Gov Dayton

[swamptiger]

Quote:

If Libertarians believe Government causes monopolies, there is no hope for them.

The King was so fond of monopolies, it almost led to a revolt for him. More money for the Crown...

Development of the modern patent system

Patents were systematically granted in Venice as of 1450, where they issued a decree by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. The period of protection was 10 years.[9] These were mostly in the field of glass making. As Venetians emigrated, they sought similar patent protection in their new homes. This led to the diffusion of patent systems to other countries.[10]

The Venetian Patent Statute, issued by the Senate of Venice in 1474, and one of the earliest patent systems in the world.

King Henry II of France introduced the concept of publishing the description of an invention in a patent in 1555. The first patent "specification" was to inventor Abel Foullon for "Usaige & Description de l'holmetre", (a type of rangefinder.) Publication was delayed until after the patent expired in 1561.[10] Patents were granted by the monarchy and by others institutions like the "Maison du Roi" and the Parliament of Paris. The novelty of the invention was examined by the French Academy of Sciences.[11] Digests were published irregularly starting in 1729 with delays of up to 60 years. Examinations were generally done in secret with no requirement to publish a description of the invention. Actual use of the invention was deemed adequate disclosure to the public.[12]

The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish.

By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] Blackstone (same reference) also explains how "letters patent" (Latin literae patentes, "letters that lie open") were so called because the seal hung from the foot of the document: they were addressed "To all to whom these presents shall come" and could be read without breaking the seal, as opposed to "letters close", addressed to a particular person who had to break the seal to read them.

This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with the exception of:

...the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this realm to the true and first inventor and inventors of such manufactures which others at the time of making such letters patent and grants shall not use...

The Statute became the foundation for later developments in patent law in England and elsewhere.

[PurpleFloyd]

I wonder if he had ever heard of municipal liquor stores,power companies and those sort of things?

[swamptiger]

It's good to be the King...

[delcecchi]

[

Several states have already passed legislation on blow. Hookers might be next..

If you don't know the difference between weed and blow.... You might be a Libertarian.

[delcecchi]

If you don't think property rights to a new mechanism or process should be preserved for even a limited time...... You might be a Libertarian.

[aanderud]

So many things on that list are too extreme to even consider doing. I'll address one just for giggles, though you already know all this. If you really think that abolishing of the FDA altogether, and getting government out of drug regulation entirely and leaving it to the consumer to do enough research to keep dangerous or untested chemicals out of their body, you're out of your mind.

It can't even be done on a small scale. Imagine going to get a "flu shot" and wondering did I actually get a flu vaccine, or was it something else? If so, what's the record of the company that manufactured that batch? How long have they been in business? How was the vaccine manufactured? How was it handled between manufacturing and injection (e.g. refrigeration, timeframe, etc)? What are the odds that it's not tainted with something else?

Hell, conspiracy theorists already wonder about such trivial things as vaccinations in today's tightly regulated environment. Just imagine what it'll be like without any regulation! Now take it to a more complex topic like figuring out what chemo meds to put in your body. Good luck with that!

Again I think it comes down to a difference between ideological views and realistic implementation. Realistically, some regulation and some government intervention is necessary. Not just with meds, but with roads, consumer product safety, and probably even to some extent the EPA <gasp!> (though I absolutely hate the EPA we have today). I think it's safe to say that almost every government entity is bloated beyond its useful state and has more spending and more power than necessary -- but I'd guess that the majority of them are probably useful in at least some scale (albeit much smaller and less powerful than their current versions).

Hold onto your horses. Rush, Beck and Jason Lewis haven't covered that yet.

I'm guessing you must not have listened to Jason much. He's about as free-market as any mainstream media folks. I'd say Jason is actually more small-L libertarian in his thinking than most of the Republicans out there. However, he probably understands the reality, which is that if he goes off straight into deep Libertarian-land where the extreme stances live, he'll be left with have a listening audience of 0.99%, which isn't going to keep him employed. It's something Libertarian candidates will never figure out, and that's why they'll never be relevant in elections.

[aanderud]

If you don't think property rights to a new mechanism or process should be preserved for even a limited time...... You might be a Libertarian.

LOL at this one. The free market will work this all out, Del. Someday you'll realize that any regulation at all is basically stomping on my liberty. I have a right to copy the heck out of anything I want. It's written there in the ... constitution... errr....I think.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

If you don't think property rights to a new mechanism or process should be preserved for even a limited time...... You might be a Libertarian.

I'd rather be the KIng.

This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

If you don't know the difference between weed and blow.... You might be a Libertarian.

Is blow a 50's term? But regardless, pretty sure you didn't support weed either.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

If Libertarians believe Government causes monopolies, there is no hope for them.

Quote:

If you don't think property rights to a new mechanism or process should be preserved for even a limited time...... You might be a Libertarian.

Irregardless of what libertarians or I believe, patents and other intellectual property rights are monopolies by design, so which is it?

At least one of your statements is categorically false.

[aanderud]

Quote:

If Libertarians believe Government causes monopolies, there is no hope for them.

Quote:

If you don't think property rights to a new mechanism or process should be preserved for even a limited time...... You might be a Libertarian.

Irregardless of what libertarians or I believe, patents and other intellectual property rights are monopolies by design, so which is it?

At least one of your statements is categorically false.

I'll state my opinion on the matter even though you're talking to Del -- I'll take a compromise, which I believe describes a functional patent system. I'd allow a 'monopoly' (if you want to call it that) on a specific design for a specific set of time which is sufficient for you to recoup your development and investment costs, and then allows generic offshoots after that. Libertarians can't ever seem to meet in the middle. Always extreme, never realistic, which results in 0.99% voter approval.

[delcecchi]

Quote:

If you don't know the difference between weed and blow.... You might be a Libertarian.

Is blow a 50's term? But regardless, pretty sure you didn't support weed either.

Another thing you got wrong.

[delcecchi]

Quote:

If you don't think property rights to a new mechanism or process should be preserved for even a limited time...... You might be a Libertarian.

Irregardless of what libertarians or I believe, patents and other intellectual property rights are monopolies by design, so which is it?

At least one of your statements is categorically false.

Patents are in the Constitution.

So Libertarians believe in absolute property rights to patches of dirt and physical objects, but intellectual property gets no protection? Why should the government grant you a monopoly on the use of that 40 acre field?

Isn't it infringing my freedom of movement and action to forbid me to use it? /sarcasm

Monopoly is such of a loaded word. Intellectual Property is property. You guys aren't secret members of the Pirate Party are you?

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

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Patents are in the Constitution.

So Libertarians believe in absolute property rights to patches of dirt and physical objects, but intellectual property gets no protection? Why should the government grant you a monopoly on the use of that 40 acre field?

Isn't it infringing my freedom of movement and action to forbid me to use it? /sarcasm

Monopoly is such of a loaded word. Intellectual Property is property. You guys aren't secret members of the Pirate Party are you?

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

You're not related to Houdini, are you?

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Another thing you got wrong.

You mean you did support it?

[delcecchi]

You're not related to Houdini, are you?

Nope. So what about those copyrights and patents?

[swamptiger]

Quote:

I'll state my opinion on the matter even though you're talking to Del -- I'll take a compromise, which I believe describes a functional patent system. I'd allow a 'monopoly' (if you want to call it that) on a specific design for a specific set of time which is sufficient for you to recoup your development and investment costs, and then allows generic offshoots after that.

Fact: It is a legal monopoly granted by the government, however you wish to describe it.

Fact: It is one of the primary mechanisms used to become extremely wealthy. And it is fully endorsed and orchestrated by the government. Bill Gates/Microsoft is a primary example.

Fact: Libertarians are not in universal agreement on the subject or validity of intellectual property as granted by the state.

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/li...er-spooner-rand

[delcecchi]

I don't know who some of those folks are, but I see some of them referred to as Individualists and/or Anarchists. And of course all this "contract" stuff would require a mechanism of some coercive form to enforce the contracts and extract any judgements resulting from violation.

If I get a copy of your book, scan and digitize it, and sell the data for a buck, even if it is a violation of some contract imputed to me that I had no part in (sounds like copyright in drag) how does this get enforced?

Or if I go to Fleet Farm and look at your new Ice Fishing gadget and make one just like it, use same graphics etc and sell it for less, is that OK?

[PurpleFloyd]

I don't know who some of those folks are, but I see some of them referred to as Individualists and/or Anarchists. And of course all this "contract" stuff would require a mechanism of some coercive form to enforce the contracts and extract any judgements resulting from violation.

If I get a copy of your book, scan and digitize it, and sell the data for a buck, even if it is a violation of some contract imputed to me that I had no part in (sounds like copyright in drag) how does this get enforced?

Or if I go to Fleet Farm and look at your new Ice Fishing gadget and make one just like it, use same graphics etc and sell it for less, is that OK?

What does Ted Cruz have to Say on the topic? More regulation is good?

What is the GOP stance?

[swamptiger]

Quote:

I don't know who some of those folks are, but I see some of them referred to as Individualists and/or Anarchists. And of course all this "contract" stuff would require a mechanism of some coercive form to enforce the contracts and extract any judgements resulting from violation.

If I get a copy of your book, scan and digitize it, and sell the data for a buck, even if it is a violation of some contract imputed to me that I had no part in (sounds like copyright in drag) how does this get enforced?

Or if I go to Fleet Farm and look at your new Ice Fishing gadget and make one just like it, use same graphics etc and sell it for less, is that OK?

So..

Quote:

If Libertarians believe Government causes monopolies, there is no hope for them.

Definate lapse in rationale here..

[delcecchi]

[

Definate lapse in rationale here..

Patents are specific monopolies or rights to ownership of intellectual property, granted by the government for a specific purpose. Some here want to get rid of them, calling themselve Libertarian. Seems like a funny kind of Libertarian to advocate so strongly for "property rights" but only some property rights.

No taking of land, but taking of inventions? It is the Libertarians who are inconsistent.

[swamptiger]

I know the mental gymnastics are difficult for you, and you have my sympathy, if it's any consolation to you.

However, the issue was whether or not governments create monopolies, and the simple fact is they do, and also sanction them, however you would like to contort the issue.

Quote:

No taking of land, but taking of inventions? It is the Libertarians who are inconsistent.

Wrong, no one in this thread advocated taking inventions, to my recollection.

Corporations do it all the time, however.

[PurpleFloyd]

If eminent domain is in the constitution,then isn't the judicial branch the appropriate mechanism to resolve any disputes regarding it?

[Big Dave2]

In this day and age of global economy patents are effectively worthless anyway unless you have millions of dollars to spend defending them. It is very hard to stop a Chinese company from copying your product and selling it on the internet.

[delcecchi]

If eminent domain is in the constitution,then isn't the judicial branch the appropriate mechanism to resolve any disputes regarding it?

It sure is, and that's where the disagreements end up.

[delcecchi]

Nah, I can have 3 inconsistent opinions before breakfast. Sure government can create monopolies. But government is not necessary to do so. Seems to me that there were folks on this thread or on some of the Libertarian web pages that were upset about copyright and patents. I'll post the quote if I find it.

Monopolies can range from Standard Oil to ATT to the company store to the fire department.

So, how do you feel, as someone with Libertarian tendencies, about Copyright and Patents? Or about Intellectual Property rights in general?

[Big Dave2]

So, how do you feel, as someone with Libertarian tendencies, about Copyright and Patents? Or about Intellectual Property rights in general?

If a Libertarian president or legislators were actually elected to office, do you really believe that this would be one of the first things to be handled? Personally, I think we have bigger fish to fry.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

So, how do you feel, as someone with Libertarian tendencies, about Copyright and Patents? Or about Intellectual Property rights in general?

Probably not a bad concept. The original intent was to encourage innovation, however, today it has evolved into something that is more often used to bolster corporate monopoly. Along with the aid of government.

More wealth for the Crown....

[aanderud]

So, how do you feel, as someone with Libertarian tendencies, about Copyright and Patents? Or about Intellectual Property rights in general?

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Instead, maybe they should focus on the REALISTIC things that might be done. Like maybe patent reform (so that someone can't patent such obvious things like round corners on a smartphone -- and yes it has been done, just hasn't been enforced). Or cap the patent on a particular investment-recouping profit amount rather than a static timetable. I don't know there are tons of workable ideas. Or instead of abolishing the FDA completely, maybe think about reduction of the time it takes the FDA to approve drugs, or reduction of the number of things the FDA controls, etc. The list goes on.

In order for any of that to ever happen, you would have to assume they serve the public, or the taxpayers. That's not the case.

http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/politics/revolvingdoor.html