Patents and Copyrights: A Socialist Approach

Ah nope that's you.

 

No you are projecting.

 

He states that patents and copyrights deprive the marketplace of the benefit of the product or artwork if the patent and copyright holders withhold it because they didn't get their asking price.

This is a logical fallacy. Prices are determined by negotiation, by producer/seller and buyer, prices are set by what the market will bear ( unless the price is controlled the government ) and I don't know any patent or copyright holders who are withholding their products from the market place. Why in hell would they do that?

As for copyrights, I'm a composer of songs and my 'compensation' is dictated by a federal judge under consent decrees, I have no control over performance royalties, which aren't much to speak of. I got 113,000 spins on spotify, and made about $20. However, songwriters who are really successful, can dictate their fees on licensing deals. They, just like a vendor in a flea market, will set the price based on what the market will bear.

But, withhold it? I know of no artist who will withhold their art, and many give it away for free, those who are not successful, and so that makes no sense.

Another thing, if you have an idea for an invention, and you secure a patent, note that you are not going to get the product to market without an investor/distributor, that sort of thing, and no one is going to back you if you do not have a patent. I know a fellow who invented a device that is essentially a sprinkler in a water heater closet ( since the third largest causes of fires are faulty water heaters.) He used PVC pipe and a regular sprinkler, but since both of those items were already patented, he couldn't get a patent, and because he couldn't get a patent, no one would distribute it or invest it in.

Mr. Wolff, in the free market, what vendor would withhold sales? Who writes books and withholds their work? He or she will ask set the price based on what the market will bear, but they are not going withhold their work, so why would a patent holder or copyright hold act any different than a salesperson in a flea market?

In other words, Mr Wolff, your premise is hogwash

Note how I diffused the logic used by Mr. Wolfff. What I recommend, Soupnazi, (Seinfeld fan, eh? ) is rather than call someone stupid, which does not actually refute an argument, is explain why the argument is specious, false, etc. Hey, it's just a suggestion.

 

Saudi Arabia and I think some other oil rich Arab nations.

 

Eminent Domain is a concept in real estate, seizing land for a greater public benefit.

with IP, there is a concept called 'public domain', which occurs when the patent or copyright expires, but that doesn't pull it from the market. [

The only way the government can pull art from the market place is to censure it, and that is an increasingly difficult thing to do, these days.

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

AS a creator of music, I can think of no reason to withhold my art. My mother was a milliner, and she sold hats at flea markets.

She charged what the market would bear, but she sure as hell wouldn't withhold her hats from the market place. Oh, and asians tried to copy her, but they couldn't match her quality for the price she was selling it at so they gave up.

See, a producer, inventor, composer, artist, they are no different than vendors, they charge what the market will bear, but who in their right mind would withhold their work?

That makes absolutely no sense. My father invented a device, made money off of it for years, got a patent. Once his product was distributed, they set the price for what the public would pay for it. No one in their right mind is going to withold their product , they are going to get as much as they can, and whatever that price is, is going to be the price they settle for.

Your logic wanes.

 

I believe you. Kuwait is probably another. As they say, there is always an exception. It's certainly not viable for the U.S. nor most world governments to pay for houses for its citizens without going the North Korean route.

 

You don't seem to realize you're barking up the wrong tree. Wolff wasn't referring to withholding a product from sale on the market. Sure that would be illogical and self-defeating. Art was a poor example. He could have done better. He could have used prescription drugs as an example or something else because he was actually talking about other companies being prevented from mass-producing a product at a reasonable price instead of a privately-owned limited production priced at "what the market will bear".

(Meanwhile I'll wait for you to return so we can continue or complete the other discussion we're having.)

 

That is obvious.

 

Worked great in the USSR.

Oh, wait, that was a dismal failure.

 

Still you.

 

Everyone knows better including you.

 

Led zeppelin is infamous for doing just that. WKRP reruns have to have different music because of copyright issues.

 

Yes I know your lying and I'm not.

 

Everyone gets the same teaching, so how come only some invent something new?

 

And it is the government and the courts who would set the price, so your fantasy of being "prohibitively expensive" truly is a fantasy.

More fantasy.

The only possible way "Big Oil" (snicker) could suppress such a patent is if they purchased the patent from the patent holder.

The patent holder would have to agree to sell it to "Big Oil" (snicker) and if the patent holder chose to do so, then that is the patent holder's business and none of your business and it is not your place to tell a patent holder what they should do with their patent.

In any event, that patent would expire after 20 years, so you're in a total panic over nothing.

Here's a new word for your vocabulary: Education.

Try it some time.

Because, you know, if you were educated, then you would know there are 168 operating oil refineries in the US but only 19 of them are owned by oil companies. The other 148 oil refineries are owned by non-oil companies. Those 19 refineries are owned by Royal Dutch Shell (foreign), Hess (foreign), Lukoil (foreign), Citgo (foreign), and British Petroleum which was a foreign company until it merged with Amoco.

Only in your fantasy. Patent laws have never been "tools of oppression" and they aren't now and they never will be.

Oppression isn't even the proper word to use. Get some education. There's free online dictionaries and thesauri. There's no excuse.

That isn't happening, because if it was happening, there'd be patent lawsuits-a-plenty filed against Amazon.

Patents, copyrights and trademarks are reasonable regulation.

You got that right.

Right, so we should give absolute authority to government, because everything will turn out peachy.

No kidding. I was explaining that to the other poster, who refers to it as "ID" because he's not sufficiently educated to understand the difference between the words "eminent" and "imminent."

That should come as no surprise, since the same poster confuses "suppression" with "oppression."

Using long tedious terms like "Public Domain" will only confuse people here.

These people get their info from whackjobs who think the movie The Formula (starring George C. Scott and Marlon Brando) really happened, in spite of the fact that it is totally fictional.

 

Maybe you should read real news for once.

TECH
Amazon accused of copying camera gear maker’s top-selling item
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/04/ama...gearmaker-peak-designs-top-selling-item-.html

Let me know when you are ready to deal with reality.

 

"it is the government and the courts who would set the price" only if we're stupid about it...

 

It is.

What is being missed by our communist friends is that yes there are other individuals, but ALL interactions between said individuals MUST be voluntary, consensual and sometimes explicitly contractual. By virtue of being born, you do not belong to a society, you belong to a collective group of self responsible individuals.

 

If your born in that society then you do belong to that society.

 

So you believe in slavery. Got it.

 

You've just described communism perfectly!

And you're right .. most self-proclaimed 'communists' don't grasp this.

 

You can "prove" anything if you're willing to be absurd.

 

No you don't. You belong to your personal collective. In being a responsible personal collective, your group aids the society in which it exists. Failure to do so means its members will become burdens to that society.

 

That person is now paying local and federal taxes to fund the schools in return. Why would any publisher publish a book or even exist at all if the work cannot be copyrighted or why would anyone put in the time or energy or money to invent something if they cannot get a patent on it. They would do it just for fun? Why do you think as far back as 1787 knew that a freedom and liberty cannot exist in a free society without protection of intellectual property just as with real property and engrained those into our Constitution. Which system has worked out better since then communist systems or like ours free market government of the people with the upmost liberty and freedoms?