The President of the United States is an idiot. - Page 3 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-10-2012, 02:19 PM   #41
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)
Posts: 26,317
Total Cats: 1,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Is it coherent to even talk about private innovation in the context of Soviet Russia, unless we are referring to the black or grey markets?
I don't think so.

Contrary to what you might imagine, the USSR was not George Orwell's 1984.

While ownership of "the means of production" in the USSR was granted only to the state, and this included the ownership of homes / apartments, personal property did exist, and could be bought and sold. The Soviet government also recognized the concept of IP protection, and granted “inventors' certificates” to individuals who created new things.

The Inventors' Certificate differed from the Patent in that it did not confer exclusive ownership of the design to the individual, but it did recognize his or her contribution to advancing the state of the art.

I think you and I are actually telling the same story here, though. Soviet Russia clearly possessed many talented individuals who, when forced at the point of a gun, were capable of inventing new technologies and designing innovate products. But in the absence of the motivation of assured personal profit, very little independent personal innovation took place.


Still, I recognize that the USSR is an imperfect analogy, which is why I also cite China. While China may still ostensibly be a communist state, this is in name only. China has evolved into a totalitarian socialist state, where concepts such as party loyalty and respect of government are still strictly enforced, but the concept of private ownership of businesses and trade in a capitalist marketplace have also been embraced, in recognition of the economic and quality-of-life benefits which stem from them.

Internally, China does in fact have a patent system. A Chinese inventor may create a device, patent it, and profit from that innovation. What China does not have is a strong respect for the patent systems of other nations. As a result of this, nearly all present-day Chinese "innovation" consists of copying products designed in other countries and then patenting them domestically. As a result, nobody really has a strong incentive to "create" anything original- they can just copy the innovations of western nations and their neighbors in Japan and South Korea.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 02:37 PM   #42
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

The Constitution is an old, old document, and sometimes it is difficult to derive the true meaning from the founding Fathers.





This is not one of those cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Constitution
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
It says it right there in the first sentence. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts..."
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 02:40 PM   #43
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)
Posts: 26,317
Total Cats: 1,913
Default

I think the real key phrase is "to authors and inventors." This would argue against the notion that patents are transferable, and that reform would eliminate the problem of patent-trolling.

So if I invent a machine which gives blow-jobs in a more stylish way than existing blow-job machines, I should be able to GRANT A LICENSE to Apple to manufacture a blow-job giving machine using my technology. But should Apple be able to purchase every blow-job patent that exists and use this portfolio to create a de-facto ******* monopoly?
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 02:52 PM   #44
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,831
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
The Constitution is an old, old document, and sometimes it is difficult to derive the true meaning from the founding Fathers.

that's why it's easy to go through all their work and writings on the subjects and actually read their intents.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

is not the first sentense BTW, it's not even in the first article, nor the first power granted to congress in Article 8.

the first sentense is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

keywords: promte general welfare, and secure liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

this was dirived from Article III of the Articles:

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."


the inclusion of promote general welfare is something they compromised on because hamilton was a statist who should have stayed in england.

and we all know that our country and revolution was founded on the writings of, in a nutshell, one man: John Locke. Locke was concerned with private property rights. His idea was that the government should allow men to protect their property in courts of law, in lieu of each man being his own judge and police force.

he wrote:

Man...hath by nature a power...to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men.”

on the otherhand:

the French Revolution was influenced by the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau saw the government as the vessel to implement the “general will” and to create more moral men. Through the unchecked power of the state, the government would “force men to be free."

It didn't end well for them:

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, all died of natural causes in old age, with the exception of Button Gwinnett of Georgia, who was shot in a duel unrelated to the revolution.

The leaders of the French Revolution all died violently, by guillotine.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 03:01 PM   #45
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,831
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

more fun facts:

The most famous quotes from the American Revolution is Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death!”

The most famous slogan of the French Revolution is that of Jacobin Club “Fraternity or death.” or better put, "Be my brother or I'll kill you."

Americans celebrate the Fourth of July, the date our written demand for independence from Britain was released to the world.

The French celebrate Bastille Day, a day when a thousand armed Parisians stormed the Bastille, savagely murdered a half dozen guards, defaced their corpses, stuck heads on pikes -- all in order to seize arms and gunpowder for more such tumults. It would be as if this country had a national holiday to celebrate the L.A. riots.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:03 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 700
Total Cats: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
Also I should point out that the constitutional basis for IP is the public good, not because an inventor deserves it.
its both; it grants a temp monopoly to the inventor so they can sell what they have made, but it also allows everyone else to see how it ticks if you will. Its totally ok to make a 'significant' innovation based on someone else's work and get a patent of your own, therefore obsoleting the other thing in the process. A good analogy would be color tv> B&W tv.

Love the inside line on apple history too.
golftdibrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:30 PM   #47
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

Right. It grants a temporary monopoly. Why? So the inventor can recoup his R&D costs? False. "To promote the sciences and useful arts?" Yes, that is why.
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:33 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 700
Total Cats: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
Right. It grants a temporary monopoly. Why? So the inventor can recoup his R&D costs? False. "To promote the sciences and useful arts?" Yes, that is why.
I cant tell if your being sarcastic....
golftdibrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:43 PM   #49
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

What? Can you read? Article 1, Clause 8, Section 8:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Constitution
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Emphasis mine. How much more clear can it get? Is there a second meaning that I am missing here?
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:50 PM   #50
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,831
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

The Admin has:

For purposes of promoting quality control and general welfare, by disallowing access to miataturbo.net for limited times to members and accessors;

the bold emphasis is the reasoning, not the ends.

Quote:
"useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Science" is not limited to fields of modern scientific inquiry, but to all knowledge, including philosophy and literature.
The text reads:

To promote the Progress of all knowledge, including philosophy, literature, etc. and the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft, etc. the Congress has the power to secure, for limited times, to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


Attached Thumbnails
The President of the United States is an idiot.-right_to_bear_arms.jpg  
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:54 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 700
Total Cats: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
What? Can you read? Article 1, Clause 8, Section 8:



Emphasis mine. How much more clear can it get? Is there a second meaning that I am missing here?
I think its very clear, but for what other purpose would someone want to use their writings or discoveries if not for profit? And if its public domain why guarantee the exclusive right? The notion that the device (i don't like this current trend of patenting ideas, fwiw) can then be sold to re-coup costs or freely given away at the discretion of the inventor is implied; in other words we would not need ANY patent law or protection provided by it if the all inventions instantly became public domain.

edit: Its part of the core thinking of the founders. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" means to offer incentive for people to invent new things by granting a temporary monopoly. If not for that there would be less of an incentive to make new things.
golftdibrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:59 PM   #52
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golftdibrad
I think its very clear, but for what other purpose would someone want to use their writings or discoveries if not for profit?
It's not about individual use. It is saying that exclusive right may be granted for the benefit of progress. Meaning that it helps everyone to secure limited monopolies for inventors.

Except it doesn't always. Software patents, for example, are overwhelmingly owned by hardware companies (IBM, Motorola, Samsung, etc) and not software companies. 67% of software patents are held by companies who employ 6% of developers. So clearly they aren't being used to "To promote science and the useful arts." It's more like "To promote our monopoly."
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 05:05 PM   #53
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)
Posts: 26,317
Total Cats: 1,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
67% of software patents are held by companies who employ 6% of developers.
Occupy silicon valley?
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 05:06 PM   #54
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

I am the 94%
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 05:09 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 700
Total Cats: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
It's not about individual use. It is saying that exclusive right may be granted for the benefit of progress. Meaning that it helps everyone to secure limited monopolies for inventors.

Except it doesn't always. Software patents, for example, are overwhelmingly owned by hardware companies (IBM, Motorola, Samsung, etc) and not software companies. 67% of software patents are held by companies who employ 6% of developers. So clearly they aren't being used to "To promote science and the useful arts." It's more like "To promote our monopoly."
I agree that the patent system is very broken, periods are too long, you can patent an IDEA, software without source code, etc...

"to To promote the progress of science and useful arts" phrase again. As I understand patent law from my college class on it, that means I could not use a patent and reverse engineer a widget and sell my own copy of it. Now, I AM free to do that for my own personal use. AND if I make a significant improvement I could get my own patent for the improvement. I think this is how the system should work in principle.

What the patent system is now days is a perversion of what the founders intended to exist.
golftdibrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 08:43 PM   #56
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)
Posts: 26,317
Total Cats: 1,913
Default

I'm surprised I didn't see any of these when I was last over in Germany:



(Yes, it's a real product.)
Attached Thumbnails
The President of the United States is an idiot.-0-1020-1460924-00.jpg  
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 09:02 PM   #57
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,831
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Occupy silicon valley?
Apple and samsung occupy 90% of all cell phone sales.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 09:24 PM   #58
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Just realized I never responded to this. Here we go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
I don't think so.

Contrary to what you might imagine, the USSR was not George Orwell's 1984.

While ownership of "the means of production" in the USSR was granted only to the state, and this included the ownership of homes / apartments, personal property did exist, and could be bought and sold. The Soviet government also recognized the concept of IP protection, and granted “inventors' certificates” to individuals who created new things.

The Inventors' Certificate differed from the Patent in that it did not confer exclusive ownership of the design to the individual, but it did recognize his or her contribution to advancing the state of the art.
Okay, but that's not quite the same, right? A certificate is lovely, to be sure, but I'd argue that for most Soviet citizens (subjects?), it wouldn't compare to the right to market and sell a product at a price of one's own choosing, for one's own benefit. The greater success you achieved, the more likely that the state would notice and claim for itself the rewards of your ingenuity and hard work. This is clearly a disincentive to private innovation.

Quote:
I think you and I are actually telling the same story here, though. Soviet Russia clearly possessed many talented individuals who, when forced at the point of a gun, were capable of inventing new technologies and designing innovate products. But in the absence of the motivation of assured personal profit, very little independent personal innovation took place.
Right -- that was essentially my point. The nitty-gritty details of patent law and exclusive rights takes a back seat when the profit motive itself is seriously in question.

Quote:
Still, I recognize that the USSR is an imperfect analogy, which is why I also cite China. While China may still ostensibly be a communist state, this is in name only. China has evolved into a totalitarian socialist state, where concepts such as party loyalty and respect of government are still strictly enforced, but the concept of private ownership of businesses and trade in a capitalist marketplace have also been embraced, in recognition of the economic and quality-of-life benefits which stem from them.

Internally, China does in fact have a patent system. A Chinese inventor may create a device, patent it, and profit from that innovation. What China does not have is a strong respect for the patent systems of other nations. As a result of this, nearly all present-day Chinese "innovation" consists of copying products designed in other countries and then patenting them domestically. As a result, nobody really has a strong incentive to "create" anything original- they can just copy the innovations of western nations and their neighbors in Japan and South Korea.
Agreed, in that China is a stickier situation (which is why I did not address it in my comment, as it did not [necessarily] apply).

I think there's a second dynamic at play here, which you may have in mind but I didn't see expressed fully in your response. China is essentially a developing nation desperately trying to catch up to the West in terms of technology. There are reasons for this state of affairs, but to discuss them would be to expand the discussion. I'll leave it at this -- it is vastly more profitable for Chinese tech companies to copy the innovations of others because they are so far behind -- they cannot yet stand on the shoulders of giants, because they are still clambering up that giant's midsection, if you will. In developed markets, on the other hand, copying market leaders offers much less profit -- even the act of copying means you are 6 or 12 months behind a rapid technology curve -- so companies are forced to rapidly innovate (including borrowing and building on competitor's innovations) in order to find that last margin of profit available in a much tougher playing field.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 09:32 AM   #59
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,831
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

Directive 10-289

"In the name of the general welfare," read Wesley Mouch, "to protect the people's security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that--

"Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

"Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under pentalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.

"Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.

"Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufacturerd or sold afer the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.

"Point Five. Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as it, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more and no less. The year to be known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Barod.

"Point Six. Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

"Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive.

"Point Eight. All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisionswill be final."


Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 09:56 AM   #60
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,131
Total Cats: 598
Default

Joe's new avatar?

Attached Thumbnails
The President of the United States is an idiot.-obama.gif  
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NB oil pressure gauge runs backward TorqueZombie Engine Performance 7 10-11-2015 07:10 AM
Is my swirl pot design okay? FrankB Race Prep 10 10-02-2015 10:00 PM
Back to Stock Part Out!! Turbo Parts, MS2 Enhanced 01-05, Suspension, and MOAR! StratoBlue1109 Miata parts for sale/trade 16 10-02-2015 10:39 AM
Bad head gasket or ? shooterschmidty Engine Performance 8 09-30-2015 11:28 PM
Another Alternator thread ihiryu General Miata Chat 9 09-28-2015 11:22 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:10 PM.