Forum Post: the 4 monopolies
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 15, 2012, 8:57 a.m. EST by human6
(88)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
the money monopoly,
the land monopoly,
tariffs, and
patents.
The purpose of a patent is not to provide the inventor with a monopoly, the purpose is to get the invention in the public domain and not end up like the Stradivarius.
The present term of a patent is 17 years. For a drug that takes 15 years to get through trials and regulatory approvals it is an un-workable term. If you want better medicines work to extend the patent term. Make it the same as a Copyright for a book or song.
[Removed]
Sure that's what they say, but who really believes anything a politician says (poly= many ticks= blood sucking parasites), what it really is is threat of violence against anyone who dares to tinker or reproduce an idea of another. I do not deny the right to a physical object but to a mental concept, a fleet of fancy, that's like me telling you something and then threatening to throw you in a cage, or shoot you if you resist me for telling another my words.
A patent on a mental concept is not allowed. You cannot patent an idea. You can receive a patent on a thing (fly swatter), a method (the process for turning beach sand into a single crystal silicon boule) , and most recently and similar to a method patent, software.
IP disputes rarely come to blows. They are usually settled out of court. A great treatment on IP law is "The Chip" by T.R. Reid. It tells the story of the fight between TI and Fairchild for the integrated circuit Patent. One of the few inventions to win a Nobel Prize. It is also a fun read. A little geeky, but fun.
When i say patent on the idea i mean that if i make a new fly swatter i will get sent to court, which is backed up by a gun.
If it is a new fly swatter you don't have a problem. If you steal someone else's fly swatter then you have committed a crime.
If you make a copy of a book at the local Barnes and Nobel and sell it out front you are stealing from the author.
BTW getting a patent is not so easy. Your new fly swatter has to be novel (new), useful, and non-obvious to someone schooled in the art.
I don't care how easy or hard it is.
Coping and selling a book is not theft any more than it would be for me to tell other people what you have said. Writing down your words does not make you the owner of your words.
ideas are not property to be bought and sold, they are the property of no one.
Copyrights, Trademarks, and patents do not protect ideas. They protect inventions, songs, books, art, images, and other literature.
Suppose you hate the taste of Pepsi (you vomit when drink it) but really like Coke. One day you go to the store, buy your Coke, bring it home, put it in a big ice-filled glass, and no sooner does the liquid hit your lips then you heave projectile puke.
What happened? Pepsi took the Coke Trademarked label, put it on a Pepsi can and sold it in your local grocery store. Pepsi stole the Coke trademark and not only hurt Coke but you as well.
Trademarks and Patents are issued by the Gov not to protect the owner (that is only a consequence used to encourage the owner to place the material in the public domain) but to improve society. This practice is much more a function of socialism than capitalism (it's actually more like State-ism a seldom used but often accurate descriptor).
Writing down a sequence of words like " Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York" , makes in this case Shakespeare, the owner of that sequence.
To avoid the logical conclusion that it would be possible to Trademark the words, " the words", Trademark and Copyright laws are made very tough. You must show that sequence is unique in general and in the particular context of the use (an ad for Coke for example). It is not easy to get a patent or Trademark, but once it has been allowed then its unauthorized use is stealing, just like stealing the corn from your neighbors garden.
That's ridicules they are an unjust monopoly given to the rich to control them, they basically say, if i copy this and then sell it and you trademark it you can shoot me
It's not right to steal from someone because you think them undeserving of their property?
No its not right to steal from some one if they justly acquired the property and property must be physical not mental
What about music. It is not physical, particularly with digital down-loads. Was Napster stealing? Same question with software. Is it stealing to use a bootleg copy of MS Office.
It would be theft to steal the C.D's themselves, but not the music itself. So napster was not theft.
If you steal the music and the artist can't make a living you will get no more music.
Steve Jobs came along and offered music for $0.99 a song and that pretty much saved the industry. Most folks will still listen to their conscience if it costs them less than $0.99 per song to do so.
Musicians can make money, they can sell CD's i can just also sell CD's so they can have competition.
How am i stealing from them?
You're not competing, your stealing just like the wall steet hedge fund managers complained about on this site.
my computer apparently only came with a rental of MS office
which has expired
No but selling my words for a profit when they aren't yours is...that's the difference.
Well you're half way to communism
How, they are concepts, not objects, not real how can you own things that don't exist
I'm a voluntary mutualist, but i believe free markets= anti capitalism
Communist theory says that ideas and work done by the individual belongs to everyone
I don't believe they belong to anyone, not one person or a collective, which does not exist, if i took away a the trees from a forest would their still be a forest no, same with people and groups. the individual has all rights the group has none.
That made no sense whatsoever...I strongly advise not to drunk blog in the future
What the hell does one tree have to do in making a forest? And, can you please explain your reasoning because that is ass backwards.
I don't believe that the collective exists, their is only the individual, no group can claim rights because the groups do not exist, groups are merely ways to simplify thought, instead of the individual trees that are near each other we say the forest, instead of the individuals who are in group of houses, we say the city.
but collectivist philosophers give the group, the fiction used to make reality easier to understand, rights, worse they give it rights over the individual.
OWS is a group that seems to be claiming an awful lot of rights in the name of an awful large percentage of the population...are you with them or not?
When i say groups don't exist i mean that they are only the sum of their parts, nothing more nothing less, they have no power over their members save if their members give it and only over their members.
Congress has the right to pass laws over congress and those who agree to follow congress, I don't agree so congress has no rights relating to me.
I don't want power, I want to be left alone not forced to live how others want a gun point, would you be willing to kill me WHEN (not if) i don't pay my taxes to fund wars, murder and more extortion and if the IRS comes will you be willing to go with them when i resist arrest
15? OK that makes a lot of sense...you're not drunk blogging you're just naive. There is a reason people you're age don't have any power and you clearly demonstrated what that reason was in your previous statements. You'll understand when you actually get a chance to experience the real world...best of luck kid.
I'm 15 and that's complete bullshit its very hard for kids or citzens to leave home/state so the threat is fairly empty.
the members of this country (group) DID give them the power to pass laws over you, and you chose not to leave the group. You can always go live in the woods, nobody will mind you make your own flyswatter out there. But Civilization is a group and they have chosen to empower certain people to pass laws, and by choosing to remain in the civilization they created you are choosing to be subject to their laws.
Like your parents used to say when you were a rebellious teenager: "As long as your under my roof you follow my rules"
You ever gotten together with more than 4 people. Ideas get jumbled like in a Vita Mix. Far from simpler ideas.
What does that have to do with individual vs groups
I meant that its and easier way of saying the people who have __ blank in common, say the group but language structures thought so saying the group so much makes us think that the group is real
You're the one that said the group makes ideas simpler.
Don't forget the monopoly on the use of force.
These are monopolies granted to companies via the force monopoly
But there is no monopoly on creativity.
I don't understand
[Removed]
[Removed]