The Tiny Dot

[Jason]

Well I reckon that about sums it up.....good luck in your Utopia! Nothing like $50 movie tickets...

The price of tickets in a free market is determined by demand.

..of course the technology would never get developed to view the high res movies in your magical theater...

You are wrong. People will still buy and use cameras. If camera makers do not invest in R&D they will be wiped out by their competitors. This is a very powerful incentive to improve your product, without any patents.

..but let's pretend it did.....and now you have your fanclub Fegunz there with his video camera he slipped in to put it out on the internet for free....LOL! Hope you make the business work on the 1st night's viewing.....

You can prevent people from bringing cameras to the theater. Besides, have you seen a hi-def, high quality, crystal clear sound boot-leg shot in a movie theater?

Pretend implemented and full speed ahead.....

LOL....cost versus demand. $50 high security (TSA pat down) movie experience.....$0 internet download bootleg.....until it comes out on video which then promptly goes on the internet for free for everyone to enjoy at home in hi-def, high quality, crystal clear sound. Gotta luv Utopia!!!

Of course the reality is...if the investment won't pay off....no one will make it!

Why would Kodak invest a fortune in the next technology if the competitors can reverse engineer it in a week? Why would customers pay Kodak a fortune for the latest and greatest when they can wait a week and get the exact same thing from a competitor for 1/10th the cost?

Face it - your Utopia sucks! There's nothing liberating about lack of protection of personal property - both tangible and intangible!

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

[LoveIsTruth]

Pretend implemented and full speed ahead.....

In this case you pretend that taxation is no more.

Of course the reality is...if the investment won't pay off....no one will make it!

Why would Kodak invest a fortune in the next technology if the competitors can reverse engineer it in a week?

They will invest, because if they don't the competitors will implement the improvement first and put them out of business. Besides R&D cycle is far longer than one week, it could be many months, during which time a fortune can be made.

Why would customers pay Kodak a fortune for the latest and greatest when they can wait a week and get the exact same thing from a competitor for 1/10th the cost?

More like 6 month to a year. Why do people buy latest and greatest computers when they can wait a year or two and get it way cheaper? Whatever the reason, they still do it. It is the same scenario.

Face it - your Utopia sucks! There's nothing liberating about lack of protection of personal property - both tangible and intangible!

My proposal is great because it protects property rights, and defends freedom and liberty. Your status quo is the opposite of that.

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words; the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insult quotes on my own!

[Jason]

Pretend implemented and full speed ahead.....

In this case you pretend that taxation is no more.

Rodger!

Of course the reality is...if the investment won't pay off....no one will make it!

Why would Kodak invest a fortune in the next technology if the competitors can reverse engineer it in a week?

They will invest, because if they don't the competitors will implement the improvement first and put them out of business. Besides R&D cycle is far longer than one week, it could be many months, during which time a fortune can be made.

Have you compared R&D versus reverse engineering times? Any real world evidence to support your hypothesis?

Even if it took many months as you suggest......R&D will be reduced to marginal improvements that have an ROI (return on investment) in less than a couple months....that's what you are left with! Which at the opportunity cost for consumers....will mean ultra tight margins. Instead of designing a whole new camera you mess with marketing gimmicks. There are no spare profits to invest for anything in the future!

Why would customers pay Kodak a fortune for the latest and greatest when they can wait a week and get the exact same thing from a competitor for 1/10th the cost?

More like 6 month to a year. Why do people buy latest and greatest computers when they can wait a year or two and get it way cheaper? Whatever the reason, they still do it. It is the same scenario.

Please provide proof!!! Original R&D versus Reverse Engineering times....

What percentage purchase the latest and greatest? What price premium are they willing to pay? If there is no sustainable advantage....where do the profits come for future investment?

How big of a dent has open source software made in the market? And how many companies (like my former employer Novell) have been destroyed in the process?

Face it - your Utopia sucks! There's nothing liberating about lack of protection of personal property - both tangible and intangible!

My proposal is great because it protects property rights, and defends freedom and liberty. Your status quo is the opposite of that.

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words, the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insults on my own!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

[LoveIsTruth]

Have you compared R&D versus reverse engineering times? Any real world evidence to support your hypothesis?

Probably reverse engineering time could be less than full R&D, but still you have to implement the changes, and that may take months!

Even if it took many months as you suggest......R&D will be reduced to marginal improvements that have an ROI (return on investment) in less than a couple months....that's what you are left with! Which at the opportunity cost for consumers....will mean ultra tight margins. Instead of designing a whole new camera you mess with marketing gimmicks. There are no spare profits to invest for anything in the future!

Improvement will still happen. Big ideas will still be revealed to inventers. It will be like it is now, minus improper use of government force.

What percentage purchase the latest and greatest? What price premium are they willing to pay? If there is no sustainable advantage....where do the profits come for future investment?

Bottom line companies will still have to innovate to stay competitive, it is inescapable, and that without immoral use of government force in the form of patents.

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words; the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insult quotes on my own!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

[Jason]

Have you compared R&D versus reverse engineering times? Any real world evidence to support your hypothesis?

Probably reverse engineering time could be less than full R&D, but still you have to implement the changes, and that may take months!

If you are in Utah and associated with the Tea Party (assumption based on your constant Ron Paul stuff)....then you know David Kirkham of Kirkham Motorsports. I suggest you go visit his Orem facility (west of I 15 and a little south of UVU) and ask him what the turnaround time comparison would be to create and machine a reverse engineered part versus one created from scratch on any of the popular 3D engineering software (GoCad, AutoCad, AutoDesk, SolidWorks, etc).....from what I know of it...its a couple hours versus months! Can also Google - reverse engineering laser scanner....for a variety of references on time.

Even if it took many months as you suggest......R&D will be reduced to marginal improvements that have an ROI (return on investment) in less than a couple months....that's what you are left with! Which at the opportunity cost for consumers....will mean ultra tight margins. Instead of designing a whole new camera you mess with marketing gimmicks. There are no spare profits to invest for anything in the future!

Improvement will still happen. Big ideas will still be revealed to inventers. It will be like it is now, minus improper use of government force.

Ideas are revealed all the time.....usually takes investment to implement them. Investment doesn't happen without promise of a pay off. ROI!!!

How does that line go again about wishes and fishes.....

What percentage purchase the latest and greatest? What price premium are they willing to pay? If there is no sustainable advantage....where do the profits come for future investment?

Bottom line companies will still have to innovate to stay competitive, it is inescapable, and that without immoral use of government force in the form of patents.

Wishing it were so doesn't make it happen. If the reward isn't there....they won't do it. Marginal improvements....at best. Most likely marketing gimmicks....or if margins get tight enough...limited to local production only. Go backwards a couple hundred years and you can get a glimpse of what that would look like!

Have you ever been in a executive meeting of a company (or board of directors) and participated in the decision making process on investment decisions?

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words; the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insult quotes on my own!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

Did I say that??? Where's the proof according to your claim???

[LoveIsTruth]

ask him what the turnaround time comparison would be to create and machine a reverse engineered part versus one created from scratch on any of the popular 3D engineering software
...from what I know of it...its a couple hours versus months!

First of all, when reverse engineering is involved it is usually WAY more than just one “part”, it is often a system of parts. Secondly, it is not enough to reverse engineer something, you also need to mass-produce it and deploy it in your products. That may take months. (Not to mention the old inventory without the improvement that also needs to be sold). So it take considerable time to turn around, during which time the “first to market” guy makes a LOT of money.

Wishing it were so doesn't make it happen. If the reward isn't there....they won't do it.

The reward of innovation is that you stay in business and are not wiped out by your competitors who will innovate to outdo you. So your assertion that “the reward isn't there” is patently FALSE.

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts..

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

Did I say that??? Where's the proof according to your claim???

So you are not denying that you made the McFly comments. Then why did you say:

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

after deleting all your McFly comments from this thread, and then trying to feign that I “came up with it myself”?

Are you lying? This speaks volumes of your intellectual integrity, but it shouldn’t be a surprise after reading all of your crooked nonsense in this and other threads! You’ve been caught lying, my friend! And everyone can see it!

[Jason]

ask him what the turnaround time comparison would be to create and machine a reverse engineered part versus one created from scratch on any of the popular 3D engineering software
...from what I know of it...its a couple hours versus months!

First of all, when reverse engineering is involved it is usually WAY more than just one “part”, it is often a system of parts. Secondly, it is not enough to reverse engineer something, you also need to mass-produce it and deploy it in your products. That may take months. (Not to mention the old inventory without the improvement that also needs to be sold). So it take considerable time to turn around, during which time the “first to market” guy makes a LOT of money.

You are not helping your theory out much......reverse engineering is at worst 1/10th of the time of original creation (more realistically 1/100th)....and as you point out its a whole system. So you spend a year to develop something that someone else can reverse engineer in a month or less.....who's going to win that battle?

Wishing it is a lot of money doesn't make it a LOT of money. Smokin' crack!

Again no proof.....just fantasy of the Utopia in your mind on crack!

Wishing it were so doesn't make it happen. If the reward isn't there....they won't do it.

The reward of innovation is that you stay in business and are not wiped out by your competitors who will innovate to outdo you. So your assertion that “the reward isn't there” is patently FALSE.

LOL....and if you spend a million to your competitors 100,000 for the exact same product.....that isn't going to wipe you out?

The price tag to develop a new vehicle starts around $1 billion. According to John Wolkonowicz, Senior Auto Analyst for North America at IHS Global, "It can be as much as $6 billion if it's an all-new car on all-new platform with an all-new engine and an all-new transmission and nothing carrying over from the old model."

http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/07/ ... ew-models/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think about that for a second.....how much IP is wrapped up in that process that if protect guarantees the transfer of value to millions of production units....and thus return on investment. In Utopiaville though.....those parts lose their inherent value after the first model is produced and sold. Who's going to buy a Toyota Camry for $6 billion dollars????

4 years to develop with a massive infrastructure of people and equipment.....6 months or less to reverse engineer with couple laser scanners and a couple engineers. The only thing that protects the former investment is IP protection.

BYD's success as a revolutionary copyist has drawn mixed reactions, but of course business champions seldom pay heed to grumblings from those they defeat. When carmaking, for example, BYD found that reverse engineering can cut the cost of a new vehicle by more than one-third.

http://english.caing.com/englishNews.js ... 1&page=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again no proof.....just fantasy of the Utopia in your mind on crack!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts..

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

Did I say that??? Where's the proof according to your claim???

So you are not denying that you made the McFly comments. Then why did you say:

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

after deleting all your McFly comments from this thread, and then trying to feign that I “came up with it myself”?

Are you lying? This speaks volumes of your intellectual integrity, but it shouldn’t be a surprise after reading all of your crooked nonsense in this and other threads! You’ve been caught lying, my friend! And everyone can see it!

LOL....Am I lying?

You stated -

....so you went back and removed them from your previous posts

and I said -

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

and

Where's the proof according to your claim???

Again no proof.....just fantasy of the Utopia in your mind on crack!

fyi - haven't you noticed I've adopted your argument style in response to this one....just playin' your game for a little amusement! I just believe whatever I want to believe and that's the TRUTH and LIBERTY and JUST and that's all there is to it.....your wrong - dead wrong - a liar - evil - wicked - can't handle my truth.....LOL......

[LoveIsTruth]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

[Teancum-Old]

Just to get in the middle of this debate....

a contract of first use, which can give them weeks of exclusive access

LoveisTruth: Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent? I understand copyrights are limited to some number of years as well. Is it just the timeframe you disagree with? To me, the only difference between a copyright and what you term as a "contract of first use," seems to be the timeframe in which the author or inventor has exclusive right to profit from. If so, then why all the fuss if we all agree the author/inventor has a right to exclusively profit from his work (for a certain length of time)? Also, it seems that this concept of a "contract of first use" still disagrees with what you have stated in this thread about an inventor/author trampling on the property rights of everyone else, since you claim that they (the non-inventors/authors) are being prevented, by force, from using their property as they see fit (in copying the invention or work). Therefore, a "contract of first use" also abuses property rights, under your logic.

By the way, getting back to the Tiny Dot video, you never did respond to the criticism of the video: it does not describe reality. It states that the millions of dots are basically united against the Tiny Dot. This is not true at all. So many of the us million dots are seeking favors and unfair advantages under the hand of the Tiny Dot that many are thoroughly corrupt. The Tiny Dot video makes up the fairy tale that the only "bad guy" in the world is the Tiny Dot. This is completely innacurate. A large number of the millions of dots are also "bad guys" getting in bed with the Tiny Dot.

[Jason]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

Your proof still doesn't back up your statements - that I went back and changed what I wrote! Obviously what I wrote was unkind (and after reading the Courtesy in Forum Discussions post).....I changed it PRIOR to your next post (otherwise my post would say it had been edited at the bottom).

I never said improvement wouldn't happen.....I said it will be marginal at best! How can you afford to innovate if there isn't money to innovate???

How many hundred million dollar movies can I peddle for the replacement cost of the dvds??? Same goes for cds, cars, and everything else we use. If you wipe out the value of the IP you are left with the value of the materials and labor.....where does the money come from to pay for R&D and future innovation????

[LoveIsTruth]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

Your proof still doesn't back up your statements - that I went back and changed what I wrote! Obviously what I wrote was unkind (and after reading the Courtesy in Forum Discussions post).....I changed it PRIOR to your next post (otherwise my post would say it had been edited at the bottom).

I never said improvement wouldn't happen.....I said it will be marginal at best! How can you afford to innovate if there isn't money to innovate???

How many hundred million dollar movies can I peddle for the replacement cost of the dvds??? Same goes for cds, cars, and everything else we use. If you wipe out the value of the IP you are left with the value of the materials and labor.....where does the money come from to pay for R&D and future innovation????

I have already thoroughly answered each one of these, multiple times. Go back and read it again.

[Jason]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

Your proof still doesn't back up your statements - that I went back and changed what I wrote! Obviously what I wrote was unkind (and after reading the Courtesy in Forum Discussions post).....I changed it PRIOR to your next post (otherwise my post would say it had been edited at the bottom).

I never said improvement wouldn't happen.....I said it will be marginal at best! How can you afford to innovate if there isn't money to innovate???

How many hundred million dollar movies can I peddle for the replacement cost of the dvds??? Same goes for cds, cars, and everything else we use. If you wipe out the value of the IP you are left with the value of the materials and labor.....where does the money come from to pay for R&D and future innovation????

I have already thoroughly answered each one of these, multiples times. Go back and read it again.

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

[LoveIsTruth]

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

Show me which of your questions have I not answered? I don't like repeating myself more than 3 or 4 times. So if I didn't answer a question, I will gladly do so. But if I have already answered it multiple times, I simply refer you to review the thread again. I think this is fair.


Thanks.

[Jason]

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

Show me which of your questions have I not answered? I don't like repeating myself more than 3 or 4 times. So if I didn't answer a question, I will gladly do so. But if I have already answered it multiple times, I simply refer you to review the thread again. I think this is fair.

Likewise....I don't have the patience to go cut n' paste every question you've ignored so I'll quickly summarize to save us both some time.

If my neighbor spends $50k developing a music cd he can only sell for the replacement cost of a cd -
Where does he get the money to develop a new cd?
How does he get back his initial $50k investment?

If he stands no opportunity of ever seeing the return of his investment (not even considering profit) -
Why would he ever invest $50k to make the cd to begin with?
What external investor would invest $50k with him to make a cd?

Considering that there must be a profit motive (return on investment) in order for the investment to occur -
Where does the profit come from?

If no one invests in IP due to the lack of return on investment -
Will the IP ever get developed?
Or, at best, will it be restricted to small marginal improvements (100 year development cycle versus 10 years or 1 year)?

Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent?

Of course if you just rename IP with something else like "contract of first use" -
Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" can guarantee the return on investment for IP?
Why in the world would the "first use" buyer pay all of the development cost (IP) when everyone else gets it for cost of materials?
How is the "first use" buyer going to see a return on investment ($6 million Toyota Camry or $50k music cd that's only worth the cost of materials after purchase)?

If no one becomes a "first use" buyer -
Will the investment ever be made?
Will the IP ever get developed?
Or, at best, will the natural result be that IP isn't developed or constrained to small marginal improvements over an extensive time period?

Now that two of your "amendments" have had gaping holes blown through them -
Which one's next?

[LoveIsTruth]

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

Show me which of your questions have I not answered? I don't like repeating myself more than 3 or 4 times. So if I didn't answer a question, I will gladly do so. But if I have already answered it multiple times, I simply refer you to review the thread again. I think this is fair.

Likewise....I don't have the patience to go cut n' paste every question you've ignored so I'll quickly summarize to save us both some time.

If my neighbor spends $50k developing a music cd he can only sell for the replacement cost of a cd -
Where does he get the money to develop a new cd?
How does he get back his initial $50k investment?
He will not get money to develop the new CD unless: a) He made a contract of first use with a performer, movie studio or the like that would pay him that much. b) His music is so good that many, many people desire to donate to him.

So if his music is not that good, he should find some other business to be in if he wishes to continue spending 50k per CD.

If he stands no opportunity of ever seeing the return of his investment (not even considering profit) -
Why would he ever invest $50k to make the cd to begin with?
Right. He won’t.
What external investor would invest $50k with him to make a cd?
No one will, because his stuff is not that good.

Considering that there must be a profit motive (return on investment) in order for the investment to occur -
Where does the profit come from?
The profit comes from being first to market, and from staying in business, rather than being wiped out by your competitors.

If no one invests in IP due to the lack of return on investment –
That’s false. There is return on investment. That return on investment is: a) being first to market, b) staying in business, c) improving your own life.

Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes. People will still invest in IP to be competitive, to be first to market, and to improve their own lives in general.

Or, at best, will it be restricted to small marginal improvements (100 year development cycle versus 10 years or 1 year)?
Most of the improvements done even now are incremental or what you call “marginal.” Great and monumental leaps of technology are not driven by money, but by inspiration, and are prepared for by small and incremental changes, which you yourself agree will inescapably happen even without any patents.

Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent?
Contract is a consensual, free will, VOLUNTARY, binding agreement between two parties.
Patent is an immoral application of government force upon people who did NOT AGREE to a contract. It is the essence of aggression.

Of course if you just rename IP with something else like "contract of first use" -
Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" can guarantee the return on investment for IP?
If you are an inventor, you can come to a car company, and say: “I have invented a process that will reduce your cost of production (or will increase your sales) by 5%-10%. I am willing to disclose this process to you (instead of your competitors) in return for the following compensation … (and you spell it out).” And you disclose the details to the car company under non-disclosure, non-compete agreement, so that if after reviewing your proposal they decide to reject it, they cannot use this process themselves as per terms of the contract they signed. It is all voluntary and consensual, and therefore, binding and just.
Patent on the other hand is not voluntary, but it is forced upon people who did not consent to it. Therefore it is an aggression against their property.

Why in the world would the "first use" buyer pay all of the development cost (IP) when everyone else gets it for cost of materials?
He will pay it to be first to market, and to stay in business instead of being wiped out by his competitors.

How is the "first use" buyer going to see a return on investment ($6 million Toyota Camry
He will be a) first to market with a product that people want, b) he will stay in business.

or $50k music cd that's only worth the cost of materials after purchase)?
I already told you that one, in this post.

If no one becomes a "first use" buyer –
False premise. They will become first use buyers, for the reasons I have stated.

Will the investment ever be made?
Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes, and yes.

Or, at best, will the natural result be that IP isn't developed or constrained to small marginal improvements over an extensive time period?
Already answered that one in detail in this very post.

Now that two of your "amendments" have had gaping holes blown through them -
Which one's next?
The only holes blown are in your logic and reasoning, my friend.

[Jason]

Likewise....I don't have the patience to go cut n' paste every question you've ignored so I'll quickly summarize to save us both some time.

If my neighbor spends $50k developing a music cd he can only sell for the replacement cost of a cd -
Where does he get the money to develop a new cd?
How does he get back his initial $50k investment?
He will not get money to develop the new CD unless: a) He made a contract of first use with a performer, movie studio or the like that would pay him that much. b) His music is so good that many, many people desire to donate to him.

So if his music is not that good, he should find some other business to be in if he wishes to continue spending 50k per CD.

If he stands no opportunity of ever seeing the return of his investment (not even considering profit) -
Why would he ever invest $50k to make the cd to begin with?
Right. He won’t.
What external investor would invest $50k with him to make a cd?
No one will, because his stuff is not that good.

Considering that there must be a profit motive (return on investment) in order for the investment to occur -
Where does the profit come from?
The profit comes from being first to market, and from staying in business, rather than being wiped out by your competitors.

If no one invests in IP due to the lack of return on investment –
That’s false. There is return on investment. That return on investment is: a) being first to market, b) staying in business, c) improving your own life.

Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes. People will still invest in IP to be competitive, to be first to market, and to improve their own lives in general.

Or, at best, will it be restricted to small marginal improvements (100 year development cycle versus 10 years or 1 year)?
Most of the improvements done even now are incremental or what you call “marginal.” Great and monumental leaps of technology are not driven by money, but by inspiration, and are prepared for by small and incremental changes, which you yourself agree will inescapably happen even without any patents.

Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent?
Contract is a consensual, free will, VOLUNTARY, binding agreement between two parties.
Patent is an immoral application of government force upon people who did NOT AGREE to a contract. It is the essence of aggression.

Of course if you just rename IP with something else like "contract of first use" -
Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" can guarantee the return on investment for IP?
If you are an inventor, you can come to a car company, and say: “I have invented a process that will reduce your cost of production (or will increase your sales) by 5%-10%. I am willing to disclose this process to you (instead of your competitors) in return for the following compensation … (and you spell it out).” And you disclose the details to the car company under non-disclosure, non-compete agreement, so that if after reviewing your proposal they decide to reject it, they cannot use this process themselves as per terms of the contract they signed. It is all voluntary and consensual, and therefore, binding and just.
Patent on the other hand is not voluntary, but it is forced upon people who did not consent to it. Therefore it is an aggression against their property.

Why in the world would the "first use" buyer pay all of the development cost (IP) when everyone else gets it for cost of materials?
He will pay it to be first to market, and to stay in business instead of being wiped out by his competitors.

How is the "first use" buyer going to see a return on investment ($6 million Toyota Camry
He will be a) first to market with a product that people want, b) he will stay in business.

or $50k music cd that's only worth the cost of materials after purchase)?
I already told you that one, in this post.

If no one becomes a "first use" buyer –
False premise. They will become first use buyers, for the reasons I have stated.

Will the investment ever be made?
Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes, and yes.

Um No and No.

Or, at best, will the natural result be that IP isn't developed or constrained to small marginal improvements over an extensive time period?
Already answered that one in detail in this very post.

Now that two of your "amendments" have had gaping holes blown through them -
Which one's next?
The only holes blown are in your logic and reasoning, my friend.

Well how can anyone reason with that kind of intelligence! Agree to disagree!

FYI - the musical neighbor is Paul Cardall....and he is very talented.....but I doubt talented enough for your charity model. In fact I can't think of an artist (outside the street corner musicians - if you call that survival) that could survive on your charity model.....at least in this present world! Restricted to live events only! But no one would ever hear the music so no one would show up.....left with the bar hopping gigs!

[LoveIsTruth]

Well how can anyone reason with that kind of intelligence! Agree to disagree!

FYI - the musical neighbor is Paul Cardall....and he is very talented.....but I doubt talented enough for your charity model. In fact I can't think of an artist (outside the street corner musicians - if you call that survival) that could survive on your charity model.....at least in this present world! Restricted to live events only! But no one would ever hear the music so no one would show up.....left with the bar hopping gigs!

Smart artists would release their music for free as advertisement for live events, or as building portfolio, that would prove their popularity to future investors (like a movie studio).


I bet you if Back Street Boys asked for donations from their fans, they would be swimming in cash!

All this goes to show that principles of liberty support progress and prosperity, not inhibit them! You do not need patents and copyrights to promote art, science and technology via immoral application of government force. Freedom and liberty does it much better while preserving the foundation of Liberty, upon which the survival of the society itself completely depends!

[Jason]

Well how can anyone reason with that kind of intelligence! Agree to disagree!

FYI - the musical neighbor is Paul Cardall....and he is very talented.....but I doubt talented enough for your charity model. In fact I can't think of an artist (outside the street corner musicians - if you call that survival) that could survive on your charity model.....at least in this present world! Restricted to live events only! But no one would ever hear the music so no one would show up.....left with the bar hopping gigs!

Smart artists would release their music for free as advertisement for live events, or as building portfolio, that would prove their popularity to future investors (like a movie studio).


I bet you if Back Street Boys asked for donations from their fans, they would be swimming in cash!

All this goes to show that principles of liberty support progress and prosperity, not inhibit them! You do not need patents and copyrights to promote art, science and technology via immoral application of government force. Freedom and liberty does it much better while preserving the foundation of Liberty, upon which the survival of the society itself completely depends!

I guess you don't follow the news much....Google rappers pumping penny stocks...

If there was cash to be had there....they would be doing it!!!

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

[LoveIsTruth]

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

It is interesting that you were never able to challenge the iron logic of my proposal:

• a) You as individual have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor not to use information in his possession (as long as he is under no contract with you).
  b) Since you have no such moral right you cannot delegate it to your government.

All other considerations that you are spouting are irrelevant in the light of these two facts, which plainly show that patents and copyrights, as function of government, have no moral right of existing.

[Jason]

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

It is interesting that you never was able to challenge the iron logic of my proposal:

• a) You as individual have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor not to use information in his possession (as long as he is under no contract with you).
  b) Since you have no such moral right you cannot delegate it to your government.

All other consideration that you are spouting are irrelevant in the light of these two facts, which plainly show that patents and copyrights as function of government have no moral right of existing.

LOL....yes there is no disputing your "iron" logic. You simply believe it to be however you think it will be and there can be no reasoning to the contrary. Nothing wrong with that if its direct revelation from God.....but if its not then its just a hypothesis to be tested and treated accordingly. But you obviously don't see it that way.....so I agree to disagree.

FYI - we have covered that repeatedly. If the information was freely handed out by the creator/developer of the information....then yes you are correct. If on the other hand that information was obtained through fraud, lies, deception, disobedience to law, breaking of contracts, etc.....then that is another matter entirely and should be treated as such. If not....you are trying to claim that two wrongs make a right.

How does the law currently treat the possession of stolen property? How would your Utopia treat the possession of stolen property?

Patents and copyrights are simply government laws to protect the intellectual property and specifically the creator/inventor and those that contract with them to obtain that intellectual property. Were they to cease to exist....then the value of that intellectual property would collapse.....and in correlation with that....so would investment in R&D and the development of future intellectual property.

[LoveIsTruth]

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

It is interesting that you never was able to challenge the iron logic of my proposal:

• a) You as individual have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor not to use information in his possession (as long as he is under no contract with you).
  b) Since you have no such moral right you cannot delegate it to your government.

All other consideration that you are spouting are irrelevant in the light of these two facts, which plainly show that patents and copyrights as function of government have no moral right of existing.

LOL....yes there is no disputing your "iron" logic. You simply believe it to be however you think it will be and there can be no reasoning to the contrary. Nothing wrong with that if its direct revelation from God.....but if its not then its just a hypothesis to be tested and treated accordingly. But you obviously don't see it that way.....so I agree to disagree.

This is more than a mere "hypothesis." This is an eternal principle of liberty and truth, of which the Spirit itself bears record, and which was, by the way, forcefully taught by a seer, prophet and revelator of God. (Please see The Benson Principle http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=12347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

FYI - we have covered that repeatedly. If the information was freely handed out by the creator/developer of the information....then yes you are correct. If on the other hand that information was obtained through fraud, lies, deception, disobedience to law (a corrupt copyright law?), breaking of contracts, etc.....then that is another matter entirely and should be treated as such. If not....you are trying to claim that two wrongs make a right.

How does the law currently treat the possession of stolen property? How would your Utopia treat the possession of stolen property?
(Nothing was stolen, remember? It has been thoroughly established, that you cannot "steal" IP, unless you erase author's memory.)

Patents and copyrights are simply government laws to protect the intellectual property and specifically the creator/inventor and those that contract with them to obtain that intellectual property. Were they to cease to exist....then the value of that intellectual property would collapse.....and in correlation with that....so would investment in R&D and the development of future intellectual property.

I have indisputably shown that patents and copyrights are immoral according to the two incontrovertible facts I presented. Since you cannot challenge the facts on their merit, you have been defeated by the facts. That you do not accept your defeat is quite irrelavant, because the truth speaks for itself, and is entirely independent of your blindness.

[Jason]

I have indisputably shown that patents and copyrights are immoral according to the two incontrovertible facts I presented. Since you cannot challenge the facts on their merit, you have been defeated by the facts. That you do not accept your defeat is quite irrelavant, because the truth speaks for itself, and is entirely independent of your blindness.

LOL....yes there is no disputing your "iron" logic. You simply believe it to be however you think it will be and there can be no reasoning to the contrary. Nothing wrong with that if its direct revelation from God.....but if its not then its just a hypothesis to be tested and treated accordingly. But you obviously don't see it that way.....so I agree to disagree.

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

IP doesn't exist....therefore the investment in IP will also not exist!

[LoveIsTruth]

I have indisputably shown that patents and copyrights are immoral according to the two incontrovertible facts I presented. Since you cannot challenge the facts on their merit, you have been defeated by the facts. That you do not accept your defeat is quite irrelavant, because the truth speaks for itself, and is entirely independent of your blindness.

LOL....yes there is no disputing your "iron" logic. You simply believe it to be however you think it will be and there can be no reasoning to the contrary. Nothing wrong with that if its direct revelation from God.....but if its not then its just a hypothesis to be tested and treated accordingly. But you obviously don't see it that way.....so I agree to disagree.

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

IP doesn't exist....therefore the investment in IP will also not exist!

This is more than a mere "hypothesis." This is an eternal principle of liberty and truth, of which the Spirit itself bears record, and which was, by the way, forcefully taught by a seer, prophet and revelator of God. (Please see The Benson Principle http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=12347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

IP exists. To know an idea IS to own it. Therefore, investment in IP will also exist, but without improper application of government force in the form of immoral patents and copyrights, both of which have no right to exist.

So you are wrong again!

[LoveIsTruth]

This is more than a mere "hypothesis." This is an eternal principle of liberty and truth, of which the Spirit itself bears record, and which was, by the way, forcefully taught by a seer, prophet and revelator of God. (Please see The Benson Principle http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=12347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =))

[Jason]

I have indisputably shown that patents and copyrights are immoral according to the two incontrovertible facts I presented. Since you cannot challenge the facts on their merit, you have been defeated by the facts. That you do not accept your defeat is quite irrelavant, because the truth speaks for itself, and is entirely independent of your blindness.

LOL....yes there is no disputing your "iron" logic. You simply believe it to be however you think it will be and there can be no reasoning to the contrary. Nothing wrong with that if its direct revelation from God.....but if its not then its just a hypothesis to be tested and treated accordingly. But you obviously don't see it that way.....so I agree to disagree.

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

IP doesn't exist....therefore the investment in IP will also not exist!

This is more than a mere "hypothesis." This is an eternal principle of liberty and truth, of which the Spirit itself bears record, and which was, by the way, forcefully taught by a seer, prophet and revelator of God. (Please see The Benson Principle http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=12347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

IP exists. To know an idea IS to own it. Therefore, investment in IP will also exist, but without improper application of government force in the form of immoral patents and copyrights, both of which have no right to exist.

So you are wrong again!

Oh so now IP exists.....but is not protected.....but investment will still occur. Keep tokin' on the crack pipe!

I find it terribly amusing how you just declare that things will happen yet you provide no evidence....and the sole example provided of a movie theater was clearly demonstrated to be a flawed.....yet I'm wrong and you're right! LOL!!!

I must say that's the most perverse use I have ever seen of The Benson Principle! He probably turns two shades of red every time you say that.