EA is doing something good for the gaming community

[Snapple]

You know that con artist who tries to collect royalties from every game with the word "edge" in the title? If you don't, you can read a little bit about it from an old article here.
http://kotaku.com/5273141/trademark-troll-gets-mobigames-edge-taken-down

and here
http://kotaku.com/5312534/trademark-troll-is-at-it-again-%5Bupdate%5D


Well, Electronic Arts is going to use their mega lawyer team to try and take down Tim Langdell's trademark scheme once and for all.
http://kotaku.com/5370359/electronic-arts-sues-to-cancel-langdells-trademarks

EA does have a personal motive in this, since Mirror's Edge is one of the games that has been scammed. Or maybe they're doing this for good PR. Or maybe it's as they say, it's a favor to the development community. Whatever the reason EA is getting involved, it will be a good thing if they shut this guy down.

Of course, I question why the trademark office thought in the first place that it was fair to give ownership of a word as common as "edge" to one person. Imagine if someone trademarked "legend." It could get out of hand.

[jcalder8]

I'm guessing that EA is doing this to finally shut this guy up and that they've had a few games over the years that they would have liked to call Edge in some way shape or form and because of this idiot they couldn't. As much as I'd like to believe that they are doing it for the smaller companies out there it all comes down to them just getting sick of this guy bothering them.

I can't wait to see how it all turns out though. I'm actually disappointed that we have to wait until the summer to see the trial.

[kupomogli]

I'm going to trademark the letter A for the title of a video game. Square-Enix will have to pay me royalty three times for the Final Fantasy series.

[Robocop2]

I'm not exactly sure whats more entertaining; the fact that this guy came up with this idea, or that the legal system has entertained this for so long already

[kedawa]

I really hope they take this fuckwad to the cleaners, and then organize a class action dogpile with every other legitimate developer that's been stifled by his bullshit.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm going to trademark the letter A for the title of a video game.
Rights and registrations generally aren't retroactive.

At least they're not supposed to be - we'll get to find out all the amazing anecdotes about Edge's possible fake-date trademark applications before next August.

[Icarus Moonsight]

If you want to be a full-tilt asshole, then trademark all the vowels... Even sometimes "Y", don't want to give the rhythm genre a possible loophole. :p

[Ed Oscuro]

If you want to be a full-tilt asshole, then trademark all the vowels... Even sometimes "Y", don't want to give the rhythm genre a possible loophole. :p
Sorry, Ebn Ozn (http://trappedinthe80smoms.blogspot.com/2008/08/ebn-ozn-aeiou-and-sometimes-y.html) beat you to that particular punchbowl. :p

[ScourDX]

Perhaps EA should change the word to 3dg3. Seriously patent & trademark should be abolished. It never benefits anyone except the rich and the greed.

[IcBlUsCrN]

i do find it strange that EA would do anything for the development community , hope they win.




Seriously patent & trademark should be abolished. It never benefits anyone except the rich and the greed.

without it capitalism would not work.

[TonyTheTiger]

Perhaps EA should change the word to 3dg3. Seriously patent & trademark should be abolished. It never benefits anyone except the rich and the greed.

Patent and copyright exist to encourage creativity and innovation. People won't work as hard to actually create anything or develop any ideas if they can't protect their work. To a lesser extent, patent and copyright are also designed to protect the integrity of the product. Trademark, in fact, is specifically designed for this purpose. Imagine if anybody could sell a soda with the "Coca-Cola" logo on it. That creates confusion in the market. Now what if that soda tastes like ass? The real Coca-Cola will suffer for that since people will now associate the shitty soda with the real deal.

[ScourDX]

without it capitalism would not work.

Capitalist never work to begin with. 97% of the world population isn't rich. It never benefits you or me because we aren't making $1 billion/year. If it did, I will support it 100%.


Patent and copyright exist to encourage creativity and innovation. People won't work as hard to actually create anything or develop any ideas if they can't protect their work. To a lesser extent, patent and copyright are also designed to protect the integrity of the product. Trademark, in fact, is specifically designed for this purpose. Imagine if anybody could sell a soda with the "Coca-Cola" logo on it. That creates confusion in the market. Now what if that soda tastes like ass? The real Coca-Cola will suffer for that since people will now associate the shitty soda with the real deal.

I doubt it encourage creativity & innovation. It only encourage "what is mine is mine and yours can go to hell" mentality. It is often abused and discouraging creativity & innovation. Look at all other lawsuit put forth by smaller party who blame big corporation for selling their technology and make profit - Immersion vs Sony case. You don't tell me Sony didn't create their own technology and got sued because someone patten the idea first & no one else can use it. Too me this is pure greed.

[kedawa]

Patents as they exist today are just archaic and stupid. They don't encourage innovation, they just shackle it to an exclusionary licensing model that works against all but the biggest corporations.

If there were no patents, every product would benefit from the freedom to use all of the best design ideas. Ever wondered why so many MP3 players and phones have horrible interfaces, or why game pads have such horrible dpads? Well, you can thank the patent system for that.

Innovation has been going on for as long as humans have existed. Patents exist solely to restrict others from competing with the patent holders.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Regarding the patenting and capitalism tangent, an interesting lecture;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4
Edit because the vid is long: You can skip to about 9 minutes in and get the innovation cost = copy cost part, but the whole thing is pretty good. I first saw this about 2 months ago. Since then, I've forgotten that it's and hour and a half long. Sorry.

I'm not sure whether or not patents are bad in whole, but I do know that the concept is very prone to unethical or misuse.

Edit: Due to the first link requiring a content subscription to get more than the abstract.

[DDCecil]

Edit: NM

[Captainr]

Patents exist solely to restrict others from competing with the patent holders.
LOL

Download generation much?

The system certainly needs a face lift--it hasn't changed a lot over the last 100 years--but it's not a restriction on competition.

If I spent 10 years developing the best spring loaded hinge, one that would be used for the rest of time, I'd want to own it for as long as I could.

Maybe socialist or communist much? Eh?

[kedawa]

Brainwashed capitalist much?

To use your own example, what if you spent all that time developing your super duper hinge, only to find out that some corporation with a monstrous patent portfolio had already patented a similar design, and now you can't even manufacture your own design and market it without paying some exorbitant licensing fee?

There's nothing socialist or communist about wanting to freely use whatever concepts and ideas best suit your needs instead of being beholden to the patent despots.

[JunkTheMagicDragon]

what if you spent all that time developing your super duper hinge, only to find out that some corporation with a monstrous patent portfolio had already patented a similar design, and now you can't even manufacture your own design and market it without paying some exorbitant licensing fee?

in that case, your dumb ass just spent all your time designing something someone already had. (it sucks. believe me, i've been there.)

if i come up with a great idea for a product, a patent allows me a temporary monopoly on it to get established and recoup my investment. otherwise i'd build amazing widget #1, sell it for $5, only to have acmecorp see it, build it in china for 10c, sell it for $2.50, and run me out of business simply because of their existing manufacturing base.

i agree that some of the current uses of patent law are distasteful (patent trolling, overly-broad patents), but this system has its purpose.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The thing about patents is, you've already filed the design documentation with a public institution... Anyone can access it easily enough. I don't think it does what is intended at all. In fact, it makes copying much easier and less expensive. Just change the design enough to prevent legal action and bam! You got Xeroxed tech. The whole thing is idiotic. What do I know? I'm just a capitalist. :p Keep the corporatism and mercantilism thanks. I'm just here for the laissez faire. LOL

[TonyTheTiger]

Brainwashed capitalist much?

To use your own example, what if you spent all that time developing your super duper hinge, only to find out that some corporation with a monstrous patent portfolio had already patented a similar design, and now you can't even manufacture your own design and market it without paying some exorbitant licensing fee?

There's nothing socialist or communist about wanting to freely use whatever concepts and ideas best suit your needs instead of being beholden to the patent despots.

I'm not as well versed in patents as I am in copyright and trademark but I can say this situation does not happen with copyright. If somebody creates a song in Idaho and sticks it in his drawer and 5 years later I happen to come up with the exact same song by just sheer coincidence, that guy cannot stop me from using my song. That's why you see copyright notices on things. Because it lets people know "hey, this is mine."

And, yes, it does encourage innovation and creativity for two reasons. First, people don't want to work for nothing. They want to be fairly compensated for their efforts and would be discouraged from even trying if they knew that Joe Schmoe down the block could easily use their work for his own benefit at the creators' detriment. Second, it protects the integrity of the creation. From a copyright standpoint, if Bruce Springsteen writes a song and puts it out there it would be just plain unfair to him if everybody else starts doing the same song thereby saturating the market and perhaps destroying the potential success the original song could have had.

For every Kotaku story about patent/copyright/trademark gone wrong, there are thousands of situations where the system works just as it should and serves an important purpose. Fixing what problems do exist requires an exacto knife rather than a sledgehammer.

[Berserker]

The patent system was created to serve a world that doesn't exist anymore. In that world it protected creativity, but in this world, it suffocates it.

Just my opinion, of course.

[TonyTheTiger]

The world hasn't changed that much. An innovation in 1913 is no more or less valuable or worthy of protection than an innovation in 2009.

[Berserker]

The world hasn't changed that much. An innovation in 1913 is no more or less valuable or worthy of protection than an innovation in 2009.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. The world of 1913 was a relatively unconnected one, so two guys in different parts of the world could get away with having the same way to peel an apple, because they weren't aware of each other's existence.

Today, everything is connected. There's google, email, and lawyers who use google to find targets to fire off cease & desist emails.

The patent system was created to serve an unconnected world. Things have changed, and we need a new system to address that.

[TonyTheTiger]

You basically argued for why patent is even more important in today's world without even knowing it. Now that the world is more connected there's even greater risk that Joe Middle Class who invents a brilliant tool will be abused when big shot Craftsman gets wind of it and starts selling the same thing thereby putting Joe Middle Class, the inventor, out of business. If you want to argue for basic fairness, patent does just that. It protects the little guy. What would you tell Joe Middle Class when that inevitably happens after patent is abolished? "Better luck next time"?

This tends to happen when some news story comes out where it seems somebody is taking advantage of the law in a way it normally shouldn't be used. While I can understand being miffed at the "patent farms" and the sometimes overly broad patents why not ask what narrowly tailored changes can be made to fix the issue at hand and prevent some similar event in the future rather than conclude that the entire institution is to blame? The old saying "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" couldn't ring more true in this situation.

[Berserker]

You basically argued for why patent is even more important in today's world without even knowing it.

Actually, I'm arguing for why creativity gets stifled when people are allowed to wall it in within a Small Pond situation. But more importantly, I'm arguing for what I'm arguing for - not what you imagine I'm arguing for.

[TonyTheTiger]

Then with all due respect, you're doing it poorly. People are more willing to create something if they know that should it be successful they'll get a return on their investment and that they will have the power to protect their creation from outside fiddling. Without those kinds of protections people will feel less secure and therefore less inclined to put forth the effort needed to actually create something.

Your belief that people would be more creative without patent/copyright is just not true. And, even if it is, would you rather see the Joe Middle Class situation happen as I and others have mentioned above? You seem to be dodging that issue.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Protection or barrier? This thread topic demonstrates the fact that those 'protections' are not altruistic in all cases.

[TonyTheTiger]

Where did I ever say that the system is perfect? The point is that saying "get rid of patent" because somebody abused a certain aspect of it is akin to saying "get rid of cars" because a particular model Jeep has a problem with rollovers. You fine tune the system based on the few problems that arise. You don't abolish it altogether when it does plenty of good in the long run.

This is where the common law comes in. The courts gradually fine tune a law when issues arise. Perfect example, the First Amendment. Most people would agree that the blanket idea of "freedom of speech" is a good thing. Then people started yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. The courts had to fine tune things. They didn't just say "Oh, shit. I guess this freedom of speech thing isn't so good after all. Too many abuses."

We can have an open discussion about how to fix the problem. But it's really hard to swallow the argument that the institution itself is the problem.

It also has nothing to do with altruism and never has. It has to do with encouraging economic growth. Entrepreneurs play a very important role in our economy and so things like patent and copyright exist so that Joe Middle Class can actually become the next Henry Ford or Walt Disney rather than watch an already established powerhouse rob him of that chance.

[Icarus Moonsight]

If you are so attached to these ideas, why then do you steal your nick/avi from a cereal company? Or do you practice as well as preach and send them $50 a year to use their protected likeness?

Fairly silly huh?

Part of that discussion also encompasses ditching the system as an option. It might not prove to be the best scenario, but you can't rule it out. There are correlations between protections and barriers and economic stagnation...

[Berserker]

Ugh. Ok, fine. Guess it's time to do that superfun line-by-line thing that everyone else scrolls past. Apologies in advance, mousewheels.


Then with all due respect, you're doing it poorly.

Yes, you'll have to excuse me. You see, I'm not that well-versed in things like attributing my own arguments and words to others instead of simply speaking for myself, attempting to verbally beat anyone who disagrees with me into the ground instead of simply agreeing to disagree, etc. Thankfully though, you're here, so we can all learn how to do it properly.


People are more willing to create something if they know that should it be successful they'll get a return on their investment and that they will have the power to protect their creation from outside fiddling. Without those kinds of protections people will feel less secure and therefore less inclined to put forth the effort needed to actually create something.

Well, that's your guess. I have another guess, which I summed up in my last post. You do realize that without facts, without figures, without evidence, that this is all just guessing and supposition, correct? I freely admit this on my end, but then, I wasn't on the lookout for internet fights.


Your belief that people would be more creative without patent/copyright is just not true. And, even if it is, would you rather see the Joe Middle Class situation happen as I and others have mentioned above? You seem to be dodging that issue.

Again, more opinion passed off as fact. Which is fine, but if you're going to directly tell me my beliefs are wrong, you might want to back it up with something a little more substantial than imaginary situations.

And I didn't dodge it, by the way - I just didn't acknowledge it because I was too busy trying to figure out why you just put words into my mouth. However, acknowledging it now - if patents were abolished then "Joe Middle Class" would still be free to sell his invention along with Craftsman and whomever else. The best-made version would become the most popular, and either way it goes the public would win. The lawyers and the squatters would lose.

Patents don't protect the little guy - they protect the first guy to squat on the claim. Everyone else loses.

Of course, that's also just another guess.

[GarrettCRW]

Entrepreneurs play a very important role in our economy and so things like patent and copyright exist so that Joe Middle Class can actually become the next Henry Ford or Walt Disney rather than watch an already established powerhouse rob him of that chance.

That's hilarious. A great deal of Disney's success was due to adaptations of public domain properties like Snow White and The Three Little Pigs. It's why animation fans react with such hostility when Disney the corporation comes crawling to Congress to get the next extension.

[TonyTheTiger]

That's hilarious. A greta deal of Disney's success was due to adaptations of public domain properties like Snow White and The Three Little Pigs. It's why animation fans react with such hostility when Disney the corporation comes crawling to Congress to get the next extension.

An adaptation is still a creation. How many man hours was put into producing Snow White? This isn't exactly what I'd call a cut and paste job.


If you are so attached to these ideas, why then do you steal your nick/avi from a cereal company? Or do you practice as well as preach and send them $50 a year to use their protected likeness?

Fairly silly huh?

Now you're just goofing off. I picked what you see because I liked it and decided to do so because I feel that Kellogg's won't really give a shit. If Kellogg's so desired to take Digital Press to court because the site is hosting a member's I.D. and avatar that violates their trademarks then Digital Press might very well be ordered to delete my account and I would end up creating another one. But it would be Kellogg's that decides. That's the point. Kellogg's is in control of their I.P. Not me, not Digital Press, not anybody else. If Craftsman steals Joe Middle Class's new tool then Joe Middle Class gets to decide what to do. To sue or not to sue. To settle or not to settle. And the courts will deal with the mess by either saying "Yes, it's a violation because..." or "No, it's not a violation because..."

I get the sneaking suspicion that the identity of the plaintiff and defendant matters quite a bit when considering the public perception of an issue.

Case in point, Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes. People got really up in arms when Square Enix shut down the project. "They're evil, they're bad, they're abusing the little guy, etc." But what if the situation were reversed? What if some little guy made a game and Square Enix decided to make an unofficial sequel to it using the original game's assets? I get the feeling that people wouldn't be so irate when the little guy sets out to shut down Square's project regardless of how far along in development it was.


Part of that discussion also encompasses ditching the system as an option. It might not prove to be the best scenario, but you can't rule it out. There are correlations between protections and barriers and economic stagnation...

Fine, let's discuss what the world would look like if we did abolish the system.

After investing a lot of time and money, Joe Middle Class creates a tool that's perfect for a certain task. It's brand spanking new. He decides to open a shop and sell this tool and various others of his design. His customers love his stuff. He's making money hand over foot and gradually is expanding his inventory and is even thinking of opening a few more stores. He's from humble origins and is now on his way to becoming a success. A textbook case of the American dream.

One day, a representative from Craftsman tools wanders into Joe's shop and spots the wonder tool among other unique things of Joe's creation. He buys one of each and scampers back to Craftsman headquarters. Craftsman, having the resources to produce these tools cheaply and in mass quantities, can sell them for half of what Joe can afford to sell them for. They decide to move ahead and market Joe's tools. Joe Middle Class can't afford to sell the tools as cheaply as Craftsman is. Now all of his customers are buying the tools he invested his blood, sweat, and money to design from Craftsman.

Not too much time passes before Joe can't afford to keep his shop open. He thought maybe he could use his special tools to one day be able to compete with Craftsman on that same level. And maybe because of the extra competition the prices on all tools would come down and the quality of all tools would go up because now, with more competition, each company has to work hard to stay above the rest. But that was just a foolish dream. Joe goes out of business, returns home, and never bothers to build another tool because there's no way the little guy can compete with the established giant.

I really would like to hear how this story is not likely to come to fruition if the system is abolished because for the life of me I can't see how it isn't inevitable.


The best-made version would become the most popular, and either way it goes the public would win.

Let me ask you this. How does an upstart manage to make the best-made version or the cheapest version? How is an upstart supposed to compete with Craftsman? They literally cannot do it without being afforded some protection. Craftsman has too many resources. Every single tool anybody invents would immediately be snatched up by Craftsman (or whatever other tool maker, just using Craftsman as an example) and then be sold inexpensively. A patentless world will encourage monopolies (because upstarts can't gain any steam to become real competition) and that is bad for everybody.

This is a very serious question. What is an upstart to do in a world without patent? Give me a business plan.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Now I get it. You're one of them "rules apply to everyone except when I don't like the implications" people. Your examination/example is also anecdotal rather than empirical.

This is like a child-molester priest chastising an unwed couple for pre-marital sex.

[TonyTheTiger]

Now I get it. You're one of them "rules apply to everyone except when I don't like the implications" people. Your examination/example is also anecdotal rather than empirical.

This is like a child-molester priest chastising an unwed couple for pre-marital sex.

Ok, three things.

1) You ignored absolutely everything. In fact, I plainly said the rules apply to everybody. See the Chrono Trigger scenario.

2) Remember that you're the one arguing for a radical change. The burden is on you to explain why such a change would be an improvement. It's like that in the courts, the legislature, pretty much everything. If anybody needs to supply facts, it's your end.

3) Do you think the scenario I presented is unlikely to occur? I will openly admit I can't provide an empirical example but that's because there are none since patent and copyright have been around for a very long time in just about every developed country. We don't really have much of a choice but to operate in the theoretical. But at least I'm providing theory. All I'm getting in return is a string of ad hominems.

[GarrettCRW]

An adaptation is still a creation. How many man hours was put into producing Snow White? This isn't exactly what I'd call a cut and paste job.

Under copyright law, you can't adapt a work if it's protected unless you have permission from the creator/rights holder. The silent film Nosferatu had many of its prints destroyed because it was deemed to be an unauthorized adaptation of Dracula (which was still protected at that time). Star Trek: The Next Generation avoided using Moriarty for years because the producers thought the Doyle estate was hostile to their use (in the end, the hostility was over the Paramount feature Young Sherlock Holmes, and Doyle's estate had no hostility towards TNG). I can give you more examples if you'd like.

[TonyTheTiger]

Yeah, I know. But, here's the kicker. The adaptation is also a protected work because it's considered derivative of the original. It becomes like a chain. If you write a book then you own the copyright until it goes into public domain. If I want to do an adaptation of it (let's say I want to turn it into a movie) then I have to get your permission. If I get your permission and make the movie then my movie is now also protected as a separate entity because it's technically a "new" creation. That's why Disney can protect Snow White. The original story is public domain but Disney's adaptation was a "new" work. I believe the standard is "substantially unique" or something along those lines. That means I can't just photocopy your book and then claim copyright protection as a derivative work. It requires I actually do something to get protection.

[GarrettCRW]

You forget the key point: the original copyright holder owns a chunk of the derived work. This is why it's such a process for episodes of MST3K to be released on DVD.

[TonyTheTiger]

You forget the key point: the original copyright holder owns a chunk of the derived work. This is why it's such a process for episodes of MST3K to be released on DVD.

Well, yes and no. It depends on the work. MST3K is a special example because the original movie is literally there. Distributing an episode of MST3K is also distributing the original movie. But the Harry Potter movies can be distributed freely by the film studio without getting permission from J. K. Rowling. The studio just needed her permission to make the movies to begin with. I happen to think that's perfectly fair since it's her work and she should be able to deny a film studio the right to make a Harry Potter movie. Others might disagree but I'm curious as to what would be more fair to Rowling.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I advocate for rational, universal and empirical examination to determine the best solution/description in all cases. That's the the scientific method. Newton didn't have to disprove all the findings of Aristotelian physics and Einstein didn't exactly disprove Newtonian conclusions. The new model simply replaced the old one. They came up with better means to explain the same things. If you are truly interested in protecting the little guy and furthering creativity, economic growth etc, you have to be able to divorce yourself from concepts and ideas when contradictions arise and reference reality in order to proceed.

Ad hominem? More like reductio ad absurdum. When your ideas are questioned and you immediately think ad hominem then you are much too invested in specifics to the case.

[TonyTheTiger]

I advocate for rational, universal and empirical examination to determine the best solution/description in all cases. That's the the scientific method. Newton didn't have to disprove all the findings of Aristotelian physics and Einstein didn't to disprove Newtonian conclusions. The new model simply replaced the old one. They came up with better means to explain the same things. If you are truly interested in protecting the little guy and furthering creativity, economic growth etc, you have to be able to divorce yourself from concepts and ideas when contradictions arise and reference reality in order to proceed.

I sincerely wish I could provide a concrete example but unfortunately those examples were likely never recorded and happened a long time ago since patent and copyright are both pretty old. I'm operating under an assumption that I don't think is an irrational one. The assumption is that at some point in the past somebody got screwed because he created something, somebody else took it, and because the second person was already in a better position to make something happen he ended up winning and the creator lost everything. The creator said "that's not fair" and the sentiment spread far enough for our current laws to be developed.

The only measuring stick we have is the world we see around us. That's why if somebody is going to argue that we should change they have to at least explain how the change would help. Providing theory, while perhaps not the best evidence, is still better than nothing. We have plenty of things based purely on theory. I'm pretty sure black holes haven't actually been proven, for example.

Newton did not have to disprove everything else but he did have to prove his own theory that changed how people saw the world around them. He didn't ask everybody else to prove themselves. He was the one who had to carry the burden and he did it rather well.

[GarrettCRW]

But the Harry Potter movies can be distributed freely by the film studio without getting permission from J. K. Rowling. The studio just needed her permission to make the movies to begin with. I happen to think that's perfectly fair since it's her work and she should be able to deny a film studio the right to make a Harry Potter movie. Others might disagree but I'm curious as to what would be more fair to Rowling.

Warner can freely make Potter movies because she assigned film rights, which until Warner bought the Potter characters outright (save publishing rights), which often expire.

[TonyTheTiger]

Warner can freely make Potter movies because she assigned film rights, which until Warner bought the Potter characters outright (save publishing rights), which often expire.

I don't know all the details about that. I was just using Harry Potter as an example. I've actually never read a single one of the books and only saw one of the movies. In fact, I used the generic "studio" moniker because I didn't know it was WB. I was just trying to show why MST3K is a different monster entirely.

[Berserker]

Let me ask you this. How does an upstart manage to make the best-made version or the cheapest version? How is an upstart supposed to compete with Craftsman? They literally cannot do it without being afforded some protection. Craftsman has too many resources. Every single tool anybody invents would immediately be snatched up by Craftsman (or whatever other tool maker, just using Craftsman as an example) and then be sold inexpensively. A patentless world will encourage monopolies (because upstarts can't gain any steam to become real competition) and that is bad for everybody.

This is a very serious question. What is an upstart to do in a world without patent? Give me a business plan.

Ok. Firstly, No - I'm not going to give you a business plan. If you want another imaginary situation where Joe Middle Class the patent applicant rides off into the sunset, then that's your problem, not mine.

Secondly, as I'm sure you know, there's actually an entire legal system that exists outside of patents. Anti-trust laws, Copyright, Trademark etc. These can be extended, revised, whatever is necessary. It's all entirely conceptual, it can all be changed, and IMO (Note, Opinion - Not fact, not truth) it should be. Another opinion is that if so-called "Free Trade" policies were reformed significantly enough, companies like Craftsman wouldn't have a pot to piss in as far as undercutting the little guy goes.

I guess by now there's no point in mentioning that you're taking this whole "Being Right" business all well past the point of absurdity. Anyway, I'm glad to see at least others aren't content to be silenced by it.

[TonyTheTiger]

Ok. Firstly, No - I'm not going to give you a business plan. If you want another imaginary situation where Joe Middle Class the patent applicant rides off into the sunset, then that's your problem, not mine.

Secondly, as I'm sure you know, there's actually an entire legal system that exists outside of patents. Anti-trust laws, Copyright, Trademark etc. These can be extended, revised, whatever is necessary. It's all entirely conceptual, it can all be changed, and IMO (Note, Opinion - Not fact, not truth) it should be. Another opinion is that if so-called "Free Trade" policies were reformed significantly enough, companies like Craftsman wouldn't have a pot to piss in as far as undercutting the little guy goes.

I guess by now there's no point in mentioning that you're taking this whole "Being Right" business all well past the point of absurdity. Anyway, I'm glad to see at least others aren't content to be silenced by it.

Are you agreeing with one of my earliest posts? Because if so we've just gone in a circle for nothing. Earlier I said that the system isn't perfect but working through it to fix the problems is the proper way to deal with it rather than taking a sledgehammer to the entire institution. The whole time you were saying abolishing patent is the way to go and only now say that things can be revised and altered without just tearing the entire system of protecting ownership? That's been my point the entire time. Are you backpedaling or what?

You'll have to forgive me for working within the realm of "abolishing patent" in it's own microcosm while assuming everything else remains the same. You've given no indication up to this point that anything else mattered and only now are adding in all these extra variables.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Devil's advocate here;

If the patent concept is to protect the little guy then should patent protection only be issued to people of humble means? If so, what income levels define 'humble'? What happens when the patent holder eventually exceeds those income limits? Does the patent, further profit and production structure get passed to someone else of 'humble' means so they can become elevated by it's creation or does the design then fall into public domain? What happens when a wealthy person has a great idea? In any case how does this foster competition pricing over monopoly pricing? What principles ensures supply? A person of 'humble' means with a good idea simply can not produce enough to make a good idea inexpensive enough to benefit anyone without some high measure of wealth.

[TonyTheTiger]

Devil's advocate here;

If the patent concept is to protect the little guy then should patent protection only be issued to people of humble means? If so, what income levels define 'humble'? What happens when the patent holder eventually exceeds those income limits? Does the patent, further profit and production structure get passed to someone else of 'humble' means so they can become elevated by it's creation or does the design then fall into public domain? What happens when a wealthy person has a great idea? In any case how does this foster competition pricing over monopoly pricing? What principles ensures supply? A person of 'humble' means with a good idea simply can not produce enough to make a good idea inexpensive enough to benefit anyone without some high measure of wealth.

Patent isn't there just to protect the little guy. I've been using that as an example because it sounds like that's the most "well liked" story. When people hear about the little guy getting screwed they seem to enjoy hearing that the law is behind them. On the other hand, when it's the other way around and the big shot uses the law to stop the little guy from doing something (Crimson Echoes) people tend to gravitate toward "the laws are bad." That might not be the true all over but it's at least somewhat of a trend on various gaming sites I've noticed. The underdog effect, I suppose. I really don't know.

The law in general is supposed to be blind. We can argue whether that's actually true or not but that's a huge can of worms I'd rather not open. But, at least in theory, the law protects everybody equally and punishes them equally. So while the "little guy" is one possible victim, the corporation can be as well.

But the reason it does protect the little guy is because it's a tool that lets the little guy become a big guy without being bullied by the current big guys. Likewise, it protects the big guy from losing his footing because a bunch of little guys are stepping on his toes.

I suppose I'd analogize it to little league. If we put 7 year old Mickey Mantle up against a professional pitcher he's not going to learn much about how to play baseball. He has to gradually work his way up. He won't be able to do that, however, if all the current professional players are making his life hell. But if he starts in little league and works his way up he can gradually develop the skills necessary to finally compete with the pros.

And, I suppose, I'd analogize it to the pros playing in the World Series. It's something that stops the fans from throwing beer bottles at the pitcher as he's trying to throw a curve ball.

Not the best analogy but it's all I can come up with at a quarter to three in the morning.

[Berserker]

Are you agreeing with one of my earliest posts? Because if so we've just gone in a circle for nothing. Earlier I said that the system isn't perfect but working through it to fix the problems is the proper way to deal with it rather than taking a sledgehammer to the entire institution. The whole time you were saying abolishing patent is the way to go and only now say that things can be revised and altered without just tearing the entire system of protecting ownership? That's been my point the entire time. Are you backpedaling or what?

Now you're projecting. At what point did I advocate "taking a sledgehammer to the entire institution"? My argument is that the patent system, as it is now, is inadequate. We need something new. Whether that happens through abolishment or revision is inconsequential to me.

What matters is that as things stand now, it's not working, and it needs to change. That's been my simple point all along, and if you've missed it because you were too busy "Being Right", then again, that's your problem, not mine.

EDIT: You added something, so I'll address that:


You'll have to forgive me for working within the realm of "abolishing patent" in it's own microcosm while assuming everything else remains the same. You've given no indication up to this point that anything else mattered and only now are adding in all these extra variables.

If it's a misunderstanding, then no problem. I haven't changed my position, and I have no qualms with elaborating it, but in all honesty I'm seeing this as sort of a bullying situation, so I'm somewhat on the defensive. If I'm misreading intentions, then I apologize for that. I haven't "dusted it up" on here in quite a while.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I like it, or I don't like it is a poor basis for any theory. Emotions are important, but are often misread.

[TonyTheTiger]

Whether that happens through abolishment or revision is inconsequential to me.

You never said that. All of your posts basically say "new system" which implies you want what's currently there to be kicked out which, based on your posts, implies no protection. Revision is not the same thing.


if you've missed it because you were too busy "Being Right", then again, that's your problem, not mine.

Now who's projecting? You're acting as if I've been doing something you haven't. We've both been going back and forth in the same way. Playing the martyr doesn't win any points.


I like it, or I don't like it is a poor basis for any theory. Emotions are important, but are often misread.

I agree. That's why I'm critical of the people who berate Square Enix for shutting down Crimson Echoes. They usually seem to do it because they don't like the idea of the big guy winning. But if the situation were reversed they'd probably switch sides.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Then you contradict yourself and debating these issues with you is pointless. You adopt whatever casts you in the best light at the time. You just used I like it as a basis for your assertions...

[TonyTheTiger]

I absolutely never did that. I dare you to quote me. If you're misreading something I'll be glad to clarify. The entire time I've argued for patent protection for everybody. I only used the "little guy" as an example. I chose the example because I felt that it would get the point across in the clearest way. The point being the general "without protection people get screwed." I'd be just as angry if the big shot got screwed over by some schmuck living in a shack.

[Icarus Moonsight]

So, if Craftsman bought the tool from the little guy and reproduced it you are fine with that? It sure didn't seem like it. The little guys natural rights were not violated at all in that case. Craftsman didn't steal anything from him, they bought it. Even with patent protection they could variate the design and get a new unique patent themselves. I don't see the point. Unless you want to appeal to a deus ex machina solution to correct a perceived wrong.

[TonyTheTiger]

So, if Craftsman bought the tool from the little guy and reproduced it you are fine with that? It sure didn't seem like it. The little guys natural rights were not violated at all in that case. Craftsman didn't steal anything from him, they bought it. Even with patent protection they could variate the design and get a new unique patent themselves. I don't see the point. Unless you want to appeal to a deus ex machina solution to correct a perceived wrong.

Wait, I think I know what happened here. I made a mistake with how I phrased that sentence because now I see that it can have two meanings.

When I said Craftsman "bought" the tool I meant it literally. They walked into his store and bought one of his tools. Then they reproduced it without him knowing. I didn't mean "bought" in the sense that they bought the rights to the tool. If he sold the reproduction rights to Craftsman that cures the entire problem. Likewise, if Craftsman comes up with a different design that performs the same function that also solves the problem.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Either case is a valid exchange (buying the design or just the tool itself) and pretty much render patents void of any worth. The only way they would buy the design from the little guy is they either couldn't reproduce it or the payoff amount is less than reverse engineering it. If it's so simple a design that it can be reproduced from an original run piece patents don't offer much protection from that either.

Your still standing on shaky ground.

[Berserker]

Playing the martyr doesn't win any points.

"Points"? Dear God, man.

Now this is just funny.

[TonyTheTiger]

Either case is a valid exchange and pretty much render patents void of any worth. The only way they would buy the design from the little guy is they either couldn't reproduce it or the payoff amount is less than reverse engineering it. If it's so simple a design that it can be reproduced from an original run piece patents don't offer much protection from that either.

Your still standing on shaky ground.

I don't see why you think that. Compare it to me buying a video game, copying it over and over and over, and then selling the copies. That's the closest example I was trying to convey. I chose not to use that example, though, because it's copyright rather than patent. I wasn't intending on getting into the nitty gritty of how this tool is actually designed and what complexities it has that makes it patent worthy. Presumably anything can be reproduced physically no matter how complex. Whether it can (or should) legally be reproduced and sold, however, is at issue here.

It's pretty late, though, so I'm off to bed. I'd like to continue this but it'll have to wait until tomorrow.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Dance, dance and dance some more. Tangibles to abstracts, trying to confuse things, but it won't work. You didn't change the design for one thing... The fact that patents and protections exist along side rampant piracy is a case for legal protections? I'm not swayed.

Alright, Super Metroid and most the Castlevania's after SotN and recently Shadow Complex. Take a design, tweak it, new product. Your example is backroom media reproduction. Very different cases. Stick to your example, it's your baby after all. I'm open to correction and I'm trying to determine if you are the same.

[TonyTheTiger]

Dance, dance and dance some more. Tangibles to abstracts, trying to confuse things, but it won't work. You didn't change the design for one thing... The fact that patents and protections exist along side rampant piracy is a case for legal protections? I'm not swayed.

Alright, Super Metroid and most the Castlevania's after SotN and recently Shadow Complex. Take a design, tweak it, new product. Your example is backroom media reproduction. Very different cases. Stick to your example, it's your baby after all. I'm open to correction and I'm trying to determine if you are the same.

You keep missing the point and then accuse me of dancing around when I'm clearly trying to clarify your misreadings and misrepresentations of my arguments. You've not exactly provided anything concrete yourself, by the way.

The Metroid/SOTN situation is very different and I fail to see why you would introduce that here as it's never ever been my argument that the banhammer should be dropped on these events. In fact, that's never been at issue at all. I'm exclusively talking about the latter and have been the whole time. The idea that it is illegal to do said backroom reproduction of either digital or physical products is solely what I've been talking about. I can see what you're trying to do. You're trying to broaden my arguments beyond what they actually are since it's easy to attack wildly broad statements. But nothing I've said applies to anything beyond what basically amounts to photocopying a product (or a similar form of direct reproduction) and then selling those copies.

We can debate whether something like SOTN is changed enough to the point where it no longer violates Nintendo's ownership of Super Metroid (I happen to think it easily passes as an independent work for various reasons and so, apparently, do Nintendo and the legal system) but that's a very different argument to be had. I can say that there was a game on the PC, I wish I could remember the title, that did get slapped for being too similar to another game. It might have even used that other game's assets.

These are all fact based questions, though. Situation by situation scenarios where we examine two similar things and ask ourselves whether they're "too similar" to the point where it effectively was photocopying. You can't solve that problem with broad strokes. You have to look at each example on its own merits. I'm simply saying that given a situation where something actually is "too similar" it is good to have a body of law that deals with that.

And you still haven't carried your burden. I'll make it very simple. I'm saying that the current institution isn't all that bad. You are saying that it is. Therefore, the burden is on you to explain why.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Of course I'm broadening it. If it's not universally applicable, it's crap.

The modified designs are valid. I'm not saying that they are not. You can reproduce things in the realm of art or a pseudo-art like games and it's not actually theft. You don't need patents to stop people from selling copies as originals anyway. The laws and protections exist and that hasn't stopped.

If you have about 6 hours to listen to me, I can give you full disclosure. Not going to do it here because it's outside the thread topic and it would infinitely bore uninterested parties.

There is no burden on me. I'm doing my diligence on my own. You are basically saying that it is required for me to serve up an entire system to you in order to invalidate another? But, what if I want to patent my system? LOL

[TonyTheTiger]

Of course I'm broadening it. If it's not universally applicable, it's crap.

You can't be serious. So a principle has to be applicable to every situation? Where in the world did you get that idea?

You've just admitted to creating a strawman. You've altered (in this case broadened) my argument and then attacked that imagined argument as if it defeats the one I've been making. For somebody so interested in the scientific method you don't seem all that interested in debate methods.

[Ed Oscuro]

I am just going to throw out a thought: There is a difference between the concept of the patent and trademark system, and the actual practice. I believe I've mentioned it before, but there are issues with the pay and career opportunities; skilled workers end up in the private sector.

[Icarus Moonsight]

You can't be serious. So a principle has to be applicable to every situation? Where in the world did you get that idea?

I know applying scientific inquiry and method to social and economic organization sounds crazy considering the current state of affairs, but it's the best way to go as I see it. It works fairly well for everything else. Scientific method also has to be universally applicable or it's not internally consistent right? As in, the method then would falsify itself and self-detonate.

Maybe this could help? What conditions would make patents as they exist invalid to you? The criteria or a null hypothesis, I mean. For me, it has to break down logically, rationality, universally or empirically. Then we can be certain that there is a better system out there, even if we don't know exactly what that is.

I know what a strawman argument is, and I don't think I did that. Expanding a premise to another case in the same system/field isn't a strawman. Are you talking about the tool thing? Because I knew you were saying Craftsman bought just one tool from his shop and made their own from that. They can do that even with patent protections and that was my point.

If anyone is strawmanned here, it's your interpretation of my position. Patents could be abolished as the best solution, or there is a valid patent system that has yet to come to my attention, but certainly, the current system is flawed and can be improved. Even if abolition is optimal (at this point, that does seem to be the case), a more applicable and serviceable revision is preferable over what exists. You have outright denied that abolishing patents could be an improvement, let alone optimal, a few times at least. If you can show me how you arrived at that, it would save me some trouble I'm having with this stuff myself. I'm not going to obligate you to sharing or claim it's a burden you bare, but rather, if you could help me figure it out, please do.

[TonyTheTiger]

I am just going to throw out a thought: There is a difference between the concept of the patent and trademark system, and the actual practice. I believe I've mentioned it before, but there are issues with the pay and career opportunities; skilled workers end up in the private sector.

That's actually been my point all along. That the theory behind giving creators control of their creations is a good idea. I've been arguing that the opposite, giving creators no control, is a bad idea. I've been reading the arguments against me as supporting the latter. That's why I was taken aback when all the this talk about modifying the law in different ways came out because that was not laid out at the onset. If we're going to start talking about actual specifics of how protections should be laid out that becomes a different and much more complicated argument.


I know applying scientific inquiry and method to social and economic organization sounds crazy considering the current state of affairs, but it's the best way to go as I see it. It works fairly well for everything else. Scientific method also has to be universally applicable or it's not internally consistent right? As in, the method then would falsify itself and self-detonate.

Well I was thinking in terms of applying a principle to everything and declaring it invalid on the sole basis that the proposal provides a caveat that it only applies to a narrow situation. Things apply to narrow situations all the time. Take geometry, for instance. I say, "Parallel lines never intersect." Then I narrow that by saying, "But this rule applies specifically to planar geometry." It would be crazy to say that the statement is invalid because parallel lines on a globe do intersect and by limiting the statement to a narrower class makes it crap. Likewise, I can say, "A person who kills another is guilty of murder...except when it is done in self defense." Clearly, in these cases, it's perfectly reasonable to narrowly tailor a theory, argument, principle, etc. to a smaller set of circumstances. When circumstances change so the rules that regulate them.


Maybe this could help? What conditions would make patents as they exist invalid to you? The criteria or a null hypothesis, I mean. For me, it has to break down logically, rationality, universally or empirically. Then we can be certain that there is a better system out there, even if we don't know exactly what that is.

I can list a lot of situations where the patent laws are not tailored well enough to prevent misuse. We have ongoing court cases specifically to address issues as they come up. What I've been arguing is that it is a good idea to give creators control of their creations somehow. The only reason I've been using the actual term "patent" is because that's how we identify said control. Because of that, it seemed to me that the arguments against "patent" up to this point were equivalent to arguments against giving the creator any control whatsoever.

That's why I was taken aback when all of a sudden "revision" started coming up. Because, up until recently, the idea that the law could be revised in a way that serves the theory of patent without actually being patent was never introduced. Clearly there are probably countless ways to serve the theory without using the written word of "patent law." But that is not what I was arguing against. It was never made clear to me that the theory itself was not what was being attacked but rather the method. To me, it sounded like a revisionist argument where the original argument against the theory wasn't working out so it was narrowed into something a little easier to defend since it's easier to argue "the application is bad" rather than "the concept is bad."


I know what a strawman argument is, and I don't think I did that. Expanding a premise to another case in the same system/field isn't a strawman. Are you talking about the tool thing? Because I knew you were saying Craftsman bought just one tool from his shop and made their own from that. They can do that even with patent protections and that was my point.

The definition of a straw man is: "an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

What I'm talking about is when you admitted to expanding my argument beyond what I stated it to be. Clearly if you broaden it to encompass things I never meant to argue for then it's easy to attack but by doing so you've not attacked my original argument, only the expanded one I never made. All I ask is that the attacks be made to the argument itself within the parameters I've set for it. I try not to say any more than I can defend. I can't defend an argument that involves the Metroid/SOTN situation because I never intended the parameters to be that broad.

Maybe giving any example was a mistake since it just made my posts more complicated than necessary. My point was that, provided all other variables are the same, the owner of a protectable and protected creation can stop another from profiting off of direct copies of the creation and that is a good thing. That's really what it boils down to. I'm not going to get into derivative works and "influenced works" ala SOTN. That's beyond the scope of my argument.


If anyone is strawmanned here, it's your interpretation of my position. Patents could be abolished as the best solution, or there is a valid patent system that has yet to come to my attention, but certainly, the current system is flawed and can be improved. Even if abolition is optimal (at this point, that does seem to be the case), a more applicable and serviceable revision is preferable over what exists. You have outright denied that abolishing patents could be an improvement, let alone optimal, a few times at least. If you can show me how you arrived at that, it would save me some trouble I'm having with this stuff myself. I'm not going to obligate you to sharing or claim it's a burden you bare, but rather, if you could help me figure it out, please do.

I'll make it clear. It's not the current word for word patent law that I care about. It's the theory of creator protection. If an alternate body of law arises that addresses that theory better than the current institution then great. But based on your posts (and moreso Berserker's) it appeared to me that it was the concept being attacked and the word "patent" was merely the way of expressing that. I was interpreting "abolish patent" as "abolish any and all protections."

[Icarus Moonsight]

That's actually been my point all along. That the theory behind giving creators control of their creations is a good idea. I've been arguing that the opposite, giving creators no control, is a bad idea. I've been reading the arguments against me as supporting the latter. That's why I was taken aback when all the this talk about modifying the law in different ways came out because that was not laid out at the onset. If we're going to start talking about actual specifics of how protections should be laid out that becomes a different and much more complicated argument.
Granted, but it's how you look at and describe the case that's the issue.


Well I was thinking in terms of applying a principle to everything and declaring it invalid on the sole basis that the proposal provides a caveat that it only applies to a narrow situation. Things apply to narrow situations all the time. Take geometry, for instance. I say, "Parallel lines never intersect." Then I narrow that by saying, "But this rule applies specifically to planar geometry." It would be crazy to say that the statement is invalid because parallel lines on a globe do intersect and by limiting the statement to a narrower class makes it crap. Likewise, I can say, "A person who kills another is guilty of murder...except when it is done in self defense." Clearly, in these cases, it's perfectly reasonable to narrowly tailor a theory, argument, principle, etc. to a smaller set of circumstances. When circumstances change so the rules that regulate them.Parallel lines NEVER intersect even when extended to infinity. The concept you are talking about is perpendicular lines. Both are valid concepts and one can not invalidate the other because the universal principle is the characteristics of lines... Now who is strawmanning?


I can list a lot of situations where the patent laws are not tailored well enough to prevent misuse. We have ongoing court cases specifically to address issues as they come up. What I've been arguing is that it is a good idea to give creators control of their creations somehow. The only reason I've been using the actual term "patent" is because that's how we identify said control. Because of that, it seemed to me that the arguments against "patent" up to this point were equivalent to arguments against giving the creator any control whatsoever.You don't need court cases... This thread topic! Hello! Also, according to the theory of state law, initially in this nation at least, legislative body drafts and passes law, judicial applies that law to individual cases that are in dispute between two or more parties. Law and arbitration are separate yet related. Bench legislation is unfair and the fact it occurs points to a massive gap (in efficiency, practice or theory) of either the law itself or the individuals in legislature and/or the judiciary.


That's why I was taken aback when all of a sudden "revision" started coming up. Because, up until recently, the idea that the law could be revised in a way that serves the theory of patent without actually being patent was never introduced. Clearly there are probably countless ways to serve the theory without using the written word of "patent law." But that is not what I was arguing against. It was never made clear to me that the theory itself was not what was being attacked but rather the method. To me, it sounded like a revisionist argument where the original argument against the theory wasn't working out so it was narrowed into something a little easier to defend since it's easier to argue "the application is bad" rather than "the concept is bad."You're irrationally tied to ideas that prove to be not end all, be all. If anyone brings this to your attention, they become the enemy. At least, this is the behavior I see you demonstrating.


What I'm talking about is when you admitted to expanding my argument beyond what I stated it to be. Clearly if you broaden it to encompass things I never meant to argue for then it's easy to attack but by doing so you've not attacked my original argument, only the expanded one I never made. All I ask is that the attacks be made to the argument itself within the parameters I've set for it. I try not to say any more than I can defend. I can't defend an argument that involves the Metroid/SOTN situation because I never intended the parameters to be that broad.I think you are talking about your a priori view v my a posteriori view more than a misrepresentation.


Maybe giving any example was a mistake since it just made my posts more complicated than necessary. My point was that, provided all other variables are the same, the owner of a protectable and protected creation can stop another from profiting off of direct copies of the creation and that is a good thing. That's really what it boils down to. I'm not going to get into derivative works and "influenced works" ala SOTN. That's beyond the scope of my argument.It was a mistake, because you brought it up then tried to pin me with a fallacy for examining things brought to me. You don't know how this stuff works. And frankly, neither do I. That's why I'm examining this stuff even outside this discussion.


I'll make it clear. It's not the current word for word patent law that I care about. It's the theory of creator protection. If an alternate body of law arises that addresses that theory better than the current institution then great. But based on your posts (and moreso Berserker's) it appeared to me that it was the concept being attacked and the word "patent" was merely the way of expressing that. I was interpreting "abolish patent" as "abolish any and all protections."What if the theory is invalidated then? Can you drop your invested interest and align yourself with the current human knowledge of reality? I'm not stating it's obvious, I'm not siting a solution source, but you have to be able to have your position changed fairly in debate, or debate is meaningless because then there is no glorious outcome. The furthering of understanding. Otherwise, it's only an exercise of Sophistry.

[TonyTheTiger]

Parallel lines NEVER intersect even when extended to infinity. The concept you are talking about is perpendicular lines. Both are valid concepts and one can not invalidate the other because the universal principle is the characteristics of lines... Now who is strawmanning?

Look at a globe and tell me parallel lines never intersect. Two lines on a globe can be parallel around the equator and then at the poles intersect.



You're irrationally tied to ideas that prove to be not end all, be all. If anyone brings this to your attention, they become the enemy. At least, this is the behavior I see you demonstrating.

Actually, I've interpreted it as quite the opposite. Somebody who defends the status quo has become the enemy on your end. It's pretty much an ad hominem attack. Label me personally as something as a way of challenging me rather than addressing my arguments themselves. But, nevertheless, are you seriously going to pin the source of the heatedness squarely on me and me alone? I think we can fairly split that 50/50.



I think you are talking about your a priori view v my a posteriori view more than a misrepresentation.

Well, I'm telling you now what I was arguing. I don't think it's fair to ignore that and broaden what I've been saying further than that. Otherwise I can't make any arguments because by doing so I'll be taking the risk that whatever I say can be broadened in a way I never intended. If that's the case, how am I supposed to make a narrowly tailored argument?



It was a mistake, because you brought it up then tried to pin me with a fallacy for examining things brought to me. You don't know how this stuff works. And frankly, neither do I. That's why I'm examining this stuff even outside this discussion.

If you want to examine stuff outside the discussion that's fine. But let it exist outside the discussion, as in, start a new one. Don't examine that outside stuff and then try to use it as evidence against an argument I never actually made.



What if the theory is invalidated then? Can you drop your invested interest and align yourself with the current human knowledge of reality? I'm not stating it's obvious, I'm not siting a solution source, but you have to be able to have your position changed fairly in debate, or debate is meaningless because then there is no glorious outcome. The furthering of understanding.

While I'm highly skeptical that the theory can outright be invalidated I'm not insane. If we end up seeing a universe where creators are offered no protection whatsoever and that world works better than ours I'll be convinced. But what is the current human knowledge of reality? I would think it's that the theory isn't really all that bad. If it were the other way around then patent would have been abolished already.

After all, the same could be said to you or anybody else in this thread. At some point, after being argued into a corner, admitting defeat would be the cordial thing to do. But how often does that actually happen? Are you willing to concede defeat? If not, why should I? If I provided 1,000 instances where patent protection allowed the "good guy" to beat the "bad guy" would that serve to validate the theory supporting protection enough or invalidate the theory against protection enough for me to "win" the argument?

We'll never get to that point because we're operating in such generalities and what basically equates to personal politics. This isn't like "2+2=5" vs. "No, 2+2=4 and here's the calculator that proves it." Let's be fair, here. We're both basically taking a position because we either approve or disapprove of the world we see around us, at least in a sense related to the topic. We can try to point to objective facts all day but in the end whether the world looks right or wrong is pretty subjective.

Hell, look at economics. You'd think something as concrete as money would have pretty clear answers. But economists constantly argue with each other over the "right" way to do things. And despite decades worth of recorded economic history, they still can come up with two completely opposing methods of reaching the same goal, stimulating the economy.

I'll tell you how this is going to end. We're going to say all we want to say and/or just plain get tired of the topic and eventually one of us will stop posting and the other won't force the issue. I'll put money on it.

[Leo_A]

Look at a globe and tell me parallel lines never intersect. Two lines on a globe can be parallel around the equator and then at the poles intersect.

Parallel lines can never intersect. Lines of longitude are never parallel because the distance between them isn't maintained at an equal distance throughout their length. That is why they're called meridians, unlike lines of latitude that are sometimes known as parallels (Because they are always parallel and never intersect each other).

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's not about DEFEAT it's about CORRECTION! More over, truth. Not in an absolute term, we are fallible mortals and omnipotence is a VERY long way away from us.

I'm sorry, I thought you knew that the globe was spherical, not planar. Am I going to have to disprove The Flat Earth theory here too?

Berserker, you are far wiser than I... Teach me. LOL

[TonyTheTiger]

Parallel lines can never intersect. Lines of longitude are never parallel because the distance between them isn't maintained at an equal distance throughout their length. That is why they're called meridians, unlike lines of latitude that are sometimes known as parallels (Because they are always parallel and never intersect each other).


It's not about DEFEAT it's about CORRECTION!

I'm sorry, I thought you knew that the globe was spherical, not planar. Am I going to have to disprove The Flat Earth theory here too?

Berserker, you are far wiser than I... Teach me. LOL

http://books.google.com/books?id=laalPR8p6fgC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=parallel+lines+intersect+on+globe&source=bl&ots=bZwnIguaHQ&sig=U8E7t0b1xVSo9aIrdJ8_Mbsilrk&hl=en&ei=IizIStaFJ8_ElAfrh7GSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=parallel%20lines%20intersect%20on%20globe&f=false

This seems to support the idea that while the lines don't remain parallel they can qualify as parallel at some point on the globe. The point was that rules can change when circumstances change. As in, when instead of a plane you have a globe. The chapter even shows another wacky example of a triangle with three right angles.

[Leo_A]

Skimming that, it appears to just be theory stating what if we're just looking at a small part of our universe around us where lines, which appear to us to be parallel just like lines of longitude appear when you're examining just a small portion of the globe, might actually also intersect in 3d space like lines of longitude do if we were able to look at the larger picture.

By definition to qualify as parallel, lines must extend in the same direction, remain equidistant at all points, never converging or diverging. By definition, lines of longitude are not parallel, no matter what theorizing someone has done.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Your still going to hang on instead of correct your error!? You are right. For you, it's about defeat. Specifically, self-defeat.

All you had to do is say, "I applied planar geometry to a spherical object. My bad." But that's just too hard isn't it?

I guess the punchline is stale. The funny thing is, Berserker saw this a whole page back. I bet he'll get a good chuckle when/if he comes back and reads this. I'm a little saddened. Oh, well. I'll deal.

[TonyTheTiger]

Skimming that, it appears to just be theory stating what if we're just looking at a small part of our universe around us where maybe lines, which appear to be be parallel to us just like lines of longitude appear when you're examining just a small portion of the globe, might actually also intersect in 3d space like lines of longitude do if we were able to look at the larger picture.

By definition to qualify as parallel, lines must extend in the same direction, remain equidistant at all points, never converging or diverging. By definition, lines of longitude are not parallel, no matter what theorizing someone has done.

You're wrong, any 3rd or 4th grader should be able to tell you that parallel lines can never intersect.

Fair enough. I found that earlier when I was looking for differences between geometric principles because, while I'm not very well versed in math, I do know that there are circumstances where different rules apply. I think quantum physics is all about that kind of stuff. I read the excerpt as a justification for calling lines of longitude parallel. Admittedly, I also skimmed it quickly. If I was mistaken then so be it.


Your still going to hang on instead of correct your error!? You are right. For you, it's about defeat. Specifically, self-defeat.

All you had to do is say, "I applied planar geometry to a spherical object. My bad." But that's just too hard isn't it?

I guess the punchline is stale. The funny thing is, Berserker saw this a whole page back. I bet he'll get a good chuckle when/if he comes back and reads this. I'm a little saddened. Oh, well. I'll deal.

Your being belligerent for no reason. Are you trying to hold a debate or start a fight? Because I really can't tell. You make fallacious ad hominem and straw man arguments and I point them out and move on. You, however, seem to be intent on pulling the "if I heckle the other guy maybe that makes me look better" move. I could have easily done the same. "Are you serious? Bringing up that strawman? You don't know when to give in. What a tool." I'm interested in actually holding a discussion. How about you?

In case you didn't notice, my last post was simply providing the source I used to make the statement. I didn't claim to be correct there. I responded to Leo_Ames by saying "well, this is where I got it from." I'll freely admit I was wrong. Now admit you jumped the gun.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I was wrong, I jumped the gun. You can be corrected on elementary concepts even though it takes quite a while. The core of what we were debating is much harder than that. I simply don't have the time or patience.

It's not a debate anymore, and really it never was.

My intention here is not to continue this, that time has pretty much passed between the Tiger and me. But, I have made some statements and asked questions and I've left gaps by doing so. I'm only addressing that now. Take any, all or none of this as you will.

Now that my queries have revealed that you (Tony) know nothing of worth (or are withholding) on a case for patent law as it exists or the denial of the benefit of abolition, I can stop prying for the answer you claimed by assertion to have in grasp and give you (and anyone reading this) my thoughts, evidence and case against patents.

Most of what I'm referring to was covered in parts of the first hour of that video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4) I posted on pg 1. I'm adding a little extra to those points to make the argument more cohesive, but this is not my final argument. It's basically a rough draft. I still have avenues to look into and rocks to flip over. That's why I stated time and again, I'm open on the issue for all cases but, I'm being directed toward abolition because of my examination and analysis, thus far. The hardest part is finding the case data and incidents to base a starting understanding from. I need more, and I know it. Treating this as a fully formed argument at this point is premature, but if you have corrections or citations I ask that you send them to me. And thanks if you do.

Patents are justified by two main points; The promotion of creativity, innovation and the progress of knowledge, and the assurance that a creator/innovator is compensated for their effort and insight. Well, lets start with the latter first since I've pointed to it explicitly in past posts already.

Back on the first page, I linked to a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4) that references a piece of research into the direct cost of copying an innovation vs the cost of the originator to innovate (~9min in, it starts. Research was conducted by the economist Edwin Mansfield). He concluded, rigorously, that the direct cost of copying innovation was 65% of the original innovation cost. But, that is only the direct cost. There is indirect cost as well. To demonstrate what that indirect cost entails, let's examine a stand-in real world example.

Since this is a video game board, let's take the Wii remote. Let's say we have an individual of sufficient experience and knowledge that is quite capable to take it apart, backwards engineer it, order the needed components to replicate, and builds a successful unit of his own from the analysis. He could potentially sell this unit, but could he do it for $40 or less and undercut Nintendo and challenge their innovation? No, through his time and investment in parts he surely spent more than $40 worth of time and money to get where he is. The key to cutting this down is bulk buying power for components (saving money) and mass production (saving time and thereby more value). Let's also say the guy that did this is a broke college student. He might be able to customize them and paint them up in a manner that will make them more desirable, but that's more work and planning, adding to cost. Besides, he could very well be inept at aesthetics and art and have to outsource that work, which will cost him money rather than time.

What this tells us is that the indirect cost of copy (just 35% more needed to reach parity by Edwin Mansfield's research) is well beyond the college guys grasp, even with Ben Heck-esque skill. The reason? Because he doesn't have access to bulk buying or mass production. Even though he was able to copy the innovation at 65% cost, he can't capitalize on it at all outside of the one instance without serious investment. That investment, is the indirect cost.

That indirect cost varies by the simplicity or complexity of the innovation being copied. Also, the less people that have the pertinent knowledge needed or the proper existing infrastructure to copy also increases copying's indirect cost. You have to attain it or grow into those paths. Hiring knowledgeable people or investing in production facilities and capabilities. It can be reasoned that very simple innovations may actually cost less than parity to copy, but no less than 65-70%. Complex innovations could also be reasoned to take over innovation cost to copy. Is a very simple innovation worthy of the same level of protection as a very complex one? In reality, no. This is a demonstration of a natural graduated system, more advanced than what exists. We can't design something that eloquent, fair and objective. Or at least I have yet seen it's equal.

This opposes the claim that patents are required to protect innovation. Innovation is naturally protected quite well without forcing people to follow edicts. Natural forces protect the innovator/creator. The more complex the innovation, the more protection granted. Seems to take care of many issues that arise with the man-made (and often open to subjective interpretation that could be termed more or less fair) system in place.

Nature also grants another power to the innovator without man's intervention. Monopoly pricing power or knowledge monopoly power. Both are strong and favorable to the case of the innovator. When the idea is hatched and/or the product is released on the market (which ever the case is) there is some time where the innovator is the only market presence with that knowledge or product, and both can be sold at the monopoly rate. If the person or entity has the capacity to produce goods from the idea, they will do so and have a monopoly until other producers get the product in their R&D squints hands, back engineer it and start producing a competing product. Now, if the innovator has just the idea and no means to produce any sell able product or use the discovered knowledge for profit, he's still in the good because, now, he can sell the idea for profit to the highest bidder instead of producing it and capitalizing himself or he can even get a group of investors together and emerge into the market and take it by storm. Auctioning hos idea is really unique as it would reap huge rewards proportional to the desirability of the innovation. Either way, he has the chance to make a fair amount of money for himself depending on the relative value of the innovation. Remember, once an idea or a product is logged with the patent office, it's virtually public domain. You do have actionable causes for damage, but there are loopholes. (Craftsman buys a tool for example)

All this tells me that patents do not protect the financial wellness of innovators any better (more often than not, worse) than a natural course of events. If nature is better, get out of the way.

Before we touch on the other point that patents are based, let's look into patent history for a bit.

The concept of patent letters and use (as best as I can find) first came about in the early 17th century in England. A patent letter was a document of dictate from the king granting a monopoly to a individual, agent or entity (like a merchant group or guild). Yes, a monopoly. They didn't feel the need to cover it up as the proponents do now. Kings were anointed by God to rule and by extension were always correct in action by divine right. Or at least, that was the excuse given and thereby the public perception people accepted.

That's the origins, but surely things have changed since then right? Not much really. Now we can tackle the second point and hopefully defeat it on it's final claimed grounds of promoting progress, creativity and innovation.

Let's go back to that video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4) I posted on pg 1 of this thread. Now go 38min in and watch until 46-48minutes. This covers the great air race of the early 20th century and it's patent law implications. The idea of a flying device has been around since at least the Renaissance (Da Vinci sketches of the ornithopter and helicopter). But since then, even though many have tried, they all failed and many died trying to give man wings. Now the US government wanted flying war machines and commissioned the Smithsonian to invent a flying vehicle with a grant of $67,000 and they went to work. Now, at the same time in North Carolina, two brothers were building Fly 1. I've read that they spent ~$1000 to get there, but that's neither here nor there. The important part is they built an airplane, and beat the Smithsonian to a working prototype. The funny thing, they patented everything. The wings, foils, propeller the whole nine yards... Their patenting of the airplane design was so complete no one else in the world (patent law was globalized back then, ironic that it's localized now that things are more global than ever. Yet another contradiction.) that wanted to build a plane could. The Wright Bros would take them to court and they always prevailed. England, France and Germany licensed the aircraft design from them and that's where we got the Spitfire, Sopwith Camel and Luftwaffe. The US wouldn't license the design from them though. They already gave $67,000 to the Smithsonian for an airplane! (I imagine it was hard to get politicians to agree to spend more money... IDK for sure) Then The Great War breaks out and the US government broke patent and took the protected designs and made war planes anyway. Without patents, all this wouldn't have occurred this way and the Wright Bros fame would not have been diminished and I imagine that they still would have profited. Possibly even more by selling the idea to others and contracting themselves out to help others R&D departments make tweaks, improvements and further innovation. Rather, they became full-time lawyers so they could actively protect their patented design. A gross misallocation of a genuine first-hand knowledge resource.

The US government enforces patents on others, but breaks them with an external justification? Some say dire need, I say faulty and contradicting system.

That's my case. I'm not done, but I don't think it's half bad as a start. :)

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm done as well. You've proven that you can't hold a debate without resorting to ad hominems (every reference to me), needling (mere attempts to make me angry through snide remarks), red herrings (Metroid/SOTN), strawmans (broadening arguments), and moving the goalposts (constantly raising the bar and holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself to which you then use as an excuse to say that I've argued nothing).

I read your post there and there are plenty of little bits I could respond to but the line by line thing isn't fun anymore so I'll point a few things out in general. First, for all the heckling sent in my direction for using an anecdotal example earlier...well, what is all of this? You used the Wii as an example in a hypothetical.

The Wii segment there is an example of cherry picking (argument by selective observation) and argument by generalization (drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases). You've presented a situation where Nintendo cannot be harmed by a college student and are using that as proof for a grander argument that Nintendo can't be harmed. Or, even grander, that creators in general can't be harmed. But all you've done is shown that Nintendo can't be harmed by a college student. Nothing more.

You assert that natural forces protect the creator. That's a pretty bold statement but you've not actually proven it. You've simply declared it after making an argument for a narrow situation. The proof of a macrocosm does not directly follow the proof of a microcosm. Should the law, therefore, protect only a segment of society? Should the "little guy" be protected from Nintendo but Nintendo not be protected because they're the "big guy"? I'm not supposing an answer here but the law rarely does something like that. The theory is that everybody is subject to the same laws no matter his their stations.

I've conceded that the current system allows unfortunate consequences to slip through and would openly support fixes to those loopholes. I've never said "Patent is perfect in every situation." You can't, logically speaking, say "here are situations where protections are not needed" and then use that as evidence that protections are never needed. If you're going to say they're never needed (or that nature does the job just fine) then you have to prove that statement. Individual anecdotes don't do the job. All they prove is that the anecdotes themselves are situations where the system is superfluous. They do not prove that the system is always superfluous.

Your historical examination of patents is a fallacy, too, albeit a disguised one. It's a fallacy of origins. "Patents originally hail from the king. Kings are bad and therefore so is patent."

The Wright Bros. example is also off. The facts may be true but your conclusions don't follow. The U.S. government breaking patent is not evidence of patent being bad. It's evidence that the U.S. government was being an ass. I also don't see how you reached the conclusion that the Wright Bros. would have profited without the legal protections. If these other countries licensed the design from them then that factors in to how much money they made. If France, Germany, etc. could have legally just built their own planes without consulting the two men then that money would likely not have been paid out.

They might have made money but I don't think it would have been the same amount and certainly don't think it would have been more. For them to "sell the idea" would imply some kind of patent protection does exist. This is a stolen concept fallacy because you're using what you're trying to disprove. In order to "sell the idea," as you say they could, we have to be in a world where others can't legally take it at will because paying for an idea that you can have for free is just plain nuts to most people. To use this world as an example for why we don't need legal protections is fallacious. As for them contracting themselves out to help in R&D, they could have done that with or without legal protections. The fact that they chose not to do that is irrelevant. That has no bearing on whether or not those protections are good or bad. All it does is show what they chose to do. If there was a misallocation it's the Wright Bros. misallocation, not the legal system's. Free will and all. It's a red herring.

And, again, you repeat the U.S. Government was acting like a dick but all that shows is that the government was acting like a dick. It's another form of the fallacy of origins. "The U.S. Government enforces patent protections. The U.S. Government was a dick and broke patent. Therefore, patent is bad."

I count at least four or five separate fallacies in your most recent post alone, not counting multiple instances of the same ones. I'm sure you'll either respond with some more needling or not respond at all. I don't really care either way. This just isn't fun anymore.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Nothing is in my argument that I can detect as anecdotal. Specifics please? I used a Wii remote. You used Harvey's Wonder Tool... There is a difference. I even demonstrated that Craftsman can easily circumvent patent protection. The two cases are not of equal standing at all.

Addressing the hypothetical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_construct

Addressing the fallacies:

Genetic Fallacy/Fallacy of Origins - Pointing the the origin in this case was merely a demonstration in a break of universality. The king has a power that no one else has to grant a power that no one else can have at his whim. Taking that concept into the Wright Bros case, the US government enforces breaches of patents and then breaches patents them self. A contradiction and a break in universality.

Fallacy of Stolen Concept: Yes, I deny that state governments and their laws are, in fact, empirically proven concepts. This fallacy does not apply because I recognize the origin of patent law to be unproven (state government). The nature of it's in/validity does not change within my argument or the general knowledge at large. Attacking my argument on Ayn Rand's grounds. She is one of my indirect teachers in this stuff. :D

Cherry picking: Well, it's a hypothetical after all. It's there until an empirical case can replace it. I'm basically setting up the framework for what I need to find and observe to be able to fill that part in and satisfy empiricism. I think you will find the hypothetical rational, logical and I expand latter into universality how he could accomplish mass production and marketing of his copy, as anyone could, but is only lacking the wealth to do so. In the case of an individual or group that has the wealth, it would cost them the same for the copy, roughly (slightly less to slightly more) and that is the principle that invalidates the claim patents offer a required protection. I even relate my fictional college dude with a real person, Ben Heck, who is a marvel with these things and reproducing a Wii remote would be a simple task for him, no doubt.

Generalization: So inductive reasoning is invalid? I wasn't aware. I stated that finding this information is proving difficult. That doesn't invalidate anything. It means it's pretty counter-intuitive sure, but so is the Earth being round. Looking at it from our perspective, it seems rather flat. It takes great altitude to notice the curvature of the Earth. It's a matter of time before I either find specifics or not. In other words, I need more altitude. Hence the generalization. And a non-generalized hypothetical just increases the possibility of error. It relates heavily to universality as well. So, not a fallacy.

Mind you, I'm no longer debating the issue. All I have done here is defend my case. I know it doesn't meet the merit of proof yet. You're not telling me anything I already do not know.

[TonyTheTiger]

Ok, look. I wasn't going to respond but I think this is worth saying. While I disagree with your defenses above (i still hold that you made said errors/hypocrisies), I appreciate you being cordial. At this point, though, we're not really arguing anything in particular and actually haven't really talked about patent itself in a while. It's just been a back and forth "this is my argument"/"your argument is flawed"/"this is my example"/"your example is wrong" with patent taking a back seat to us arguing about arguing. I'm willing to bury the hatchet right here and put it to rest on as good terms as possible. Deal?