many possible uses of it as possible. Of course, that always been the case. But it's up to the courts to decide, in any individual case brought before it, whether or not that patent is valid, or whether it's broadness is valid. Of course, an entity can ask the patent Office to review the patent in questions, and will often (but not always) do so.
But it costs the government a lot of money when these cases come to court, so in the balance, it doesn't make money from this.
The more vague a patent is, and they aren't vague on purpose, the more likely a conflict will arise, not the opposite. And the less likely the patent will be issued in the first place. Writing a patent broadly isn't writing it vaguely.
Comments
You're free to apply for a driver's license or not. Does that make it property too? Both have specific requirements and several conditions to meet before getting one to get one and both are term-limited. Sure walks more like a license, talks more like a license. . .
Of course a liquor license might be even more comparable. You can transfer those. Thank goodness you can't do that with a DL.
Since you only seem to respond to links, here are a few:
http://www.aipla.org/about/iplaw/Pages/default.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property
In abstract, property is that which is had by or belongs to/with something, whether as an attribute or a component. For the significant context of this article, property is one or more components (rather than attributes), whether physical or incorporeal, of a person's estate; or so belonging to, as in being owned by, a person or jointly a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation or even a society. (Given such meaning, the word property is uncountable, and as such, is not described with an indefinite article or as plural.) Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things,[1][2][3] as well as perhaps to abandon it; whereas regardless of the nature of the property, the owner thereof has the right to properly use it (as a durable, mean or factor, or whatever), or at the very least exclusively keep it.
Property that jointly belongs to more than one party may be possessed or controlled thereby in very similar or very distinct ways, whether simply or complexly, whether equally or unequally. However, there is an expectation that each party's will (rather discretion) with regard to the property be clearly defined and unconditional,[citation needed] so as to distinguish ownership and easement from rent. The parties might expect their wills to be unanimous, or alternately every given one of them, when no opportunity for or possibility of dispute with any other of them exists, may expect his, her, its or their own will to be sufficient and absolute.
The Restatement (First) of Property defines Property as any thing, tangible or intangible whereby a legal relationship between persons and the State enforces a possessory interest or legal title in that thing. This mediating relationship between individual, property and state is called as property regimes.[4]
Important widely recognized types of property include real property (the combination of land and any improvements to or on the land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons, business entities or individual natural persons), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[5] An article of property may have physical and incorporeal parts. A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as the owner sees fit.
In summary, tangibility is not the final determinant of whether something is "real" or not. Intellectual property is property simply because its owner exercises free will to determine its use.
They'll obviously be no changing minds on whether a patent is simply a limited term assignment of monopoly rights or a piece of property with all the rights typically extended to it. Tomato, toMAtoe. . .
If you are a strong proponent of patents you should at least pray that the US government never consider patents as private property. Currently they do not to the benefit of the patent holder.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand "scene".
Now this is some first rate arguing. ????
I disagree; one side is arguing very well. The other isn't.
Mmmmmmmm please sir!
Mmmmmmmm please sir!
I think I know this one.
Lenin
Marx
Stalin
.........
Trotsky?
Cope and the DoJ
The people shall have their ebooks unfettered by capitalism.
This is too good of a brawl to pass up, so I'm going to put on my flamesuit and step in. Despite all this back and forth about patents in general, what's relevant is the specific case of software patents.
Suppose software patents were abolished and developers went back to relying on copyright for protection. Then just like they used to before software patents became popular, developers would have to win solely by having the best implementations of ideas in actual code, rather than by having exclusive rights to a broad idea, which is what many software patents end up granting in practice. Would that be such a terrible thing?
Imagine if WebCrawler had gotten a broad patent for a "method and interface for performing internet searches" in which they locked up the idea of providing a text box for entering a search query and performing a full text search on an index of web pages, without specifying how the index is to be structured, how to actually match the query, etc. Then WebCrawler would have been essentially the only one allowed to iterate on the idea of a search engine, because any conceivable implementation of a search engine would embody those claims. Where would search engines be today in that alternative universe?
Instead, the search engine market evolved in a Darwinian fashion in which the players competed largely on the quality of their code, the efficiency of their algorithms, and the robustness of their hardware infrastructure, so that the fastest and most accurate search engines won out. Most software sectors have developed in a similar manner. For example, the makers of video editing software compete not by using patents to lock out competitors, but by trying to make their software more visually attractive, better performing, and feature rich. The software industry seems to have done just fine competing this way. Why do we suddenly need software patents?
Copyright prevents others from stealing your code, but it does not prevent others from independently coding a better implementation of your idea. Since it's the particular configuration of algorithms and their realization in code that ultimately determine the functionality of a software system, copyright would seem the most appropriate method of protecting individual work while promoting innovation in software.
With how broad software patents are these days, what incentive does one have to make the best possible implementation if one can just get a patent on the high level function and effectively block others from making their own implementations?
This is too good of a brawl to pass up, so I'm going to put on my flamesuit and step in. Despite all this back and forth about patents in general, what's relevant is the specific case of software patents.
Suppose software patents were abolished and developers went back to relying on copyright for protection. Then just like they used to before software patents became popular, developers would have to win solely by having the best implementations of ideas in actual code, rather than by having exclusive rights to a broad idea, which is what many software patents end up granting in practice. Would that be such a terrible thing?
Imagine if WebCrawler had gotten a broad patent for a "method and interface for performing internet searches" in which they locked up the idea of providing a text box for entering a search query and performing a full text search on an index of web pages, without specifying how the index is to be structured, how to actually match the query, etc. Then WebCrawler would have been essentially the only one allowed to iterate on the idea of a search engine, because any conceivable implementation of a search engine would embody those claims. Where would search engines be today in that alternative universe?
Instead, the search engine market evolved in a Darwinian fashion in which the players competed largely on the quality of their code, the efficiency of their algorithms, and the robustness of their hardware infrastructure, so that the fastest and most accurate search engines won out. Most software sectors have developed in a similar manner. For example, the makers of video editing software compete not by using patents to lock out competitors, but by trying to make their software more visually attractive, better performing, and feature rich. The software industry seems to have done just fine competing this way. Why do we suddenly need software patents?
Copyright prevents others from stealing your code, but it does not prevent others from independently coding a better implementation of your idea. Since it's the particular configuration of algorithms and their realization in code that ultimately determine the functionality of a software system, copyright would seem the most appropriate method of protecting individual work while promoting innovation in software.
With how broad software patents are these days, what incentive does one have to make the best possible implementation if one can just get a patent on the high level function and effectively block others from making their own implementations?
Since Oracle vs Google, copyright ain't worth shit.
Another is to make sure that an innovation is available to the patent holder. That may be the case here. If you think a certain configuration or motion MAY be useful to you, and MAY be denied to you by some other party, then you patent it (assuming it is new and original, per patent law).
So this move could be defensive, not offensive.
Wow! We agree. That's great!
Let's try to find some other points of common ground.
This isn't what you were saying before. Patents are written as broadly as possible so as to cover as many possible uses of it as possible. Of course, that always been the case. But it's up to the courts to decide, in any individual case brought before it, whether or not that patent is valid, or whether it's broadness is valid. Of course, an entity can ask the patent Office to review the patent in questions, and will often (but not always) do so.
But it costs the government a lot of money when these cases come to court, so in the balance, it doesn't make money from this.
The more vague a patent is, and they aren't vague on purpose, the more likely a conflict will arise, not the opposite. And the less likely the patent will be issued in the first place. Writing a patent broadly isn't writing it vaguely.