OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?Marine Hokie wrote:I've consistently advocated for states to not continue the practice of issuing special monopoly privileges.ip_law-hokie wrote:Marine Hokie wrote:Correct, government intervention via patents is (part of) the problem (though not the only government intervention problem in this case).ip_law-hokie wrote:In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)
*this is only in response to marine's point **
I'm not sure that I agree that the government stopping intervention is itself intervention. But if that's what you want to call it, then sure, I'm for the government intervening in itself to stop intervening in markets.
Are you advocating that we abolish the patent system?
This is why we need single-payer health care
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15765
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
- Party: Independent
- Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
The author of the article mentions insulin (which I take 4 shots a day).
There is no such thing as a "generic" insulin. Since it's classified as a biological there will never be a generic insulin.
At one time you could sachet into a pharmacy and get a vial of insulin for a $1, those days are long gone...and with the advent of analog insulin the prices have sky rocketed to where a month's supply can run an uninsured person over a $2000 a month (Apidra and Lantus for instance).
Walmart has really done the uninsured of this country a good service by contracting with Novo Nordisk to sell its Novolin R, N and Novolin 70/30 for $24.88 under their own ReliOn brand....these insulin's are not analog and take much more monitoring on behalf of the patient/doctor but they do work they're just not as effective.
The crazy thing is the patents on these analog insulin's expired years ago but not one company has started a biosimilar product. The reason? Our own FDA. The FDA didn't get on the ball until 2012 when they issued a draft guidance on the development of biosimilar insulin. Hurray it only took them 12 years and only then because of the ACA...there was absolutely nothing stopping them from producing guidelines before that...wink, wink.
As an aside here is a little known drug thingy...you do not need a Rx to buy non analog insulins. You can just walk in and buy it.
There is no such thing as a "generic" insulin. Since it's classified as a biological there will never be a generic insulin.
At one time you could sachet into a pharmacy and get a vial of insulin for a $1, those days are long gone...and with the advent of analog insulin the prices have sky rocketed to where a month's supply can run an uninsured person over a $2000 a month (Apidra and Lantus for instance).
Walmart has really done the uninsured of this country a good service by contracting with Novo Nordisk to sell its Novolin R, N and Novolin 70/30 for $24.88 under their own ReliOn brand....these insulin's are not analog and take much more monitoring on behalf of the patient/doctor but they do work they're just not as effective.
The crazy thing is the patents on these analog insulin's expired years ago but not one company has started a biosimilar product. The reason? Our own FDA. The FDA didn't get on the ball until 2012 when they issued a draft guidance on the development of biosimilar insulin. Hurray it only took them 12 years and only then because of the ACA...there was absolutely nothing stopping them from producing guidelines before that...wink, wink.
As an aside here is a little known drug thingy...you do not need a Rx to buy non analog insulins. You can just walk in and buy it.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
Why do you ask? I'm not sure that changing their constitution to disallow patents would do much, since they ignore most of the restrictions in it. They mostly just pay attention to the parts "authorizing them" to do things, like grant IP monopolies, confiscate wealth, etc. But if you think that's what it should take, I don't have a problem with it.ip_law-hokie wrote:Marine Hokie wrote:I've consistently advocated for states to not continue the practice of issuing special monopoly privileges.ip_law-hokie wrote:Marine Hokie wrote:Correct, government intervention via patents is (part of) the problem (though not the only government intervention problem in this case).ip_law-hokie wrote:In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)
*this is only in response to marine's point **
I'm not sure that I agree that the government stopping intervention is itself intervention. But if that's what you want to call it, then sure, I'm for the government intervening in itself to stop intervening in markets.
Are you advocating that we abolish the patent system?
OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
because it's a rather radical and left-wing position you have there. not one that is typical from original meaning types (I've put you in this group, fairly or not).
not to say it is without merit, just a bit radical. . . ..
[/quote]
Why do you ask? I'm not sure that changing their constitution to disallow patents would do much, since they ignore most of the restrictions in it. They mostly just pay attention to the parts "authorizing them" to do things, like grant IP monopolies, confiscate wealth, etc. But if you think that's what it should take, I don't have a problem with it.[/quote]
not to say it is without merit, just a bit radical. . . ..
[/quote]
Why do you ask? I'm not sure that changing their constitution to disallow patents would do much, since they ignore most of the restrictions in it. They mostly just pay attention to the parts "authorizing them" to do things, like grant IP monopolies, confiscate wealth, etc. But if you think that's what it should take, I don't have a problem with it.[/quote]
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
When did I advocate for original meaning? Sure, I think if they're going to pretend to be restricted by their document, they should actually do it. The alternative is that they just interpret it to mean whatever they think it should mean to support their goals, and the document is rendered meaningless. There's a good argument to make that this ship has long since sailed. But I don't worship the constitution with the kind of reverence many (most?) people do, as something that theoretically binds the government and definitely binds the rest of us, and that as long as something either not prohibited by the constitution or else is specifically "authorized" by the constitution then it's ok for the state to do it.ip_law-hokie wrote:because it's a rather radical and left-wing position you have there. not one that is typical from original meaning types (I've put you in this group, fairly or not).
not to say it is without merit, just a bit radical. . . ..
I could be wrong, but I don't think anti-government sanctioned patent/copyright is left wing. Most democratic politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies and special privileges for the chosen just as much as republican politicians.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
You didn't advocate for original meaning. I merely put you in this group based on an assumption (apparently unfairly).
It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good. Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good. Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
Marine Hokie wrote:When did I advocate for original meaning? Sure, I think if they're going to pretend to be restricted by their document, they should actually do it. The alternative is that they just interpret it to mean whatever they think it should mean to support their goals, and the document is rendered meaningless. There's a good argument to make that this ship has long since sailed. But I don't worship the constitution with the kind of reverence many (most?) people do, as something that theoretically binds the government and definitely binds the rest of us, and that as long as something either not prohibited by the constitution or else is specifically "authorized" by the constitution then it's ok for the state to do it.ip_law-hokie wrote:because it's a rather radical and left-wing position you have there. not one that is typical from original meaning types (I've put you in this group, fairly or not).
not to say it is without merit, just a bit radical. . . ..
I could be wrong, but I don't think anti-government sanctioned patent/copyright is left wing. Most democratic politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies and special privileges for the chosen just as much as republican politicians.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
Dumb question - if you wanted to abolish patents, why would you need a constitutional amendment to do it? The constitution merely empowers the Congress "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". It does not require Congress to do any of that stuff.ip_law-hokie wrote:OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?
While obviously, I don't agree with all of Marine Hokie's libertarianism, the real problem with patents is the crony capitalism aspect, not the patents themselves. You get a patent on something stupid (like one-click shopping) and then bully companies into giving you a payoff because it's cheaper then litigation. You get a patent on a new technology and then lobby the government to either require people to buy it or to ban all competing technologies. Patents themselves aren't a bad thing and people should be able to, for a reasonable time, exclusively profit from their inventions.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
It's not a dumb question. I would argue that the patent clause you quoted seems to grant an individual right to inventors for their discoveries, but your position has merit too. Maybe more than mine.BigDave wrote:Dumb question - if you wanted to abolish patents, why would you need a constitutional amendment to do it? The constitution merely empowers the Congress "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". It does not require Congress to do any of that stuff.ip_law-hokie wrote:OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?
While obviously, I don't agree with all of Marine Hokie's libertarianism, the real problem with patents is the crony capitalism aspect, not the patents themselves. You get a patent on something stupid (like one-click shopping) and then bully companies into giving you a payoff because it's cheaper then litigation. You get a patent on a new technology and then lobby the government to either require people to buy it or to ban all competing technologies. Patents themselves aren't a bad thing and people should be able to, for a reasonable time, exclusively profit from their inventions.
The problem is that you shouldn't be able to get a patent on something stupid in the first place. The evils all flow from that.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
You're misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the common good or about disregarding property rights. Government patents restrict property rights of the non-patent holder. A perceived net loss or gain to the common good is irrelevant to my position.ip_law-hokie wrote: It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
I'm not trying to argue with you, and whether the common good is the motivation or not is irrelevant, its the end result. Marxist! (TIC)Marine Hokie wrote:You're misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the common good or about disregarding property rights. Government patents restrict property rights of the non-patent holder. A perceived net loss or gain to the common good is irrelevant to my position.ip_law-hokie wrote: It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
You're still misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the end result being what's significant.ip_law-hokie wrote:I'm not trying to argue with you, and whether the common good is the motivation or not is irrelevant, its the end result. Marxist! (TIC)Marine Hokie wrote:You're misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the common good or about disregarding property rights. Government patents restrict property rights of the non-patent holder. A perceived net loss or gain to the common good is irrelevant to my position.ip_law-hokie wrote: It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
I'm almost positive I didn't make the claim that republican politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies more (or less) than democrats.BigDave wrote:Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
I think the better question is who is not pro-IP? I count at least two: Che Guvara and Marine.BigDave wrote:Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
(just giving you a hard time Marine. FWIW, we probably agree that pro-IP is not always pro-business, or pro-competitive.)
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
The mainstream view is that patents and enforcing patent rights is a fundamental tenant to a stable economy. You have to search the fringes to find people who do not believe in enforcing at least some patent rights.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm almost positive I didn't make the claim that republican politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies more (or less) than democrats.BigDave wrote:Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
Your position that we should no longer grant patents would draw attention from the WTO. If your position is also that the U.S. government should not respect the IP rights of others (foreign nationals), then it would probably expel us. I respectfully submit that it is a bit naive and is certainly radical.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
I'm not going to hold a bad position just because it's a popular one. War with Iraq in 2003 was popular, war with England in 1775 wasn't.ip_law-hokie wrote:The mainstream view is that patents and enforcing patent rights is a fundamental tenant to a stable economy. You have to search the fringes to find people who do not believe in enforcing at least some patent rights.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm almost positive I didn't make the claim that republican politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies more (or less) than democrats.BigDave wrote:Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
Your position that we should no longer grant patents would draw attention from the WTO. If your position is also that the U.S. government should not respect the IP rights of others (foreign nationals), then it would probably expel us. I respectfully submit that it is a bit naive and is certainly radical.
I stand by my assertion that patents restrict property rights, they do not protect them. I'm not going to be swayed on my position against state intervention in our personal lives by an argument that it could negatively affect the US government's relationship with other governments. President Obama's desire to be friendly with the chancellor of Germany doesn't supersede our personal liberties.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
So if slave owners agreed to stop beating their slaves, that would be ok? Surely they shouldn't have overthrown the current system that had such a long legal history.ip_law-hokie wrote:I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
That's fine and all, but you'd have a greater effect on society to enter the debate where it is currently being waged. And I think it is a debate worth having.
Marine Hokie wrote:So if slave owners agreed to stop beating their slaves, that would be ok? Surely they shouldn't have overthrown the current system that had such a long legal history.ip_law-hokie wrote:I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
That's the exclusive attitude that helps keep the two established parties running the show.
ip_law-hokie wrote:That's fine and all, but you'd have a greater effect on society to enter the debate where it is currently being waged. And I think it is a debate worth having.
Marine Hokie wrote:So if slave owners agreed to stop beating their slaves, that would be ok? Surely they shouldn't have overthrown the current system that had such a long legal history.ip_law-hokie wrote:I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Re: This is why we need single-payer health care
I think our patent system and the idea of intellectual property is essential to advancement. The problem is, the system hasn't kept up with the pace of technological advancement. It's full of holes, and vulnerable to cronyism.
It needs to be overhauled.
It needs to be overhauled.
ip_law-hokie wrote:I think the better question is who is not pro-IP? I count at least two: Che Guvara and Marine.BigDave wrote:Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.Marine Hokie wrote:I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
(just giving you a hard time Marine. FWIW, we probably agree that pro-IP is not always pro-business, or pro-competitive.)
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson