I think I mean to say no more patents. Oops sorry guys.

Patents ensure that people (or the companies they work for) who do work to invent things get to make money from their invention, rather than being copied by someone that can just make their thing cheaper.

Again, why would anyone work if they can't benefit from it?

I have patented designs and I'm not wealthy or powerful.

And your confusion with copyrights indicates that you have some understanding of intellectual property. I could just copy the Harry Potter books and sell them for 95 percent of the real publisher's price--people would buy mine and the real author wouldn't be paid. That would be a bad thing and discourage writers.

You're proposing a society where there's no incentive to work.

hrench stop following me around trolling my posts. This site is isn't called "whyEverythingShouldStayExactlyPerfectlyTheSame.NET" It's called WhyNot and you should try and make an attempt to visualize a place where no copyrights or patents existed before getting defensive about who will steal your ride on lawn mower.

When you say "You're proposing a society where there's no incentive to work. " --that is the whole war is peace bit because when you don't have rules telling people to NOT do something you then have people DOING it. Get it?

What we want in the world is people DOING things not fighting amongst themselves for the right to sit back and relax while other people work for them. We all need to share the load and work together if we're going to get off this rock, but I see you have very different priorities than me and that makes me deeply sad. Please find hope if just for your children's sake.

Worldnick, you should try to avoid getting too self-righteous here. Hrench is a regular who has been posting here for many years. He's not "following you around". He's commenting on fresh posts as they come up. So am I. This site is called "Why Not?", and so we are telling you why not.

Patents may impede the development of some technologies temporarily, but they expire after a certain number of years. This allows the inventor first crack at it, but eventually makes it available to everyone. This works out for both the inventor and society as a whole.

Copyrights are for things like books and other unique works of art. There is no need for people to be able to freely copy these things to advance society.

worldnick, intellectual property is a very difficult subject and it's gotten where we are over many years of compromise. Currently, you have exclusivity for 17 years from patent acceptance with some negociating regarding the approval vs. the application. Technically you're not protected while applied but not approved. Absolutetly we don't have a 'perfect' situation, but I don't know what is.

As for 'war is peace' bit, I don't really understand you there. I don't 'get it.'

I think it's very simple. People need to get money to eat and buy things. The best way I know to get money is to work. I believe people are naturally driven to work, to improve their surroundings. I don't know why we think up 'inventions' but I don't have to try too hard to do it--I don't think of it as work. Making an idea into a product IS work. It's what I do every day at my job. Not usually my own ideas either. But I get paid and I eat. So if for instance there was no patent rights, would my boss bother to invest thousands of dollars in my engineering time and prototypes, etc to make his idea into a product when he knows that our competitor down the street that builds in foreign countries would just rip us off and sell his idea for less? Patents ensure that the people with the ideas get a chance to make money. As a developer, I make money on the coattails. And patents are a supporter of 'hope.' No business will design a rocket to Mars without patents. We're killing NASA now (manned spaceflight), so it will be businesses that take us further into space. If you ask Burt Rutan, this is the most hopeful approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY

Finally, I am hopeful. I design cool new stuff every day--stuff that never existed before. I think engineers get to be more 'hopeful' than the rest of the population.

HRENCH DO YOU LISTEN TO THE GARBAGE YOU ARE SPEWING!!!! If you could not produce the stuff you invent then your competitor would? Read that sentence 10 times. YOUR COMPETITOR WOULD. In fact probably 10 of your competitors would. THAT IS THE POINT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK UGLY SKULL. We need to get rid of patents so that MANY companies can produce these products and not just YOUR GREEDY AS FUCK BOSS who pays you thousands of dollars to come up with way he can sit on his FAT LAZY ASS and NOT DO WORK!!! YOU are FUCKING crazy. You need someone to smack you on your fucking head. You need the sense SMACKED into YOU!! Patents KEEP PEOPLE FROM DOING WORK. You keep saying the opposite thing because you are a dumb crazy nutjob. Patents STOP YOUR COMPETITORS FROM PRODUCING THE SAME PRODUCTS <--- THAT IS WORK. Have you ever heard that invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration??? YOU are the 1% inspiration. YUu are doing 1% of the work! and then asking everyone else to NOT work on it. That is DISCOURAGING WORK!!! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. You will get an adavantage for coming up with the idea because you will have a head start BUT NO ONE NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNEMENT should stop your competitors or the 100s of kids in garages doing thousands of hours of work to compete with you. GET IT??? When hewlitt packard makes an invention patent it means that people in garages everywhere are NOT allowed to DO WORK AND COPY IT AND SELL IT! YOu are a fucking nut job and I DESPISE YOU!!!!!! period end of story don't post here any more you freaking moron slow witted dullard moron moron

worldnick, your personal description says 'I am an inventor who would love to be recognized for one or more of my contributions.'

Patents are one way we inventors are recognized. I don't know what your profession is, but as an ME, I think I'm one of the people who gets paid to be 'an inventor' and I love it. People that invent things appreciate the patent system because it protects them and their intellectual property and rewards the people who do the work to make ideas actually happen. Because you don't recognize this, I surmise that likely you're not 'an inventor' but more likely flipping burgers.

An idea is not an invention--you've quoted Edison's perspiration remark. Where as copying someone else's design requires very little work. If your definition of 'work' is the manufacturing itself, you've clearly missed the point of patents. I suggest you read the wiki entry.

Also, though my boss came up with the concepts for the products we build and I design his concepts, he is one of the hardest working people I know. Entrepenuers are uncommon and valuable people and your denigration of this fact bothers me.

"An idea is not an invention--you've quoted Edison's perspiration remark. Where as copying someone else's design requires very little work. If your definition of 'work' is the manufacturing itself, you've clearly missed the point of patents."

Uhh I think that manufacturing is most of the work. That is what Edison's quote is about not to mention all the research and development that can be done while doing that now "illegal" manufacturing.

Yes hrench. Yes. I have missed the point because I want everyone to be able to build and design and create freely.

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT.<----

The founding fathers were so convinced of the value of patent protection that they put it in the Constitution. "Congress shall have the 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." Article 1 Section 8. One reason that the United States Of America is the greatest country this planet has ever seen.

The founding fathers also didn't count black men as complete citizens or women. These things change and improve. So too does society.

The patent system gave incentive to invest in new products. Patent protection made it more likely an investor would see a return on their investment. Technology increased at a rapid pace because of this. Labor saving devices meant that slavery was less profitable. similarly domestic inventions allowed women more free time to politically organise and work outside the home.

George Washington signed a law outlawing slavery in many states.

the Founding Fathers and the Patent System were instrumental in the abolution of slavery and womens liberation.

"Copyrights are a system of control that prevents far more people from acting and being productive than the reverse."

Nonsense. Copyrights are a system that recognizes achievment and protects work done. Many copyrighted works are allowed to be distributed without charge, as long as the author is recognized and the work not sold for the benefit of others.

"If anyone could make and sell anything they wanted then there would be no limits on what we could create."

You may create anything you like. You may not sell my work and claim it as your own.

"Copyrighting is really only a system that prevents work from being done."

Nonsense. It discourages theft and fraud.

"It prevents productivity in favor or those who are already wealthy, powerful, or in control."

No, it prevents you selling my work. I sense a theme here.

"To say copyrighting encourages invention is the same as saying war is peace or love is hate."

What are you smoking? Seriously? Copyrights are among the easiest things to obtain, one only need furnish an example of the original work. They're only hard to get if you're plaigarizing the work of others. Patents, on the other hand, are another matter, require the services of a competent patent attorney, and provide only limited protection for a limited time.

"It was never implemented to promote invention."

True, it was implemented to discourage fraud. Capitalism and just compensation for work done are the enticements to achieve.

"It was implemented to entice inventors to believe they could become like aristocrats."

That's just disturbingly irrational.

"More than ever the chances of many people having a similar idea are extremely high."

Pretty much like always, the first to produce a manuscript or an original idea gets the credit.

"The population of the world is now over 6 billion yet we insist on granting exclusive, ambiguous, and muddy rights to one individual or corporation."

Copyrights are specific, unambiguous, and quite clear. They also extend 50 years past the original artist's life, giving the heirs something to sue over for a long time. Don't copy a dead guy's work and you won't get sued.

"How can that one person or corporation possibly exploit that idea for it's full potential?"

They probably can't, but that's their concern, not yours.

"The idea will likely not get the attention it deserves and innovation is stifled."

No, lazy talentless slugs are prevented making money from someone else's work, unless they're willing to pay royalties.

"Many people are left being less productive than they could be."

Granting lazy talentless slugs the ability to take advantage of others' works won't make them more productive, it would just encourage laziness and stifle talent by rewarding the untalented.

"Copyrights don't make sense and are as good as a weapon."

That's simply incorrect, they do make sense; but they can be used as a weapon- against thieves.

"They are barbaric and an invasive way to for large government to have a very personal and intimate control over the freedom of every man and women born on Earth to build, explore, and create in the short short lives we have."

...and you're full of crap.

"They disgust me."

-and I should care about your sensibilities because...?

@Beaugrand I think what you failed to grasp from my little diatribe is that two people on Earth can without ever seeing each other have exactly the same idea at exactly the same time. You seem to think that the first one to the copyright office now becomes a hero and the second one is now a lazy talentless slug???

Both those individuals should be commended. They should both be encouraged like children at a science fair most if not all of their ideas are copies yet we encourage them so that they still become scientists. Most of what all scientists work on their whole lives is following in the footsteps of others before they can make a contribution. We don't tell people that they can't become a scientist because we already have one.

What we want from people is the work. Not the credit.

Without Patents and Copyrights people will still achieve financial and social success. It just may not be as all encompassing.

If one person in one town comes up with a way to clean his water and sells it to all the other people in his town he is a hero regardless of if the same method was thought of one thousand years ago. The guy who thought of it a thousand years ago isn't there making it happen.

@Beaugrand You want to worship statues because you imagine yourself famous and being worshipped. THAT is the easy way out. Let all men (and women) create and build what is best for them. Take out the boundaries and the greed involved. Greed may be what motivates you and a dream of world domination, but it isn't what motivates everybody. It is an outdated, backwards system of motivation that prevents work from being done because it covers too many people.

Maybe limit copyrights and patents to just one city or town, but certainly not a whole nation.

What if humans went to another world. What if on this world there was a small colony. What if they were in trouble and needed a way to fight a certain infection. Now what if that cure was invented on Earth and patented. Now what if a member of the colony also invented that cure hours later. Are they not allowed to cure themselves?

What if Aliens landed on Earth and submitted 10 Billion inventions to the Earth patent office. According to our rules we are no longer allowed to invent or sell anything now for the next few thousand years until we can catch up to these Aliens. I suppose Beaugrand would just have to shoot himself in the head killing himself because of how useless he must not feel because his dreams of being worshiped could never possibly by fulfilled.

Intelligent men and women are not horses to be baited with carrots of money for their inventions. This is only the way less intelligent people think they need to milk the inventions out of the more intelligent people. The truth is that intelligent people will create and invent regardless of motivation. It is what we do. There is no need for a carrot and in fact giving the carrot to one horse because he was slightly more successful than the horse in second place is an all or none system that gives no credit to the many other horses in the race (in this case billions) who may if under different circumstances have been equally if not more successful and prevents motivating those other horses to continue.

The patent system gives all the prize money to one and nothing to the rest. Now you have a few greedy camps of people guarding their patents afraid to share them because the system is so brutal killing one researcher and raising the other on high. Now our poor scientific community must guard and hold their research lest they end up begging for change if someone 'patents' it before them. Winner take all after all. This is an archaic method of encouragement. This is not the roman Colosseum and inventors are not gladiators. Using this system to motivate the most brutal and violent on harms our species as a whole.

We need to work together and share research without fear of how it will harm us financially to conquer our environment and our challenges. The universe is not a friendly place and if we dawdle with these silly patent games then we will not defeat the asteroid or global epidemic or other disaster from space that is rapidly approaching. I recommend that we just write down the names of everyone who invents something first, put it on a big fucking plaque and then continue working together. No extra rights. Copyrights and Patent rights are not natural rights and in fact when given to one individual over another infringe on the latter person's natural rights to create, invent, and survive. In other words the second person now has one less freedom by law even if he had never heard or even lived anywhere near the 'patent' holder. If I thought of eating first would that mean I could keep you from doing it?

@Beaugrand I re-read your comment and seriously I would recommend you kill yourself and remove your disgusting lines of thought from the population.

No copyrights. No patents. No owning land. What we are really discussing here is socialism or communism vs. capitalism.I have noticed those arguing the socialist/communist point are often histerical, rude and vulgar.These tactics attempt to silence opposing views.

However enticing or encouraging someone to commit suicide may very well be a criminal offense.

I have ideas on how to make it easier to prosecute internet crime and slander.

Will post.

worldnick, you've missed notice there is a limited market for most products, so it doesn't matter what company makes and sells a product, or who owns the patent, the number of people employed will be approximately equal. So it won't create more 'work.'

Also, I'd like to mention patent licensing. Many companies, mine included, build patented products under license. We build a machine that our competitor designed but discontinued because they didn't think there was enough money in it. What it results in is there were ten people building and selling this product in their building, but now there are ten people in ours. It costs just a little more because of the license, but really the market hasn't changed and the people that designed it still get the credit.

Ironically, your arguments seem to imply that getting rid of patents will help the 'little man'. I think that's exactly contrary--if there were no patents, the GE's and Microsofts of the world would look for good ideas and steal them. Right now, they have to license or buy-out--which results in some happy arrangements. In your scenario, the little man would invent, but soon go broke, because he could never compete in the production environment.

You see,

"@Beaugrand I think what you failed to grasp from my little diatribe is that two people on Earth can without ever seeing each other have exactly the same idea at exactly the same time. You seem to think that the first one to the copyright office now becomes a hero and the second one is now a lazy talentless slug???"

Tough to tell. How do we positively verify #2 thought of the idea independently? We can't. However, if we allow just anyone to use the concept, the majority of them would certainly be lazy talentless slugs.

"What we want from people is the work. Not the credit."

What YOU want is the credit and the reward for another's work.

"Beaugrand You want to worship statues because you imagine yourself famous and being worshipped."

This is the height of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty. You have NO IDEA who I am or what I want.

"What if Aliens landed on Earth and submitted 10 Billion inventions to the Earth patent office."

That would be great, they could license companies to manufacture their products (creating jobs) and sell them to us. Properly marketed ideas not only provide jobs and wealth for the inventor(s), they provide an economic benefit to the consumer, as well; my favorite invention is the fold-up cardboard windshield shade invented a few years ago- the inventor got rich, provided a number of jobs, and now my car interior is protected from damaging sunlight. Everybody wins.

"Intelligent men and women are not horses to be baited with carrots of money for their inventions."

Says who? Money isn't the perfect reward, but it will do until something better comes along.

"The patent system gives all the prize money to one and nothing to the rest."

Clearly, you do not understand the patent process. The people most likely to profit from the patent process are the patent attorneys, who collect their fees whatever the outcomes; the next to gain a sure profit are the shops that fabricate prototypes, for a fee. Once in a great while (9 of 10 inventions go nowhere) an invention finds a market and the inventor profits.

"We need to work together and share research without fear of how it will harm us financially to conquer our environment and our challenges."

Great, you go first. Pour your work and sweat into a project, secure a patent (so greedy selfish capitalists can't take the idea, patent it themselves, and profit from it, at your expense), and RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN so that anyone (including said greedy capitalists) can use it to manufacture your idea.

Let us know how that works out for you.