The following excerpt comes from President Obama’s recent townhall meeting in Ohio on Friday, January 22, 2010:
* * * * *
Q I’m an inventor, and I hold U.S. patent number 7,397,731.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q And before I ask my question I’d like to make a sales pitch. (Laughter.) If you can use my patent in your next election, I think you can raise a ton of money worldwide. You should take a look at it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we’ll take a look. All right.
Q If you can’t use it, the government could use it, and I could build a multibillion-dollar business here in Ohio. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we’ll take a look at your patent. Go ahead, what’s your question?
Q Yes, okay, it has to do with international patent rights. With all this free trade and trade barriers falling, it’s really hard for an individual like me with a global-scope patent to file all over the world and get patent protection everywhere, and having to go overseas to fight infringement. So if you’re going to drop trade barriers, maybe you can extend my patent rights to the foreign countries.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is a great question, and this is a huge problem. (Applause.) Look, our competitive advantage in the world is going to be people like this who are using their minds to create new products, new services. But that only helps us and helps you build a multibillion-dollar company if somebody can’t just steal that idea and suddenly start making it in Indonesia or Malaysia or Bangladesh with very cheap workers.
And one of the problems that we have had is insufficient protection for intellectual property rights. That’s true in China; it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software. And there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.
So I’ve given instructions to my trade offices — and we actually highlight this at the highest levels of foreign policy — that these are issues that have to be addressed because that’s part of the reciprocity of making our markets open. And so when I met with President Hu of China, this is a topic that, at dinner, I directly brought up with him. And — but as you point out, it’s got to be sustained, because a lot of times they’ll say, yes, yes, yes, but then there’s no enforcement on their end.
And one of the things that we’re also doing is using our export arm of the U.S. government to help work with medium-sized businesses and small businesses, not just the big multinationals to protect their rights in some of these areas, because we need to boost exports.
Can I just say, we just went through a decade where we were told that it didn’t matter, we’ll just — you just keep on importing, buying stuff from other countries, you just take out a home equity loan and max out your credit card, and everything is going to be okay. And it looked, for a lot of people, like, well, the economy seems to be growing — but it was all built on a house of cards. That’s what we now know. And that’s why if we’re going to have a successful manufacturing sector, we’ve got to have successful exports.
When I went and took this trip to China, and took this trip to Asia, a lot of people said, “Well, why is he going to Asia? He’s traveling overseas too much. He needs to be coming back home and talking about jobs.” I’m there because that’s where we’re going to find those jobs, is by increasing our exports to those countries, the same way they’ve been doing in our country. If we increased our exports — our share of exports by just 1 percent, that would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the United States. Five percent — maybe a million jobs, well-paying jobs. So we’re going to have to pry those markets open. Intellectual property is part of that process.
* * * * *
The invention claimed by the 7,397,731 patent is pretty cool. It is a “perpetual day reminder calendar.”
The patent was prosecuted by the inventors and it is not surprising that the claims are written in some sort of modified Jepson language. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A perpetual day reminder calendar for illustrating day, date and month information, including:
a) a set of day indicating plates with day indica; b) a set of month indicating plates with month indica; c) a set of date indicating cubes with date indica; d) a display stand with locating guides in one of three possible configurations, top holding, center holding or bottom holding;
the improvement wherein said day indicating plates and said month indicating plates identically shaped to fit around said date indicating cubes in a manner providing an interlocking of, said plates and cubes and the shielding of unneeded indica allowing only the needed day, date and month indica to be viewed and the interlocking pieces forming a calendar stack having a unique locating interaction feature with said display stand whereby the perpetual day reminder calendar can be easily manipulated for the sequential displaying of day, date and month indica.
“Ancient Greece, ancient Rome, it’s all the same, n’est-ce pas?”
Mr. Celine, notwithstanding the obviously global reach of this blog, I might suggest that English is the lingua franca of the patent community.
The saddest thing is that I’ve heard Orly Taitz speak before, and I still can’t tell her ramblings from the ramblings of a satirical troll.
Too much to respond to, I’ll just pick out a few points.
NAL: IANAE, your post at 09:51 is a good half step – consider that the Constitution CAN be changed (sure it is harder to do and it is the bedrock as I mentioned, but change is indeed possible). As to making all the difference- it makes none when considering (R)ights as opposed to (r)ights.
Yes, the constitution can be changed. Everybody knows that. It is important that it’s harder to change than regular laws. The rights in the constitution were important enough to somebody, at some point, that they are no longer subject to ordinary democracy. They can’t be changed by a simple majority vote. They are not subject to the whim of WE THE PEOPLE. That’s the distinction. You can’t take away someone’s constitutional rights simply because it’s popular to do so.
AI: Are WE THE PEOPLE, in a position of vassalage to the United States Congress? Or is the United States Congress the servants of the American people?
Congress is in charge. Congress makes the laws. The constitution is pretty clear on that. The people get to decide which people get to make up Congress, but Congress is in charge.
AI: “WE THE PEOPLE have the power to enforce Article 8 of the Constitution by instructing our representatives to enact appropriate legislation for Inventors to be granted patents. It is in every sense, our Constitutional right.”
You do indeed have the power to write your Congressman and ask him to vote for patent legislation. It is in every sense your constitutional right to free speech. And that’s all it is.
Since your Congressman is the one who actually makes the laws, he’s not forced to listen to you or do what you say. The beauty of the marketplace of ideas is that you don’t have to buy what you don’t want.
Ancient Greece, ancient Rome, it’s all the same, n’est-ce pas?
Of course, the ancient Greeks didn’t have a word for xenophobia.
Dr. Taitz, I thank you for your post. However, I must confess that I am a bit skeptical as regards your intentions, in light of your previous postings. I might (humbly) suggest that immigration law and Constitutional Law are quite distinct fields. I’m not sure that insights you may have acquired from the first are readily transferable to the second.
Have a very pleasant day!
Mr. Hobbes, your subtlety is most delicious. However, I think it may be a bit too subtle for the likes of NAL and AI. They may find wikipedia to be of assistance.
“Just for the record, The Resident Troll I referred to in my previous post was NOT directed at Ned Heller. I have respect for Ned’s point of view and have agreed with him far more than I have disagreed.”
AI, upon first reading your munificent comment, my first instinct was to agree with you completely. But upon further reflection and contemplation, I wonder – should we be so sanguine, or is this precisely the slackening of vigilance that the anti-patent forces seek? Indeed, surely you find it impossible, as I do, to embrace the tenets of nihilism, as such a path inevitably and inexorably leads to the comprehensive obliteration of all (R)ights.
And let’s consider Mr. Heller’s ideal society, the (R)omans, a bit further. Did the average Roman citizen (not to mention the average slave) have the right to apply for and receive a patent for his novel and nonobvious ideas? I think not! Shouldn’t we therefore be suspicious when a society that was based, at its core, on the suppression of free thinking and untrammeled invention, is set forth as an ideal to which we should strive to attain?
In keeping with your open-handed gesture, I’m willing to give Mr. Heller the benefit of the doubt. But I feel compelled to remind you that the forces of darkness employ a wide variety of strategems in their relentless struggle – as we’ve witnessed here, those strategems obviously include sockpuppetry and sophistry (a term invented in ancient Rome, if I’m not mistaken), the latter representing the ultimate in the use of red herrings and obfuscation. Mightn’t those stratagems also include the use of quasi-historical allusions to the grandeur of Ancient Rome, to disguise the sinister agenda of those who seek to destroy the patent-based economy that we and our children currently enjoy?
I appreciate your indulging me in these musings. I eagerly anticipate your response.
Just for the record, The Resident Troll I referred to in my previous post was NOT directed at Ned Heller. I have respect for Ned’s point of view and have agreed with him far more than I have disagreed.
“If indeed Ned does not believe in inalienable (R)ights or that the Constitution was ordained by the people then that is a philosophical fork in the road we must take.”
Agreed, AI! It is eminently clear that you reach the only logical conclusion – when faced with such a fork in the road, where one path leads to nihilism, and the other to concordance with our founding fathers, the proper response is obvious – then we (those of us who strive for the continued viability and vitality of our patent system, at least) must take that philosophical fork.
“I do appreciate you Noise for being an effective facilitator and scholar in this discussion which has kept us on track and advanced the awareness and knowledge for all that participates, and in effect rendered the resident troll and his minion of make believe followers impotent.”
Once again we are in harmony. We simply could not have reached the present level of clarity without Noise’s patience and persistence. That said, however, I respectfully submit that perhaps we (or maybe just I?) owe the naysayers and nihilists a debt as well: the futility and lack of integrity of their postings actually served to reinforce the coherent vision of the founding fathers, and not to undermine it as was intended. It reminds me of the primary theme of the sermon that Mrs. Hobbes and I were privileged to hear this morning – that the more the forces of darkness strive to blot out the light of our Lord, they more they unwittingly act to magnify the Lord’s glory. (My apologies to those readers who do not share in my beliefs – no offense is intended. But I think it is undeniable that my musings are consistent with the approach to Law that our founding fathers took, is it not?)
I’m looking forward to future debates, and hope that I can make some small contribution to those discussions.
Posted by: Noise above Law | Feb 07, 2010 at 12:00 PM: “This may be the crux of the matter – The founding fathers fought and died for what you categorize as theoretical. Somehow, your classification seems to remove the reality of these (R)ights from the chicken-and-egg sequence, when it is these very theoretical (R)ights that seem to underpin AI’s position (please correct me if I am mistaken AI).”
It is correct in that I subscribe to the belief in inalienable (R)ights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
That I believe as Constitutional Scholars do that the word “ORDAIN” in the Constitution is a testament to these inalienable (R)ights.
e.g…“ do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
If indeed Ned does not believe in inalienable (R)ights or that the Constitution was ordained by the people then that is a philosophical fork in the road we must take.
I do appreciate you Noise for being an effective facilitator and scholar in this discussion which has kept us on track and advanced the awareness and knowledge for all that participates, and in effect rendered the resident troll and his minion of make believe followers impotent.
Noise, how dare you accuse me of fluff, when you are quite the fluffer yourself.
AI – As you point out, the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power 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.” However, you incorrectly hold this to unequivocally mean that inventors have a Constitutional right to a patent.
To actually unequivocally grant you a Constitutional right to a patent, the wording would need to state: “The Congress shall secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Note that such language would require Congress to secure exclusive rights for inventors. It does not state this. Rather, it gives Congress the power to secure such rights. Granting Congress a power to do something does not require Congress to exercise that power (for example, Congress has the power to impose tariffs, but is not required to do so in every case; it may impose tariffs at its discretion).
Furthermore, the founding fathers included the language “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”. This language can be looked upon as a statement of the spirit of the clause (i.e. that securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries will promote the progress of science and the useful arts), but it can also be viewed as a limit to the power that is granted to Congress (i.e. if by securing patent rights for an inventor, the progress of science and the useful arts is not advanced, but is hindered, then Congress does not have the power to do so).
Lastly, regarding your previous statements to the effect that inventors have an inalienable right to their inventions and ideas, the patent clause uses the language “for limited times”. If man had an inherent right to a patent, Congress could not limit the length of a patent grant. This is not withstanding that the inalienable right to exclude everyone else from an inventive concept requires that someone be alienated from their inalienable rights if they independently came up with the same inventive concept.
By the way, powers not given to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved for the states, not “WE THE PEOPLE”.
“That is why the founding fathers added language making patent rights at the discretion of Congress rather than stating ……..”
Even if this was true, which it is not, you still could not escape the FACT that it is WE THE PEOPLE, that would have the right to such discretion as to file or not file for a patent.
Bottom line, no hypothetical rewriting of the Constitution can change or have any effect on what was actually written.
At the end of the day Article 8 is and remains right in your face, and so remains THE PEOPLES constitutional right to a patent.
What was written:
Article 1 section 8: “The Congress shall have Power 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.”
:
“these very theoretical (R)ights”
should read
“these very same ‘theoretical’ (R)ights”
Ned,
First off – thank you for your time and energy in engaging so thoughtfully. I appreciate you not joining the skirt and track show club. I do hope that you are enjoying the discussion as well.
“…because when Rome fell, it was no longer a republic, but a despotic empire.”
Conclusion: ______ ? (you concede the point – but what is the end result of this? The Roman allusion is something you introduced – but I do not know why and I do not know how the failure of this point affects the discussion.
[you note in response to three of my paragraphs of setting the stage] “I, in fact, said as much.”
Absolutely not. If you had, then you acquiesce to a viewpoint that does not sustain the rest of your position. The three paragraphs you repeat nullify your purported position. You cannot say “I said as much”, hand waive the points away and then go on to maintain your position – it is not logically possible.
“I say that rights are theoretical until government exists to protect them.”
This may be the crux of the matter – The founding fathers fought and died for what you categorize as theoretical. Somehow, your classification seems to remove the reality of these (R)ights from the chicken-and-egg sequence, when it is these very theoretical (R)ights that seem to underpin AI’s position (please correct me if I am mistaken AI). You hand waive the very essence of what you need to disabuse AI of.
“AI and we also do not disagree. He claims the source of the constitution is the people. I agree with this.”
Not sure how to take the juxtaposition of these two sentences…
“…basic argument that rights do not exist without those rights being recognized by other men.”
This basic argument is a fallacy. It is a nihilist viewpoint that simply doesn’t square with the founding fathers. It is not supported by the mere fact that a (R)ight – (or even a (r)ight) – transgressed is still a (R)/(r)ight. Transgression does not make the (R)/(r)ight disappear. If it indeed disappeared, there would be no cause for Justice to be called upon.
I’m not saying that you cannot believe such a position – I am saying that the founding fathers did not believe it. You cannot restate history as much as you repeat that this is what the founding fathers “were trying to say” – It isn’t. Plain and simple.
“Common law did seek to understand basic human interactions…”
I “get” what you are saying – I understand the structure you have set up – the problem is, that structure, no matter how sound it is in itself, is built on sand.
“Whether they were or not,…”
Again – you presuppose the importance or lack thereof in your foundation. This is a critical error. You need to stop building on sand.
You also have not addressed the “shall” directive. Ideally, I would like to see your thoughts on this directive from a house you build on a solid foundation, but will settle for now on the vantage point of this legal point from your edifice listing precariously from its own weight.
Since we know of one person that thrills at the mention of the phrase “teabagger”, it appears that we have (yet another) of those “rare” pseudonym occurrences. As usual, the comment is fluff, seeking merely to obfuscate with un-sustained political ideologies that do not add to the discussion underway. (The 0.002% rings a bell though – hmmm, must be close to the percent of time that the many-pseduonym’d hydra-purveyor of fluff actually adds a substantive point – but there goes my thoughts again, running amuck)
As any good teabagger understands, the founding fathers could not have been Romans because they were fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage, NAFTA, and Al Gore, all of which the Romans supported (thus leading to their collapse). Furthermore, the founding fathers understood that WE THE (0.002% OF THE) PEOPLE have the inseparable right to exclude WE THE (99.998% OF THE) PEOPLE from making or using their ideas as long as WE THE (0.002% OF THE) PEOPLE documented the ideas first. That is why the founding fathers added language making patent rights at the discretion of Congress rather than stating “The Congress shall secure for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Ned, do not question the will of WE THE (0.002% OF THE) PEOPLE.
“Hobbes observed that we are saying the same thing.”
Mr. Heller, respectfully: Given that I’ve withdrawn from the discussion, in light of my demonstratedly sub-par contributions, I might suggest that enlisting my name in support of your arguments is a losing strategy and, indeed, smacks of desperation. I further note that you still fail to acknowledge the essential difference between (r)ight and (R)ight, despite Noise’s repeated attempts to keep the discussion properly focused on this key point. I’m certainly no expert in Constitutional Law, but I know that our founding fathers were neither Romans nor nihilists.
Alright, Noise.
You said the Roman Republic failed. In a sense, it did, because when Rome fell, it was no longer a republic, but a despotic empire. The people hated the government, refused to defend it, and often welcomed the enemy.
Next you argued:
“Government is created by man in order to preserve those natural rights that exist independent of Government. Government creates Law in order to communicate and to set up a system that can fairly administer those rights. The sense of fairness is itself a type of natural right. It was violations of these natural rights by the then government that gave credence to the actions of our founding fathers. If we follow your line of thought, as there was a government in place with a rule of Law, there should not have been any justifiable reason why our founding fathers revolted. Having law is no guarantee of not having tyranny or worse.
Our founding fathers tried to create a government in order to administer to something already there, but that they thought was not being served – they did not create a government that would then create the Rights to be administered.
Further, Common Law also does not create Rights, but rather attempts to serve the natural rights already existing. Common Law is man’s attempt to react to and codify in a sense rights “out there”.”
I, in fact, said as much. You say we created government to protect rights. I say that rights are theoretical until government exists to protect them.
Hobbes observed that we are saying the same thing. Clearly we are.
AI and we also do not disagree. He claims the source of the constitution is the people. I agree with this. It is consistent with my basic argument that rights do not exist without those rights being recognized by other men. Whenever men unite and set forth their basic charter of cooperation, they write their constitution.
Common law did seek to understand basic human interactions and reduce to writing the common practice of man. But that presupposes that there was a common practice of man that all or most respected already. Which is my definition of law and its corollary, “right.” Rights flow from their recognition by other men.
Circling back to our founding fathers, they tried to write down what was understood to be fundamental rights respected by all mankind. It was unnecessary to attribute these rights to a creator, but that was the mode of observance at the time, just as once Moses handed down the ten commandments, saying they were from God. Whether they were or not, linking them to God was a powerful tool to assure they were observed. Ditto the founding fathers when they linked the basic rights to the Creator.
Posted by: Noise above Law | Feb 06, 2010 at 10:09 PM: Ned, do you recognize the difference between patent right and patent Right? Do you recognize the Constitutional foundation? How do you feel about the “shall” mandate?
I would like to see everyone in this thread and the other that oppose Constitutional Patent rights answer these questions. I think they are very good questions and would move us further along in the discussion.
Personally, I believe the Founding Fathers very much believed in unalienable rights and felt that these rights were inherent in the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights were written.
“I implore you to study the topic of Constitutional Law and return shortly. The exchange style is a welcome respite.”
It was a pleasure to return from the symphony (Mrs. Hobbes was kind enough to accompany me to hear a little Rachmaninoff – generally a bit too Romantic for my taste, if you know what I mean, but performed very adroitly this evening) to find your generous encouragement. I fear that true expertise in Constitutional Law will probably remain an unfulfilled ambition for this glorified scrivener. But I shall redouble my efforts, nonetheless.
A very good night to you!
Posted by: Ned Heller | Feb 06, 2010 at 08:37 PM: As you know, the Constitution granted Congress the power to make laws protecting patents. ”
May I remind you once again that WE THE PEOPLE make the Constitution. By itself the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper at best. It has no power and can’t do anything but decay. With that fact in mind my argument remains valid:
“WE THE PEOPLE have the power to enforce Article 8 of the Constitution by instructing our representatives to enact appropriate legislation for Inventors to be granted patents. It is in every sense, our Constitutional right.”
Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment can take away this right.
I call ’em like I see ’em, and if I don’t see ’em…
…I make ’em up.
Ned,
I respect that you believe in your convictions. However, just as in other discussions of ours, where I have provided legal reasoning and the appropriate framework, I am disappointed that you do not discuss the points that I bring up and make your arguments in disregard of established legal doctrine. Your silence is so deafening that I cannot hear your position.
While you cling to your vantage point, and until you recognize the difference between (r)ight and (R)ight, you will be limited in your understanding of what our founding fathers did. You cannot dismiss, as you have, their beliefs and replace them with what you want to believe they were “trying to say”.
The statement “there are no rights until there is a law creating them” completely misses the point – the essential point between (r)ight and (R)ight. Just as a trampled right does not destroy the underlying (R)ight – yet you ignore this reality.
No matter how tightly you cling to a nihilist view – you cannot make the founding fathers change their beliefs.
You only too readily throw the big R into your pile of theory, when it is so much more important than the little r that you put on the flip side of the coin of law.
Ned, do you recognize the difference between patent right and patent Right? Do you recognize the Constitutional foundation? How do you feel about the “shall” mandate?
AI, there is a difference between a power to make law and a law. In the case of the constitutional powers, the fundamental law is the constitution itself. It not only grants the power to make laws, but also limits that power thereby creating constitutional rights.
Beyond the constitutional rights, as I have been trying to point out, there are no rights until there is a law creating them.
As you know, the Constitution granted Congress the power to make laws protecting patents. Until Congress acted and made the patent law, there were no patent rights in the United States.
Noise and Hobbes,
What “liberty” did the King deny the colonists. I would argue several:
the right to keep and bear arms;
the right of free trade.
Any others?
“I would also invite you to comment on threads that fall into your realm of expertise.”
Oh, the delicious irony.
Hobbes, make that “self-designated role”. Speaking of subtleties, your comment is masterfully done.
Might makes right?
Seems this is true.
The caveman and the colonist may think they have a right to life, liberty, …; but along come the band of pirates or the despotic King —
This is almost proof positive that rights are almost always abstract unless there is a government that actually protects them. We can believe in rights, we can think about them. But to actually have them, we need government and we need law.
Very gracious of you sir – I implore you to study the topic of Constitutional Law and return shortly. The exchange style is a welcome respite.
I would also invite you to comment on threads that fall into your realm of expertise. I look forward to learning from you.
are saying that YOUR request was clearly out of line. Is this some type of Freudian slip?”
Not at all – I’m simply trying to be polite. As I recall, after your facilitative response to my first comments above, I asked you direct questions about your position on the issues. I admit that I was a bit puzzled by your initial response to those questions (perhaps your delicous subtleties were over my head), but you subsequently explained (quite clearly, I might add) that it would have been unseemly for you to provide your own opinions, given your designated role as facilitator. My last apology was for asking those questions, and thus (unwittingly, I beg you to understand) putting you in a potentially embarassing position.
I appreciate your suggestion that no apology was needed, but you’re being much too kind. Please permit me to to bow out of the conversation once more – I would regret it if my continued confusion and unpreparedness distracted others from the issues at hand.
(hmmm, for my own information, my thoughts on the exchange above – while delicious in their subtlety, should not be conflated to think that a genuine apology from Mr. Hobbes would not be graciously accepted – given that Mr. Hobbes, no doubt did not, nor would not, attend the 6 school of reading comprehension and would have noted in my previous post that I treated his retreat as a gentlemanly maneuver, thus not needing any type of apology – and didn’t Malcolm tell me something about letting my thoughts slip onto the Trainwreck? – Oh I don’t remember – his writings are just too forgettable)
Mr. Hobbes,
Your sentence above does not make sense – you are saying that YOUR request was clearly out of line. Is this some type of Freudian slip?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not merely another sockpuppet and that you somehow mean to say that MY facilitation was clearly out of line, you must indulge me as to precisely, or heck – even generally, just how my setting the stage for a proper legal discussion on the merits of Constitutional Law was even close to, let alone clearly, out of line.
Please, share your elucidation.
Referee,
To what would I owe a defense? I could infer that a defense would be required if I were under attack. Hypothetically, such things as juvenile trickery and obvious sockpuppetry would hardly rise to the level where I would need a defense – now would it?
“actually stating my position would indeed be unseemly and quite biased”
The best defense is to have nothing to defend, eh Noise?
“…nor are my views on the subject even involved – except as only those pertaining to a facilitator role. As such – actually stating my position would indeed be unseemly and quite biased.”
I must beg your pardon again. My requests for clarification of your facilitative comments were clearly out of line.
Some referees are notoriously blind.
The referee here belongs to that class.
Mr. Referee, you need to read a little more carefully – I never said one side or the other was “WRONG”. I was merely pointing out that the question at hand is not answerable by diving into administrative law details. When discussing Constitutional Rights, the proper level of abstraction is required.
The fact that Mr. Hobbes begs off on this point impacts my “involvement” in this discussion not in the least. Mr. Hobbes is perfectly welcome to exit the discussion, as he feels that he is not prepared to discuss the matter at hand. There is no shame in this. There is no “assailing” here, nor are my views on the subject even involved – except as only those pertaining to a facilitator role. As such – actually stating my position would indeed be unseemly and quite biased.
Methinks that you are too eager to find fault – based solely on the name at the end of the posts. Such childish retorts are not to be unexpected – they simply don’t impact the grown-ups’ discussion.
Carry on gentlemen.
Posted by: Thomas Hobbes was here | Feb 06, 2010 at 11:23 AM: “Is it really your position that Congress could not do away with patents altogether? Or that an individual right to a patent is enshrined in the Constitution? I just want to be clear what we’re discussing.”
[Since similar questions were asked of me in another thread I am taking the liberty to cut and paste my response from that thread to this one, with some elaboration to address your points of inquiry.}
Are WE THE PEOPLE, in a position of vassalage to the United States Congress? Or is the United States Congress the servants of the American people? I hold the latter belief.
Therefore WE THE PEOPLE have the power to enforce Article 8 of the Constitution by instructing our representatives to enact appropriate legislation for Inventors to be granted patents.
It is in every sense, our Constitutional right.
Now, I also acknowledge that WE THE PEOPLE, can instruct our representatives to enact legislation that weakens the law to the point that getting a patent would be virtually impossible or up on issue, worthless.
That very act is occurring now by anti-patent forces that want to eliminate software and business method patents without going through the trouble of removing “useful arts” from the constitution and “process” from the 1952 patent Act.
The same weakening could be done for any of our rights, such as voting rights, civil rights, abortion rights etc.
But that would not change the existence of our rights, only our freedom to exercise our rights. And then of course WE THE PEOPLE can exercise the only right that can’t be denied by legislation, the right of protest and revolt.
As it stands now WE THE PEOPLE have told Congress what to do in Article 8 section 1 of the Constitution, And until WE THE PEOPLE say otherwise Congress is duty bond to carry out our orders and the Constitutional right to a patent shall so remain.
Good call, Hobbes. You’ll notice that Noise never actually has a position other than “your position is WRONG.”
I’m afraid that I now have no idea what you’re talking about. I offer my apologies for not framing my comments (in response to AI) at the “proper abstract level.”
Good day to you.
Mr. Hobbes,
I will leave the finding of particular administrative act sections or laws to you – nonetheless, how do you think that your Thursdays comment, or chemical compounds (as opposed to other statutory classes) have anything but an arbitrary basis in your post? Even deigning to put forth the above question runs the risk of indulging obfuscation and chasing red herrings – these points are insubstantial as compared to the point under discussion. Being more specific about (l)aw is exactly the wrong direction to take this thread – try to follow my previous post.
As to the question concerning whether Congress could or could not do away with patents altogether – that is the question YOU need to answer. That is the task in relation to the Constitutional clause with the directive of “shall”. Are you asking me to supply you with your arguments?
Let me give you a hint – ANYTHING in the constitution can be changed (contemplate the discussion between IANAE, Ned and myself if you feel that you can do so without confusing yourself), and then realize what AI is saying as to the power of the EXISTING Constitutional Patent Right. Now, if you take the Constitution as it is – you need to be able to explain just how “shall” can be negated if you want to be rid of Patent Rights.
To be clear, my posts are not to change “what we are discussing” – they are just to frame that discussion at the proper abstract level. The proper level is NOT in the minutia of details of 35 USC. As I posted – you need to focus on (L)aw, not (l)aw.
“…you do forget that the arbitrary and capricious examples you propose would not be permissible under other laws (including administrative acts), do you not?”
Could you please be more specific? Which of my examples are arbitrary and capricious, and which would not be permissible under which administrative acts?
Is it really your position that Congress could not do away with patents altogether? Or that an individual right to a patent is enshrined in the Constitution? I just want to be clear what we’re discussing.
Mr. Hobbes,
I realize that your points are in response to AI, but you do forget that the arbitrary and capricious examples you propose would not be permissible under other laws (including administrative acts), do you not?
Further, would you remove the Patent Act, you are STILL stuck with the Constitutional clause – and that clause does have the directive of “shall” – as opposed to “might” or “if we feel like it”.
Just as the abstraction of the discussion with IANAE can be raised from (r)ight to (R)ight, so can the Constitutional matter of “Patent” be raise from (l)aw to (L)aw. You must deal with the Constitutional “Shall” – dealing with the small (l)aw is a red herring.
At this point, the discussion still favors AI.
“It seems what Ned is saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that might makes right.
In which case why would we even need a patent system, or even a Constitution for that matter?”
Yes, that’s what Ned is saying. It’s also what my namesake said 360 years ago. If you really want an answer to your question, Wiki “social contract.”
“Also, I am correct in thinking it would require an amendment to the Constitution to remove Article 8 from the Constitution which would in effect eliminate inventors right to a patent?”
Well, yes, it would take an amendment to remove Article 8 from the Constitution, but since an inventor doesn’t have a Constitutional right to a patent, eliminating inventors’ rights to a patent would be much easier than that. Just eliminate the Patent Act (or just 35 USC 101, for that matter), with a simple act of Congress and a signature from the President. The fact that WE THE PEOPLE could do that, through our Congress, without touching the Constitution, is proof that there is no Constitutional right to a patent.
Using the same approach, WE THE PEOPLE could modify 35 USC 101 to eliminate patent protection for chemical compounds, or communication devices, or inventions that involve mental steps, or anything we like. We could modify it to eliminate patent protection for inventions made on Thursdays, I suppose. Because of that pesky Constitution, we can’t modify it to selectively withhold patent protection from female applicants or African American applicants, or from citizens of Rhode Island. But there is absolutely no (Constitutional) problem with modifying 35 USC 101 to clearly say that you can’t get a patent on a method of hedging business transactions.
“If so, then it would be logical, at least from a Constitutional law perspective to argue that Inventors have a Constitutional right to a patent.”
NO, it would be completely illogical. Actually, it’s not very clear what the effect of simply striking the Patent Clause from the Constitution would be. I’m not sure that its absence would prevent Congress from acting anyway, or whether its absence (and the absence of Congressional action) would permit states to have their own patent statutes.
Noise above Law | Feb 05, 2010 at 05:12 PM: When you recognize that a (R)ight exist whether or not it is enforced, whether or not it is trampled, you will see things as our founding fathers did – they recognized that their (R)ights were being trampled – in your manner of defining things – they had no rights since the then-Government would not enforce those (R)ights. I cannot see how you fail to see this.
It seems what Ned is saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that might makes right.
In which case why would we even need a patent system, or even a Constitution for that matter?
Also, I am correct in thinking it would require an amendment to the Constitution to remove Article 8 from the Constitution which would in effect eliminate inventors right to a patent?
If so, then it would be logical, at least from a Constitutional law perspective to argue that Inventors have a Constitutional right to a patent.
“In your conflation, you are trying to define Right in a manner of tautology. That’s why you are going in circles.”
Actually, Ned is simply defining (R)ight differently than you and I, which is why we’re talking past each other. Ned’s approach is valid; I just don’t think it results in the most useful framework possible.
… (somehow truncated)
In your conflation, you are trying to define Right in a manner of tautology. That’s why you are going in circles.
“Regarding the Roman Republic, … The Roman system stood the test of time; it is the model for our own Constitution.”
Actually, the Roman system FAILED the test of time – witness the fact that the system is not in current operation.
IANAE, your post at 09:51 is a good half step – consider that the Constitution CAN be changed (sure it is harder to do and it is the bedrock as I mentioned, but change is indeed possible). As to making all the difference- it makes none when considering (R)ights as opposed to (r)ights.
Ned,
You are still conflating.
Recognition simply has nothing to do with what makes a right a (R)ight. – you are conflating enforcement and law with the Right. To answer your question about naming any right that exists in the abstract – EVERY Right exists in the abstract. You said “Whether there is a [C]reater or not is beside the point.” – actually, that IS the point – something beyond man is the source – what is provided by that source does NOT need recognition by man in order to exist. Your nihilist view is not in accord with our founding fathers – it cannot be. Your view of what the foundign fathers were “trying” too say runs smack into what they DID say.
As Hobbes reiterates – and if I may paraphrase, enforceability is not determinative of the existence of the Right. When you recognize that a (R)ight exist whether or not it is enforced, whether or not it is trampled, you will see things as our founding fathers did – they recognized that their (R)ights were being trampled – in your manner of defining things – they had no rights since the then-Government would not enforce those (R)ights. I cannot see how you fail to see this.
Thomas Hobbes, who or what is Nature? How does this nature grant rights? If another being violates these “natural rights” where is the court or other official to hear my complaint?
You might say as did our founding fathers that a “creator” is a source of natural rights. Whether there is a greater or not is beside the point. All that is required is that men believe that there is a creator and that there is reward or punishment in this life, or the next, for obeying God’s law.
In the final analysis, it always comes down to whether or not men recognize the right, not whether it is created by nature or by God or by some other entity. My statement of this fundamental fact does not deny the existence of a Nature or a creator or a God.
I think what our founding fathers were trying to say in the Declaration of Independence is that there are certain fundamental “rights” recognized by all men. That these rights cannot be abridged by governments without those government essentially becoming a tyranny, thereby granting the oppressed people the legal right to revolt.
“Take the most fundamental right, the right to life. I say this is a right only so long as other men recognize it as such.”
Ned, you wouldn’t be the first person to deny the existence of natural rights – see, e.g., Jeremy Bentham. But I must say that I find your particular argument a bit peculiar. Legal rights are often ignored, and are often practically unenforceable and/or suffer irremediable abridgements. But does that mean they don’t exist, or aren’t useful? I don’t know why it should be any different for natural rights.
“All of mankind can be destroyed by a wandering asteroid. What does this say about our collective right to life?”
It says that it’s probably unenforceable against wandering asteroids. Whether you can seek a remedy is a question for a higher court than any I’m admitted to.
NAL, could give me an example of any right that exists in the abstract? Take the most fundamental right, the right to life. I say this is a right only so long as other men recognize it as such. Clearly, animals don’t recognize humans right to life. Also the random act of nature does not. All of mankind can be destroyed by a wandering asteroid. What does this say about our collective right to life?
I submit to you that there is no such thing as a “right” independent of recognition of that right by other men.
Regarding the Roman Republic, they early reduced the basic Law to writing and inscribed it on a Temple in the forum for all to read. They later provided tribunes so that the fundamental law could not be changed without the consent of the people. No new law could be passed without a vote of the people. Disputes were settled in court.
The Roman system stood the test of time; it is the model for our own Constitution.
AI: And WE THE PEOPLE Make the Constitution
NAL: He just needs to take one extra step in realizing that the Constitution itself is “merely” law (merely being a rather admittedly volatile word as this particular law is the bedrock law of our particular Government).
I admit it’s a fine distinction, but the framers knew the constitution was somehow more important than regular laws, and shouldn’t be subject to majority whim, so they made it much harder to amend. Basically it’s an extra procedural step before the government can take away your rights, but it makes all the difference.
That’s why THEY THE PEOPLE drafted the constitution so WE THE PEOPLE can’t just change it whenever we want. So you can’t easily get together a big enough bunch of WE THE PEOPLE to pass an amendment against flag burning or gay marriage. Stuff like that (i.e. non-urgent policy-type stuff that doesn’t threaten the very fabric of the nation) has to be done through regular laws, and those laws are subject to judicial scrutiny based on the existing constitutional rights.
The constitution exists to protect us from the WE THE PEOPLE who make the laws.
AI’s point is lost amid Ned’s Roman Republic fascination.
I think IANAE get’s closer with his cleaving of Rights into (r)ights by law and (R)ights that supersede law on the basis of Constitution, He just needs to take one extra step in realizing that the Constitution itself is “merely” law (merely being a rather admittedly volatile word as this particular law is the bedrock law of our particular Government). The “legal” rights distinction is without a difference, as I was not discussing (r)ights but rather (R)ights.
Ned, the two may be intimately related, but they are not two sides of the same coin. A Right can be wronged regardless of law – and it does remain a Right even if wronged. Your whole “recognized by other men” aspect pertains to laws and their effectiveness. Such, as IANAE points out, do not impact Rights.
Rights supersede Government as well – our founding fathers did their best to create a Government in response to their recognition that the previous government failed to address the inalienable rights. They knew that they did not create perfection and thus the living government that could adapt to better support Rights as those Rights were continually and better understood was born. – This only highlights the distinction between Rights and Law and Government.
INANE: “Sure thing. I’ll post a link sometime yesterday that explains the difference.”
Sorry, dude, everyone knows Barb Mikkelson’s got the hots for the Algore.
Try to get some objective information. Something like, line up any 100 inventors and ask them to rate on a scale of 1 to 20 how “distinct” are the two statements from each other, “I invented a new fantastic widget” and, “I took the initiative in creating a new fantastic widget”. (Scale: 1 is nondistinct; 20 is completely distinct.)
I’m guessing after you tally and average, you’ll come up somewhere in the range of 2 to 5.
AI, when the government is bound by the law and the fundamental law cannot be changed without the consent of the people, we have an ideal government. The US is very close to ideal. So was the government of the Roman Republic.
IANAE : The government makes the laws, but the constitution makes the rules.
And WE THE PEOPLE Make the Constitution
Check and Mate
In my view, rights and law are flip sides of the same coin.
That’s true of legal rights.
Constitutional rights are a whole different animal. If the government amends a law to take away your legal rights, your legal rights change. If the government amends a law to take away your constitutional rights, the law is invalid and your rights stay the same.
The constitution tells the government what rights they’re not allowed to take away. The government makes the laws, but the constitution makes the rules.
“Rights are the set of privileges that we’ve agreed to give each other and not take away by act of law or government.”
It is clear that Noise you and I, IANAE, are not on the same page. In my view, rights and law are flip sides of the same coin. If the I have a right not to be assaulted, that in fact is also the law. If I have a patent on land, what rights do I have. What the law provides.
In nature, one has no rights not recognized by other men. A violation of a right implies a remedy that will be enforced, in this life, or the next. If I steal, the remedy of other cavemen might range from corporal punishment to death. But I know this and do not steal.
In essence, my right of ownership of property is secured by law regardless of government.
Rights are still rights in the face of violation or non-enforcement.
But rights are not rights if you don’t have a remedy. That’s why they don’t make sense “without regard to any actual government or law in place”.
Rights are the set of privileges that we’ve agreed to give each other and not take away by act of law or government. The founding fathers may or may not have believed they came from a nobler source, but that doesn’t change what they are. They’re a set of rules that we can change whenever we want, but we made them harder to change than regular laws in case crazy people try to change them.
Ned,
I think that perhaps you wish we were talking about different things, but I think we are talking about the same thing.
You take a step in the right direction by recognizing tht the founding fathers recognized some type of “universal” rights. However, you vere sharply off course when you add “But, he has no rights except to the extent they are recognized by other men.”
Rights are still rights in the face of violation or non-enforcement. (Certain) Rights are universal – without regard to any actual government or law in place.
It’s a bit of semantics to say that these rights flow from a higher law (back to the chicken and egg scenario). For the sake of argument, let’s say that such hgher law does indeed exist and does provide for the flow of these universal rights. At the same token, this higher law is NOT the law of man and everything we want to discuss about rights being independent and precedent to the laws of man still follows.
For men, rights come first. It is governemnt and law that serves those rights. The fact is that the “implicit punishment” is not enough to guarantee those rights, and explicit punishment must be drafted and carried out. The explicit function is found in government and law (including common law).
Noise, I think you and I are talking about different things. Man in nature is free. But, he has no rights except to the extent they are recognized by other men. Our founding fathers believed the rights universally recognized were the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But our FF also recognized that source of this implicit recognition was a higher law all men obeyed without government. They attributed its source to a creator. George Lucas would say it was the “Force.” But either way, there is implicit punishment if one violated the “law.” As the gladiator would say to even the Emperor, “I am Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the armies of the North, leader of fearless legions, loyal servant to the true Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, father of a murdered son, husband of a murdered wife; and I will have my vengence. In this life, or the next.”
possibly you could actually address the question at hand and pray tell us the vast distinction between the untrue shorthand bandied about version of his quote, and the actual.
Sure thing. I’ll post a link sometime yesterday that explains the difference.
Interesting Ned, but not universally accepted.
Some say that Rights are indeed natural, and exist independent of Government. Some say our founding fathers believed this to be exactly the case.
Government is created by man in order to preserve those natural rights that exist independent of Government. Government creates Law in order to communicate and to set up a system that can fairly administer those rights. The sense of fairness is itself a type of natural right. It was violations of these natural rights by the then government that gave credence to the actions of our founding fathers. If we follow your line of thought, as there was a government in place with a rule of Law, there should not have been any justifiable reason why our founding fathers revolted. Having law is no guarantee of not having tyranny or worse.
Our founding fathers tried to create a government in order to administer to something already there, but that they thought was not being served – they did not create a government that would then create the Rights to be administered.
Further, Common Law also does not create Rights, but rather attempts to serve the natural rights already existing. Common Law is man’s attempt to react to and codify in a sense rights “out there”.
Semantics can make this a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. To use your caveman/pirate example, the natural Rights are still there even if the Pirates violate those rights. The violation does not mean that the rights did not exist in the first place – quite the reverse – you must have some sense of something being violated to even begin the conversation.
“rapes your women”
Ned, I am shocked that you are advocating cave-slavery and cave-polygamy.
Mr. Ned Heller writes, “Imagine the wilderness and you a caveman. You claim you have a right to life. The next thing you know a wandering band of pirates comes and steals everything you have, rapes your women, and tortures you to death. So much for your right to life.”
Mr. Robert Anson Heinlein offers his heartfelt support for this portion of your post.
You think rights exist apart from law? Nonsense.
Imagine the wilderness and you a caveman. You claim you have a right to life. The next thing you know a wandering band of pirates comes and steals everything you have, rapes your women, and tortures you to death.
So much for your right to life.
Rights depend on government and law. Governments without law provide no rights. Law provides rights. The absence of law is tyranny or worse.
Your rights depend upon the existence of government, the existence of law and the existence of some enforcement mechanism.
Other theories are just that. Theories.
What does it mean then when our constitution says that the “people retain a right?” It means a right they had under common law. It does not mean a right granted by nature as nature provide no rights, only the guarantee of cruelty and death.
IANAE, “Yeah, except that one statement is false and the other is true.”
Um, reading compromised much?
I already stated that the first was not an actual Algore statement, while the second is.
Duh.
Now, other than the obvious and now twice stated truism that one is not an Algore quote, while the other is an Algore quote, possibly you could actually address the question at hand and pray tell us the vast distinction between the untrue shorthand bandied about version of his quote, and the actual.
Thanks awfully.
Those statements are so miles apart you could probably drive a razor blade between `em.
Yeah, except that one statement is false and the other is true. link to snopes.com
Lionel Hutz asserts, “Al Gore never said “I invented the internet” ”
Keerect.
Here’s what he DID say – “During my tenure in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet”.
Get it, JAOI? He NEVER said he invented it. He merely took the initiative in creating it.
Those statements are so miles apart you could probably drive a razor blade between `em.
Sheesh!
“We read dozens of other patents in the effort. ”
LITERALLY DOZENS? OMG HOW DID YOU SURVIVE?
Seriously though, I commend your effort and you did a fine job from what I can tell.
I will tell you though, there is a rumor going around that it is at least worth it to have an attorney glance over your claims.
Much luck to you. I can’t say I want one of your products myself though. If you had one in base 6 then I might get one though.
As an Actual Inventor I would be interested in hearing about your experiencing with the PTO. Did you, as I believe the article stated,
prosecute your application yourself?
Yes, Jack and I did a month long patent search(international as well as U.S.). Satisfied that our idea was unique, we wrote our patent(two months), I did the drawings(two weeks) and with I remember was just one change got the patent(2.5 years).
If so how was that experience for you?
Jack and I went to a USPTO meeting in Columbus. There an examiner told us that many inventors prosecute their own patents. Doing our own patent helped us understand the superiority of our design. We read dozens of other patents in the effort. We visited the patent depository at the Cleveland Public Library. We also used the book Patent it Yourself and the companion book on patent drawings from the same publisher. I’m happy with what we accomplished.
Now that you have your patent what is going to be your branding strategy?
Jack and I designed a logo and took the name Timeghost. It comes from the German word zeitgeist- “the spirit of the times”.
James
Now if you want to discuss the constitution in a scholarly fashion then I am most willing to oblige you.
Okay. As soon as you start, I’ll join right in.
IANAE : Where do you think the constitution inherently stands on slavery? On booze?
AI: Those topics are not in discussion or contention so what’s the point of bringing them up?
WE THE PEOPLE GRANT THE POWER!
IANAE: It’s not about who granted the power.
AI: Whoa! Stop right there. Its ALL about who grants the power because he who grants the power has the power, and power is and always will be with The People!
AI: it shall so remain until We the People as Inventors decide otherwise.
IANAE : Until We the People decide otherwise according to the prescribed formalities for amending the constitution.
AI: There is no need to amend the constitution when it’s already there..again..
“Article 1 section 8: “The Congress shall have Power 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.”
And again just so you know we do have inherent rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights please read…
“Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.” Ratified 12/15/1791: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Now if you want to discuss the constitution in a scholarly fashion then I am most willing to oblige you.
But silly, snarky, Oprah Winfrey remarks will do nothing but get you quickly marginalized to Mooney status.
Posted by: JScurlock | Jan 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM: “Wow you guys did not ask me any questions about my invention; about why I choose to invent on calendars, about what I really think my invention is worth, is this my only calendar invention or what is my next step. No questions?
Hello James:
As an Actual Inventor I would be interested in hearing about your experiencing with the PTO. Did you, as I believe the article stated,
prosecute your application yourself?
If so how was that experience for you?
Now that you have your patent what is going to be your branding strategy?
I have more that will do for now.
So I remind you once again, The Bill of Rights did not add to the constitution, and only spelled out specifically that which already inherently existed therein.
Where do you think the constitution inherently stands on slavery? On booze?
WE THE PEOPLE GRANT THE POWER!
It’s not about who granted the power. It’s about what the power is. The power is “Hey Congress, you can grant patents if you want, if science is important to you.” It’s not “You get a patent! You get a patent! Everybody gets a patent!”
it shall so remain until We the People as Inventors decide otherwise.
Until We the People decide otherwise according to the prescribed formalities for amending the constitution. And if you do ever amass enough political capital to amend the constitution, is a permissive clause allowing Congress to grant patents really your top priority?
Posted by: broje TINLA IANYL | Jan 28, 2010 at 10:58 AM: “Generally, things that can be withdrawn are called privileges, not rights. A Constitutional right is one that is granted in the Constitution and cannot be withdrawn without a Constitutional amendment. So you do not have a Constitutional right to a patent. Congress has a Constitutional right to grant patents or not to grant patents.”
________
Broje, I do appreciate the time you have taken to explain the technical use of the term, “rights”. But using your logic “We the People” would have no constitutional rights at all because every “right” in the bill of rights, including Habeas Corpus which is actually in the constitution, can be suspended or taken away without an amendment to said constitution. This is especially true in our post 9-11 patriotic acting world.
So I remind you once again, The Bill of Rights did not add to the constitution, and only spelled out specifically that which already inherently existed therein.
That’s why I also reminded you of the 9th amendment in my original reply and reiterate it here:
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.” Ratified 12/15/1791: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And again I urge you to not ignore nor underestimate the purpose and importance of the preamble; WE THE PEOPLE.
For it is within these words that our constitutional rights, including the right of a patent, find their power to exist.
Congress has no authority for that but which we grant it. And only We the People can cause and allow any of our constitutional rights to be suspended or revoke.
Yes, We the People as an Inventors have a constitutional right to a patent.
Article 1 section 8: “The Congress shall have Power 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.”
The King, Queen, or President did not grant Congress the Power.
The Supreme Court did not grant Congress the Power.
The Framers did not grant Congress the Power
WE THE PEOPLE GRANT THE POWER!
WE THE PEOPLE DO SO ORDAIN!
“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”
And yes, We the People as Inventors grant our representatives in Congress the Power and privilege to administer our patent rights through appropriate legislation and it shall so remain until We the People as Inventors decide otherwise.
God Bless You!
God Bless America!!
Dear The Donald,
t’anks
plez don’t let anybody eat my bunny
JAOI is EXTRA FIRED. Also, his rabbit is OUTSOURCED TO INDIA.
1. Why are you so concerned with having worldwide patent rights? If you were actually planning on producing this product, US rights should be enough to go forward with the project. Why is it contingent on global protection? It appears from your response above that you are planning on selling the rights to the invention anyway, which makes me think that your concern stems not from an intent to sell your invention in other nations, but by a desire to be able to collect licensing fees in other nations.
The U.S. calendar market is just a subset of the world market. I don’t think its wrong to want better protection.
If I succeeded at the town meeting it is my intention to build in Ohio.
I’m not interested in licensing deals at this time. Let others invent their own new consumer products.
That also answers question 2.
James
Enough of this talk of jobs. You’re all FIRED.
Dear Malcolm,
I recall you mentioning something a few days ago about another case being settled regarding the demise of the Troll Tracker blog –
got any more dope on that case?
Dear IP Took Mah Job,
Re:
“Actual Inventor wants to get rich, and patents are the crutch that are going to get him there without having to work too hard.”
With all due disrespect, I think you are an asswhole for saying something so ridiculous – offense intended.
@ NewHere
As you can see, when Actual Inventor refers to jobs, he means his job, not jobs for other people. Actual Inventor wants to get rich, and patents are the crutch that are going to get him there without having to work too hard.
Here are some questions.
1. Why are you so concerned with having worldwide patent rights? If you were actually planning on producing this product, US rights should be enough to go forward with the project. Why is it contingent on global protection? It appears from your response above that you are planning on selling the rights to the invention anyway, which makes me think that your concern stems not from an intent to sell your invention in other nations, but by a desire to be able to collect licensing fees in other nations.
2. If you’re planning on selling the rights to the invention, then why the talk of creating jobs in Ohio? It’s very disingenuous. If you sell majority rights to the invention, you won’t have a say in where it gets made.
Dear Max,
You bettcha’.
You got that right.
One of your most insightful and best comments ever!
Thank you from all us private inventors.
Please keep ’em coming.
And that is why many/most self-employed, independent inventors are “non practicing entities,” NPEs; thus, NPEs should not be associated with Cisco et als’ bull & cowshit “troll” propaganda