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.
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.Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger
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.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-03-2009 at 10:32 AM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
Granted, but it's how you look at and describe the case that's the issue.
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?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.
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.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'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.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 think you are talking about your a priori view v my a posteriori view more than a misrepresentation.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.
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.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.
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.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."
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-03-2009 at 11:51 PM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-03-2009 at 11:57 PM.
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).
Last edited by Leo_A; 10-04-2009 at 12:01 AM.
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.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-04-2009 at 12:06 AM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
http://books.google.com/books?id=laa...0globe&f=falseIt'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.
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.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-04-2009 at 12:08 AM.
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.
Last edited by Leo_A; 10-04-2009 at 12:41 AM.
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.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
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 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.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 10-04-2009 at 12:38 AM.
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 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 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 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.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-04-2009 at 09:10 AM. Reason: Cleaning up. Post is long and involved and I was writting this on the fly. Mistakes are inevitable.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 10-04-2009 at 01:48 PM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
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?
Fine by me.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
After looking all of this over with clear eyes I have to apologize to Snapple. We pretty much ruined your thread and for that I actually am sorry. If it's possible, I'd like to see the topic return to what it should be about, EA's lawsuit.
Posting Permissions
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from eBay, Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present of Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote
