PDA

View Full Version : Who would manage patents/trademarks without a Commerce Department?




Knightskye
04-07-2009, 02:08 AM
I was posting a comment somewhere about abolishing federal departments, and I went here:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

They have a list of all 15 departments and what each of them does.

I was trying to figure out which ones were necessary.

Treasury
Justice
State
Defense

They were pretty easy decisions, except for Commerce.


Commerce: Forecasts the weather, charts the oceans, regulates patents and trademarks, conducts the census, compiles statistics, and promotes U.S. economic growth by encouraging international trade.

I mean, I don't think the government should forecast the weather, if the news networks can't even get it right, but who would be in charge of patents and trademarks? What about the census?

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 03:35 AM
ANd you think that couldn't be privatized why?

Knightskye
04-07-2009, 11:15 AM
ANd you think that couldn't be privatized why?

Census, sure.

But I'd think a company would want to prevent another company from obtaining a patent, wouldn't they?

mczerone
04-07-2009, 11:32 AM
Census, sure.

But I'd think a company would want to prevent another company from obtaining a patent, wouldn't they?

You are right, any company does want to selfishly restrict other companies from competing with them. Unfortunately, if you are serious about freedom, a published design may be freely copied and sold. If you want to keep a secret, don't publish the inner workings/ingredients in your invention.

The current copyright and patent system stagnates innovation for the sake of protectionism, and a world without these artificial restrictions on liberty would promote innovation continuously, and place a much higher priority on developing efficient production of needed technologies, and a much quicker response to consumer needs.

A product that was just barely hanging on to its position in individual's value scales (because it previously had met people's needs, but the needs and wants changed) would be quickly displaced by a competitor that could use the basic 'patented' design to modify for the new demand.

Just like torture and tax collection: we don't want to privatize them to make it more efficient, we want to privatize them so that no person will voluntarily support the institutions that they are currently forced to support as part of the State.

Elwar
04-07-2009, 12:17 PM
I was reading on another forum about the whole idea of patents and trademarks and such. They suggested that the way to go would be not having ideas as property, if you have something you want to create you have the advantage of finding the best distribution system. It would end up making manufacturing and distribution a larger role because once an idea is out there, the better manufacturer will do better, so you'd more than likely take your idea to the best producer of your product. You'd get X amount of dollars per widget produced by them so you'd be compensated...other manufacturers could re-tool to produce your product as well but they'd be behind the curve and probably lose out. By then a new idea would be in the works.

pcosmar
04-07-2009, 12:20 PM
Who handled (or mishandled) them before the Commerce Dept?

1903 The Department of Commerce and Labor was created by the Act of February 14 (32 Stat. 826; 5 U.S.C. 591).

mczerone
04-07-2009, 12:44 PM
I was reading on another forum about the whole idea of patents and trademarks and such. They suggested that the way to go would be not having ideas as property, if you have something you want to create you have the advantage of finding the best distribution system. It would end up making manufacturing and distribution a larger role because once an idea is out there, the better manufacturer will do better, so you'd more than likely take your idea to the best producer of your product. You'd get X amount of dollars per widget produced by them so you'd be compensated...other manufacturers could re-tool to produce your product as well but they'd be behind the curve and probably lose out. By then a new idea would be in the works.

But, the important part is that the innovator is duly compensated for the innovation, not for restricting the innovation of others.

Elwar
04-07-2009, 12:53 PM
But, the important part is that the innovator is duly compensated for the innovation, not for restricting the innovation of others.

Right...he would get first shot at production because he would get manufacturing running first...It'd be like Grahm Bell and the other guy selling their idea to various big manufacturers...the first to get their phones out on the market has a huge advantage. Bell would have a contract with the manufacturer and would be paid that way.

Let's say I invent Tivo. I go to Sony and say...check this out, it records TV shows. Sony re-tools several manufacturing plants, makes contacts with their distributors, starts making commercials and they start producing Tivos. Samsung sees this and they figure they want in on it...they fashion together their own version but it might take a year for things to take off...by then I've made a percentage off of each Tivo and am working on Tivo 2.0.

When Samsung comes out with their Tivo based on mine...I'm ready with Sony to roll out Tivo 2.0.

The inventor gets compensated because they're ahead of the fray.

Knightskye
04-07-2009, 01:28 PM
Who handled (or mishandled) them before the Commerce Dept?

I found this about trademarks:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/trademarks1.html


During the Middle Ages, European trade guilds began using marks to indicate who made a specific product. Bell makers were among the first to adopt the practice, followed by other manufacturers including paper makers. They added watermarks so people would know who made that particular sheet.

In 1266, the Bakers Marking Law, which governed the use of stamps or pinpricks on loaves of bread, was passed in England. It is one of the earliest known laws on trademarks. Silversmiths were required to mark their products in 1363.

Bottle makers and porcelain manufacturers also followed suit, possibly influenced by Chinese porcelain, which bore markings indicating its origin.

One of the earliest court cases involving the improper use of a trademark occurred in England in 1618. The manufacturer of high-quality cloth sued a competitor who produced lower-quality cloth, but used the marking reserved for top-quality cloth. The case, Southern v. How, is considered the first case of actual trademark infringement.

In 1751 Parisian furniture makers were required to sign their work with marks.In the U.S., Thomas Jefferson urged the adoption laws governing trademarks because of a dispute over sail cloth marks in 1791. While federal legislation was not forthcoming, some states passed their own laws. For instance, Michigan required marks to indicate the origin of timber in 1842.

Federal trademark legislation was passed in 1870. Averill Paints received a trademark under this law in 1870, making it the first modern trademark issued in the U.S.

And this about patents:

http://inventors.about.com/od/historypatentlaw/a/history.htm

In 1790, came a great encouragement to inventors, the first Federal Patent Act, passed by Congress on the 10th of April. Every State had its own separate patent laws or regulations, as an inheritance from colonial days, but the Fathers of the Constitution had wisely provided that this function of government should be exercised by the nation.

TastyWheat
04-07-2009, 01:52 PM
I do believe in intellectual property protection but none of it should be protected for more than 20 years. The filing and licensing can easily be handled by one or more private entities. However, I'm not sure if a breach of these patents or copyrights should constitute a criminal act or if it should all be handled in civil courts.

Alawn
04-07-2009, 02:16 PM
I was posting a comment somewhere about abolishing federal departments, and I went here:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

They have a list of all 15 departments and what each of them does.

I was trying to figure out which ones were necessary.

Treasury
Justice
State
Defense

They were pretty easy decisions, except for Commerce.



I mean, I don't think the government should forecast the weather, if the news networks can't even get it right, but who would be in charge of patents and trademarks? What about the census?

They don't do that. The Patent and Trademark Office is in charge of patents and trademarks.
http://www.uspto.gov/

They may be part of the Commerce Department now but that is a very recent thing. The commerce department didn't exist until 1903. The Patent Office has existed since the 1790s.

This is as dumb as the argument that we couldn't exist without the income tax. We did just fine before 1913. We also did just fine before the commerce department was created in 1903.

powerofreason
04-07-2009, 02:21 PM
And you want to keep these artificial restrictions on the free market why?

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 02:22 PM
Census, sure.

But I'd think a company would want to prevent another company from obtaining a patent, wouldn't they?

Well Title Companies come to mind as if someone isn't willing to charge a fee for a service in a free market society.

You really think that the Government can't, won't or hasn't fudged in the realm of Patents? I'd rather have the option of being able to sue in court for damages against a privately held company over the fighting the government.

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 02:25 PM
I was reading on another forum about the whole idea of patents and trademarks and such. They suggested that the way to go would be not having ideas as property, if you have something you want to create you have the advantage of finding the best distribution system. It would end up making manufacturing and distribution a larger role because once an idea is out there, the better manufacturer will do better, so you'd more than likely take your idea to the best producer of your product. You'd get X amount of dollars per widget produced by them so you'd be compensated...other manufacturers could re-tool to produce your product as well but they'd be behind the curve and probably lose out. By then a new idea would be in the works.

Standard Oil comes to mind, they purchased railways and trains to stifle the competitions ability to transport their oil.
Watch the movie "There Will Be Blood".

powerofreason
04-07-2009, 02:31 PM
IP is a) immoral b) impractical and c) very un-libertarian.

Alawn
04-07-2009, 02:35 PM
IP is a) immoral b) impractical and c) very un-libertarian.

That is irrelevant. It is in the Constitution and it isn't going away no matter how much you want. The question is how would these things get done without a Commerce Department. The answer is they would happen real easy without the Commerce Department. We didn't have a Commerce Department until 1903. We have had patents and a census since 1790.

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 02:55 PM
There is no reason that one could not pay a fee to a privately held company to register a patent or trademark, many law offices around the country will search patents for clients at present time. If a company is bonded and insured you still have the Law to contest any disputes. We do live in the modern age where a computer database can and does hold all information in real time.

I think the Patent Office charges a fee, do they not?

You can also take the USPS out of the equation too, FedEx, UPS and others have wanted to deliver letter size mail for some time and the Gov won't let it happen, in effect they hold a monopoly on letter size mail.

powerofreason
04-07-2009, 03:13 PM
That is irrelevant. It is in the Constitution and it isn't going away no matter how much you want. The question is how would these things get done without a Commerce Department. The answer is they would happen real easy without the Commerce Department. We didn't have a Commerce Department until 1903. We have had patents and a census since 1790.


You don't care about right and wrong? Would you have approved of Hitler's genocide too since it was entirely legal and there was nothing you could have done about it?

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 03:18 PM
You don't care about right and wrong? Would you have approved of Hitler's genocide too since it was entirely legal and there was nothing you could have done about it?

Good point because slavery was protected under the Law at that time.

Unspun
04-07-2009, 03:33 PM
That is irrelevant. It is in the Constitution and it isn't going away no matter how much you want. The question is how would these things get done without a Commerce Department. The answer is they would happen real easy without the Commerce Department. We didn't have a Commerce Department until 1903. We have had patents and a census since 1790.

I don't see what's irrelevant about it, as one can disagree with the Constitution. That's like saying, "It's the law! It's not going away no matter how much you want". Just because it's written on a piece of paper in some government law book doesn't mean it's just and just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean the government must enforce it; that is, the powers are delegated but not every power must be used. I've even heard Ron Paul agree with that on many occasions, not that that's the justification for my opinion.

Intellectual property is not property at all. If I "copy" your idea, what have I stolen from you? Nothing, you still have the idea. Now our two ideas benefit from and compete on the free market. When you have a government intervene and protect the entity that first filed a patent then you have what we call a monopoly and the entity that filed the patent is protected from the rigors of the free market. No one can intervene and better the product, offer it at a lower price, or in any way compete with the patent filer. I'm sorry but this is just not the free market and I think the Constitution and the founders, as wise as they were, were wrong on this issue.

Prior to intellectual monopolies, if you will, you had people publishing sections of their books in news papers to protect their work from being copied. Right now books by Aristotle are public domain and can be republished with someone else's name, yet you don't see that happening. Who would be stupid enough to do that? You'd get laughed at. If you wanted to be taken as a serious writer I imagine that would most certainly be a deterrent. This goes the same for many products.

So I say do away with the Department of Commerce and all laws that enforce intellectual property.

Alawn
04-07-2009, 04:02 PM
You people are being stupid. Patents and the census are not the same as Hitler or slavery. You can argue about time limits or what protections patents should get or what subjects deserve patents but there will always be patents and a census in some form run by the government in the US even if it doesn't make a lot of sense or if it is inefficient because it is in the constitution and there is no way there will ever be an amendment to change that.

This was a question about how certain functions would happen if there wasn't a commerce department and you guys went off on a rant about anarchy and how the government isn't justified doing anything.

My point was the government did these functions since 1790 without the commerce department which was only created in 1903. Like the income tax in 1915 we got along just fine without it. Even assuming that the government doing these things was a good idea the commerce department is clearly not needed for it to do them.

So yes whether or not the government should have patents or a census is irrelevant in the question of whether we should have a commerce department.

Unspun
04-07-2009, 04:15 PM
This was a question about how certain functions would happen if there wasn't a commerce department and you guys went off on a rant about anarchy and how the government isn't justified doing anything.

I never mentioned anarchy. I think you were the only one to bring up anarchy. I was arguing how the government could handle so-called intellectual property without the government; that is, just like any other product out there that would be offered on a free market.

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 05:31 PM
You people are being stupid. Patents and the census are not the same as Hitler or slavery. You can argue about time limits or what protections patents should get or what subjects deserve patents but there will always be patents and a census in some form run by the government in the US even if it doesn't make a lot of sense or if it is inefficient because it is in the constitution and there is no way there will ever be an amendment to change that.

This was a question about how certain functions would happen if there wasn't a commerce department and you guys went off on a rant about anarchy and how the government isn't justified doing anything.

My point was the government did these functions since 1790 without the commerce department which was only created in 1903. Like the income tax in 1915 we got along just fine without it. Even assuming that the government doing these things was a good idea the commerce department is clearly not needed for it to do them.

So yes whether or not the government should have patents or a census is irrelevant in the question of whether we should have a commerce department.

My point of argument is that the duties preformed by the Patent Office could be done in the private sector seeing that the laws are on the books in case of legal disputes.

Alawn
04-07-2009, 06:16 PM
My point of argument is that the duties preformed by the Patent Office could be done in the private sector seeing that the laws are on the books in case of legal disputes.

Sorry but I disagree with you 100% there. Maybe we don't need patents or maybe we do. But if you assume we do there is no way it could ever be done without the government doing it. If some company told me I couldn't make some product because they got a private patent I would tell them where to shove their bs patent and then I would make it anyway.

One company cannot force another company to obey their monopoly right unless government comes in to help them. You can't privatize patents. Either you have them and let the government do them or you don't have them at all.

mediahasyou
04-07-2009, 06:44 PM
no one. ;)

powerofreason
04-07-2009, 06:50 PM
I like to think of IP as an enormous scam.

Property must have two qualities in order to actually be property. Its boundaries must be clear so that others can easily respect them (so in other words I can't just claim I own some distant piece of unowned land, I actually have to improve it in some meaningful way first), and it must be scarce (in order to actually need the protections of property).

If a resource is infinitely and instantly available, such as a file on a computer, then there can be no conflict over it. If physical property could also be copied effortlessly, it would also cease to become property.

Knightskye
04-07-2009, 09:47 PM
I have two questions:

If someone uses another brand's name in their product name, like "Oreo", would that be allowed?

Would it be illegal to copy someone's food product only if the recipe was stolen, because that would be theft?

I answered the second one by asking it.

Bman
04-07-2009, 09:53 PM
I have two questions:

If someone uses another brand's name in their product name, like "Oreo", would that be allowed?

Would it be illegal to copy someone's food product only if the recipe was stolen, because that would be theft?

I answered the second one by asking it.

You sort of did but the argument is that whatever media carried the recipe on it would be the only thing stolen.

muzzled dogg
04-07-2009, 09:56 PM
free intellectual property!

Bman
04-07-2009, 10:03 PM
free intellectual property!

Sorry I still charge for mine, not always, but got to pay the bills.