SpaceX: 'If We Published Patents, It Would Be Farcical' [Archive]

View Full Version : SpaceX: 'If We Published Patents, It Would Be Farcical'

jim49er

11-10-2012, 05:08 PM

The patent system has been getting a lot of heat lately, especially with the high-profile fight between Apple and Samsung.

Superhero entrepreneur Elon Musk just avoids patents altogether with his high-tech space venture SpaceX.

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-patents-2012-11

KCIndy

11-10-2012, 06:40 PM

Elon Musk makes a really good point:

"We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China," said Musk in the interview. "If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book."

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 06:43 PM

If patents didn't exist, we would be lightyears ahead technologically than we are right now.

torchbearer

11-10-2012, 06:46 PM

it seemed like china and russia took those recipes.
the russian's even tried to build their own shuttle.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Russian/Shuttle/comparison.jpg

i guess two different groups of scientist from different schools could come up with the same idea....

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Buran_002.html

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2012, 06:48 PM

If patents didn't exist, we would be lightyears ahead technologically than we are right now.
This^^

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 07:04 PM

This^^

I've always wondered but have never asked: what is your avatar?

robert9712000

11-10-2012, 07:08 PM

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 07:13 PM

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2012, 07:17 PM

I've always wondered but have never asked: what is your avatar?
I'm glad you asked! It's one of my designs. Basically, I created vectors based on seashells, applied color, and made a collage of them. :) It and all my other designs are available for free viewing and download at www.matveimediaarts.blogspot.com (http://www.matveimediaarts.blogspot.com) :cool:

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2012, 07:19 PM

Technically, you never escape Earth's gravity. It goes on forever, but it does get diminished with distance. But to ensure that you won't get pulled back to earth, you have to go about 17 times further than the moon.

The reason that satellites and things are able to stay up there is because they are orbiting at insane speeds, so in essence they're always slingshotting around the earth.
They also orbit in quite exaggerated elliptical paths.

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 07:22 PM

They also orbit in quite exaggerated elliptical paths.

Well yeah. Kepler's Law of Orbits and all that.

Tpoints

11-10-2012, 07:26 PM

KCIndy

11-10-2012, 07:55 PM

I'm glad you asked! It's one of my designs. Basically, I created vectors based on seashells, applied color, and made a collage of them. :) It and all my other designs are available for free viewing and download at www.matveimediaarts.blogspot.com (http://www.matveimediaarts.blogspot.com) :cool:

Wow. I'm really embarrassed! :o:o

All this time, I thought it was a tipsy jellyfish! :p

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 07:58 PM

Wow. I'm really embarrassed! :o:o

All this time, I thought it was a tipsy jellyfish! :p

I always thought it was a butterfly with balls of fire coming from it's wings.

KCIndy

11-10-2012, 08:00 PM

I always thought it was a butterfly with balls of fire coming from it's wings.

Hey! I can see that now that you've mentioned it! :D

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2012, 08:07 PM

I always thought it was a butterfly with balls of fire coming from it's wings.
Wow. I'm really embarrassed! :o:o
All this time, I thought it was a tipsy jellyfish! :p

LOL!!! Yeah, that sort of design style seems somewhat like a rorshach test-especially when it's shrunk so small. :D I think it looks better when embiggened:

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk12/heavenlyboy34/seshellscollagetest3.jpg
Here are variations I've done:
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk12/heavenlyboy34/seshellscollagetest2.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk12/heavenlyboy34/coolcollage.jpg

Henry Rogue

11-10-2012, 08:08 PM

Im curious how far you need to go to break earths gravitational pull.I was wondering because of the balloon type setup the sky diver had that reached 27 miles.Could you then have rockets to get the rest of the way?

If possible it'd be a very cheap way to reach space
In physics, escape velocity is the speed at which the kinetic energy plus the gravitational potential energy of an object is zero.[nb 1] It is the speed needed to "break free" from a gravitational field without further propulsion.

For a spherically-symmetric body, escape velocity is calculated by the formula

where G is the universal gravitational constant (G=6.67×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2), M the mass of the planet, star or other body, and r the distance from the center of gravity.[nb 2]

In this equation atmospheric friction (air drag) is not taken into account. A rocket moving out of a gravity well does not actually need to attain escape velocity to do so, but could achieve the same result at any speed with a suitable mode of propulsion and sufficient fuel. Escape velocity only applies to ballistic trajectories.

The term escape velocity is actually a misnomer, and it is often more accurately referred to as escape speed since the necessary speed is a scalar quantity which is independent of direction (assuming a non-rotating planet and ignoring atmospheric friction).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Newton_Cannon.svg/220px-Newton_Cannon.svg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
In the book Rocket Boys by Homer Hickam Jr. (the book the movie October Skywas based on) the rocket boys contemplated sending their last and most powerful rocket up in a ballon to see if they could reach space, but decided against it.

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 08:09 PM

Wow that looks a shit ton different.

AceNZ

11-10-2012, 08:11 PM

If patents didn't exist, we would be lightyears ahead technologically than we are right now.

If patents didn't exist, it would be much more difficult to raise money to research and create new things. Patents protect not just the idea, but the market that the stems from the idea--which is part of what provides entrepreneurs with an incentive to risk their resources in coming up with new things.

If patents didn't exist, much more information would be held as Trade Secrets, stifling idea sharing and innovation. Where an idea couldn't be protected by Trade Secret, the incentives to invest in bringing it to market would be much lower.

No, if patents didn't exist, we would be much further behind technologically than we are today.

I'm not saying there isn't abuse, but on the whole, patents are a good thing.

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 08:13 PM

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 08:21 PM

If patents didn't exist, it would be much more difficult to raise money to research and create new things. Patents protect not just the idea, but the market that the stems from the idea--which is part of what provides entrepreneurs with an incentive to risk their resources in coming up with new things.

If patents didn't exist, much more information would be held as Trade Secrets, stifling idea sharing and innovation. Where an idea couldn't be protected by Trade Secret, the incentives to invest in bringing it to market would be much lower.

No, if patents didn't exist, we would be much further behind technologically than we are today.

I'm not saying there isn't abuse, but on the whole, patents are a good thing.

There's really no way to prove either side. My argument is this:

You produce a super awesome product. You patent it, and you make a lot of money from it.

I want to produce a product much like yours, but with improvements for the consumer. But I can't. I could tell YOU about the improvements for the right price, but we can't negotiate a deal that we find is fair. So my improvements will never be made.

Henry Rogue

11-10-2012, 08:23 PM

To boil this down into something legible, unless you go really, really far, you're not going to escape earth's gravity. A balloon wouldn't be able to carry rockets and the fuel needed to get to space. The best way of achieving space flight at the moment is blasting off from the ground.
Yes, the rocket Boys rockets were small if i remember correctly they only achieved a height of 4 miles. At the time I believe official space started at 57 miles.

AceNZ

11-10-2012, 08:24 PM

In this equation atmospheric friction (air drag) is not taken into account. A rocket moving out of a gravity well does not actually need to attain escape velocity to do so, but could achieve the same result at any speed with a suitable mode of propulsion and sufficient fuel. Escape velocity only applies to ballistic trajectories.

A few things to point out about that diagram:

-- Objects in orbit actually have to move faster the lower they are (although atmospheric friction is much higher).

-- Every object in "free fall" (without self-propulsion), whether a cannon ball as in the diagram, or a baseball in flight, or an object that you just drop, is actually in orbit around the Earth's center of mass--it's just that if the object isn't moving fast enough in the right direction, it runs into the Earth before it can complete an orbit. What that diagram should show is what would happen if the Earth replaced by a point mass at its center: the cannon ball would fall to the opposite side of the Earth, then come back up on the other side of the cannon (ballistic trajectories are elliptical, not parabolic).

specsaregood

11-10-2012, 08:28 PM

If patents didn't exist, we would be lightyears ahead technologically than we are right now.

What an amusing notion. Especially since the spacex decision demonstrates the exact opposite.

HigherVision

11-10-2012, 08:30 PM

If patents didn't exist, it would be much more difficult to raise money to research and create new things. Patents protect not just the idea, but the market that the stems from the idea--which is part of what provides entrepreneurs with an incentive to risk their resources in coming up with new things.

If patents didn't exist, much more information would be held as Trade Secrets, stifling idea sharing and innovation. Where an idea couldn't be protected by Trade Secret, the incentives to invest in bringing it to market would be much lower.

No, if patents didn't exist, we would be much further behind technologically than we are today.

I'm not saying there isn't abuse, but on the whole, patents are a good thing.

I hope you checked with your lawyers to make sure no one ever made this statement before. If so you're ripping them off by reproducing them without proper compensation and I hope they arrest you. We need these measures to protect intellectual property or else no one would have incentive to ever think or say anything.

AceNZ

11-10-2012, 08:40 PM

There's really no way to prove either side.

Oh, but there is. Just ask the people who make their living inventing stuff and investing in those who invent stuff what they would do without patents. I've been deep in the middle of those conversations: patents are key.

My argument is this:

You produce a super awesome product. You patent it, and you make a lot of money from it.

I want to produce a product much like yours, but with improvements for the consumer. But I can't. I could tell YOU about the improvements for the right price, but we can't negotiate a deal that we find is fair. So my improvements will never be made.

True enough.

But without patents, the product may very well not have been created in the first place.

Are we better off with no product at all, or with one that doesn't have your "improvements"?

BTW, your argument seems to say that you want to be compensated for your improvements, but you don't want the original inventor to be fully compensated for their ideas and for establishing the market into which your improvements would be sold. Bit of a contradiction there, I'm afraid.

erowe1

11-10-2012, 08:48 PM

Technically, you never escape Earth's gravity. It goes on forever, but it does get diminished with distance. But to ensure that you won't get pulled back to earth, you have to go about 17 times further than the moon.

The reason that satellites and things are able to stay up there is because they are orbiting at insane speeds, so in essence they're always slingshotting around the earth.

That is until you get to some place where the gravitational pull of another body equals or exceeds that of the earth.

AceNZ

11-10-2012, 08:48 PM

I hope you checked with your lawyers to make sure no one ever made this statement before. If so you're ripping them off by reproducing them without proper compensation and I hope they arrest you. We need these measures to protect intellectual property or else no one would have incentive to ever think or say anything.

I see you have a good grasp of patent law and intellectual property.... :rolleyes:

ClydeCoulter

11-10-2012, 09:13 PM

Oh, but there is. Just ask the people who make their living inventing stuff and investing in those who invent stuff what they would do without patents. I've been deep in the middle of those conversations: patents are key.

True enough.

But without patents, the product may very well not have been created in the first place.

Are we better off with no product at all, or with one that doesn't have your "improvements"?

BTW, your argument seems to say that you want to be compensated for your improvements, but you don't want the original inventor to be fully compensated for their ideas and for establishing the market into which your improvements would be sold. Bit of a contradiction there, I'm afraid.

Your BTW is confusing. You place the "other" into "your" paradigm and accuse him under it not his.

AceNZ

11-10-2012, 09:51 PM

Your BTW is confusing. You place the "other" into "your" paradigm and accuse him under it not his.

Let me say it another way.

He said:

I want to produce a product much like yours, but with improvements for the consumer. But I can't.

No problems so far.

I could tell YOU about the improvements for the right price,

In other words, he wants to be compensated for his work.

but we can't negotiate a deal that we find is fair.

All deals that are closed in a free market without coercion are fair. This is what he's arguing against. He wants me to either accept a deal that I don't think is fair (no free market), or to remove my ownership entirely (no property rights).

Either way, that means eliminating my ability to be fully compensated for the work I did, while also allowing him to profit from my work (some would call that "theft").

So my improvements will never be made.

In other words, a free market doesn't work.

At it's root, the issue is simple: Do you believe in a free market, or not? Do you believe in property rights, or not?

I realize some people view this differently, thinking that the idea of "owning" an "idea" is wrong; they claim support of property rights, but deny the idea that intellectual property is actually "property" (crazy, IMO). But that's not what was being argued here.

specsaregood

11-10-2012, 09:57 PM

I realize some people view this differently, thinking that the idea of "owning" an "idea" is wrong; they claim support of property rights, but deny the idea that intellectual property is actually "property" (crazy, IMO). But that's not what was being argued here.

I'd be happier arguing over ways to reform the current intellectual property system and work on fixing flaws that people on both sides of that other argument should be able to agree on.

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 10:07 PM

Thomas Jefferson had an interesting view on patents.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

AceNZ

11-10-2012, 10:10 PM

I'd be happier arguing over ways to reform the current intellectual property system and work on fixing flaws that people on both sides of that other argument should be able to agree on.

Me too. The current system isn't perfect, no doubt about it.

AceNZ

11-10-2012, 10:32 PM

Thomas Jefferson had an interesting view on patents.

Interesting, yes. But also flawed and incomplete.

For one thing, patents don't protect any "idea." Not only does the idea have to be original, it also must have a concrete implementation--which is why patents constantly use the word "invention" and not just "idea."

In addition, inventions are about more than just knowledge. One important, key aspect that the quote from Jefferson seems to neglect, is the fact that inventions require work. They don't pop into one's head without effort. They require not just creativity, but time, effort and money (sometimes lots and lots of it). So if I invent something that has commercial value, and then just give it away, am I diminished? Absolutely, yes I am. I may or may not be willing to accept that, and I might get other things in return that I value more, but it should be my choice (there's that pesky free market again).

Another thing about patents that the anti-IP folks don't seem to grasp: one of the benefits and original goals of patents was precisely to foster the concept of sharing of ideas. Without patents, many inventions would be held as trade secrets, and their details would never see the light of day. Patents require full disclosure of an invention, in enough detail to be able to recreate it. Those who want to abolish patents should consider the consequences of that double-edged sword. No patents also means no disclosure--which was precisely the point of the SpaceX guys in the OP, BTW. They don't want patents, because they don't want to disclose.

Henry Rogue

11-10-2012, 10:41 PM

A few things to point out about that diagram:

-- Objects in orbit actually have to move faster the lower they are (although atmospheric friction is much higher).

-- Every object in "free fall" (without self-propulsion), whether a cannon ball as in the diagram, or a baseball in flight, or an object that you just drop, is actually in orbit around the Earth's center of mass--it's just that if the object isn't moving fast enough in the right direction, it runs into the Earth before it can complete an orbit. What that diagram should show is what would happen if the Earth replaced by a point mass at its center: the cannon ball would fall to the opposite side of the Earth, then come back up on the other side of the cannon (ballistic trajectories are elliptical, not parabolic).
Thanks for the clarification. My post was from Wikipedia, so can never be fully trusted.

ShaneEnochs

11-10-2012, 10:46 PM

liberty2897

11-10-2012, 10:54 PM

If patents didn't exist, we would be lightyears ahead technologically than we are right now.

I agree that we would be better off without the horrible thing called "patent", but light years seems a bit dramatic. Having said that, I am thankful that Microsoft has held back technology for as long as possible. I shudder to think what could have been without them fucking up technology at every turn. Thank you Microsoft for keeping technology at bay in order to keep the world from imploding with advanced technology.

ClydeCoulter

11-10-2012, 11:13 PM

I agree that we would be better off without the horrible thing called "patent", but light years seems a bit dramatic. Having said that, I am thankful that Microsoft has held back technology for as long as possible. I shudder to think what could have been without them fucking up technology at every turn. Thank you Microsoft for keeping technology at bay in order to keep the world from imploding with advanced technology.

Care to elaborate on what the technology world could be like without MS (pre-doj)?

Henry Rogue

11-10-2012, 11:20 PM

When simultaneous ideas or inventions occur. How does the government respect the idea or invention property of the person who makes it to the patent office late. Better yet, If the first person to discover and idea or invention is unaware of patents and the second to discover the same idea or invention patent it, where is the protection of property of the original person. I think he just got screwed by a bunch of lawyers, because now he can't pursue production of his own idea or invetion without paying the second person and his lawyers off. Doesn't sound like protection of private property to me

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 12:13 AM

Natural Citizen

11-11-2012, 01:15 AM

I'm not saying there isn't abuse, but on the whole, patents are a good thing.

We should remember though that science itself belongs to everyone. Patent office is why the electric company can do what they do...for one.

Natural Citizen

11-11-2012, 01:16 AM

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-11-2012, 02:10 AM

Interesting, yes. But also flawed and incomplete.

For one thing, patents don't protect any "idea." Not only does the idea have to be original, it also must have a concrete implementation--which is why patents constantly use the word "invention" and not just "idea."

In addition, inventions are about more than just knowledge. One important, key aspect that the quote from Jefferson seems to neglect, is the fact that inventions require work. They don't pop into one's head without effort. They require not just creativity, but time, effort and money (sometimes lots and lots of it). So if I invent something that has commercial value, and then just give it away, am I diminished? Absolutely, yes I am. I may or may not be willing to accept that, and I might get other things in return that I value more, but it should be my choice (there's that pesky free market again).

Another thing about patents that the anti-IP folks don't seem to grasp: one of the benefits and original goals of patents was precisely to foster the concept of sharing of ideas. Without patents, many inventions would be held as trade secrets, and their details would never see the light of day. Patents require full disclosure of an invention, in enough detail to be able to recreate it. Those who want to abolish patents should consider the consequences of that double-edged sword. No patents also means no disclosure--which was precisely the point of the SpaceX guys in the OP, BTW. They don't want patents, because they don't want to disclose.

Except the fact, that whenever you sell something you by nature, disclose it. So, sure, you can keep it 'secret' to yourself, by never commercializing it, but then again, what's the point in that? We can look to countries that didn't have patents, or copyrights, and see as Jefferson saw, that inventions, commerce, and progress were even more abreast than England who was the sole country to provide for monopolies (re: patent and copyrights). As we know, monopolies are not conducive to innovation, progress, or advancement. I am sure we're all grateful for Windows 8 and it's laundry list of innovations... /snark.

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 02:13 AM

What if rotation itself is my propulsion of choice? I mean rockets are just so...I don't know. Yesterday...
Rotations great it keeps you grounded. Pun intended.

Ranger29860

11-11-2012, 02:28 AM

Rotations great it keeps you grounded. Pun intended.

Please tell me I read that wrong and you did not just imply gravity is caused by rotation?

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 03:14 AM

Please tell me I read that wrong and you did not just imply gravity is caused by rotation?Yes, that is not what I meant. Rotation implies centrifugal force, which means it would tend to fling you out. Newtons first law of motion: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Gravity as I understood it is the warping of time and space. visually demonstrated by by a bowling ball on a trampoline with a smaller ball set in motion around the bowling ball. Not sure where gravitons come in. I simply meant its ok to have no interest in space travel and he is in a state of travel while being grownded, but now that I look at my post it really isn't a pun. oh well insomnia makes for bad posts.

Ranger29860

11-11-2012, 03:21 AM

Yes, that is not what I meant. Rotation implies centrifugal force, which means it would tend to fling you out. Newtons first law of motion: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Gravity as I understood it is the warping of time and space. visually demonstrated by by a bowling ball on a trampoline with a smaller ball set in motion around the bowling ball. Not sure where gravitons come in. I simply meant its ok to have no interest in space travel and he is in a state of travel while being grownded, but now that I look at my post it really isn't a pun. oh well insomnia makes for bad posts.

lol ok I see where you were going in proper context :). Its just weird that one of the main things people seem to believe is that rotation causes gravity. I can't even count the amount of times someone has claimed that in my family or one of my friends. Its actually a lot easier than newtons first law. Newtons law of universal gravity states that gravity is proportional to the product of two masses divided by the distance between them. So rotation has nothing to do with it. Sadly most people memorize the equations that explain the universe we live in , then forget it seconds after they are done with their test :(.

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 04:07 AM

lol ok I see where you were going in proper context :). Its just weird that one of the main things people seem to believe is that rotation causes gravity. I can't even count the amount of times someone has claimed that in my family or one of my friends. Its actually a lot easier than newtons first law. Newtons law of universal gravity states that gravity is proportional to the product of two masses divided by the distance between them. So rotation has nothing to do with it. Sadly most people memorize the equations that explain the universe we live in , then forget it seconds after they are done with their test :(.
I got one for you. Years ago i was driving to work early and the Northern Lights were exceptionally vivid. At work I was talking to this guy about them and he asked me if I knew what caused them. Before I could answer he told me that it was light from the sun reflecting off the polar ice cap and that his mom taught him that. I just walked away, I felt embarressed for him. Thinking about it now makes me think of The Water Boy. It happened before that movie came out.

Chester Copperpot

11-11-2012, 04:33 AM

If patents didn't exist, we would be lightyears ahead technologically than we are right now.

Could you explain that to me Shane. Ive seen people talk about this, but I figured it was a way to compensate an inventor for the time he spent developing the idea in the first place???

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 06:34 AM

We should remember though that science itself belongs to everyone.

I don't know what that means. Science is the study of the physical world. It's not property; it doesn't belong to anyone, much less everyone.

Except the fact, that whenever you sell something you by nature, disclose it. So, sure, you can keep it 'secret' to yourself, by never commercializing it, but then again, what's the point in that?

When you sell something, you only disclose part of it. A buyer can see the object, and may be able to infer certain things about it, but the exact way things are made can't be determined for many things just by looking at them. Would you know how to build a semiconductor fab plant just by looking at an iPhone? Trade secrets cover that kind of thing. Patents can cover both the visible and the invisible.

We can look to countries that didn't have patents, or copyrights, and see as Jefferson saw, that inventions, commerce, and progress were even more abreast than England who was the sole country to provide for monopolies (re: patent and copyrights).

We can? You mean the same countries that swipe intellectual property from the countries with patents? The ones whose very existence today depends heavily on technology that was originally created and patented in the West?

As we know, monopolies are not conducive to innovation, progress, or advancement.

Owning an invention is not the same thing as a monopoly. If I have a monopoly, it means you are either forbidden to compete with me by law, or you have no reasonable hope of ever doing so, even with significant funds. If I have a patent, it means I own a particular invention -- say an iPhone. You are free to compete by creating other types of phones, or other types of non-phone communication devices. You just can't use my exact idea. That's property and ownership, not monopoly.

roho76

11-11-2012, 07:22 AM

Interesting, yes. But also flawed and incomplete.

For one thing, patents don't protect any "idea." Not only does the idea have to be original, it also must have a concrete implementation--which is why patents constantly use the word "invention" and not just "idea."

In addition, inventions are about more than just knowledge. One important, key aspect that the quote from Jefferson seems to neglect, is the fact that inventions require work. They don't pop into one's head without effort. They require not just creativity, but time, effort and money (sometimes lots and lots of it). So if I invent something that has commercial value, and then just give it away, am I diminished? Absolutely, yes I am. I may or may not be willing to accept that, and I might get other things in return that I value more, but it should be my choice (there's that pesky free market again).

Another thing about patents that the anti-IP folks don't seem to grasp: one of the benefits and original goals of patents was precisely to foster the concept of sharing of ideas. Without patents, many inventions would be held as trade secrets, and their details would never see the light of day. Patents require full disclosure of an invention, in enough detail to be able to recreate it. Those who want to abolish patents should consider the consequences of that double-edged sword. No patents also means no disclosure--which was precisely the point of the SpaceX guys in the OP, BTW. They don't want patents, because they don't want to disclose.

It's called reverse engineering. China has been doing it for years. China built a car a few years back that was identicle to a GM model. Patents only serve to monopolize profits from an idea for a set amount of time, not help share ideas. Also patents and intellectual property rights are not the same thing. IP restricts people from selling their products as your products. Patents protect designs of the product. I can see a case for limited IP (not the bastardized tool used to bust people for sharing music files) but to protect companies from fraudulent products being sold as if they were someone else's. basically you can start a company named "Crapple" and design a uPhone that looks, feels, and acts just like the iPhone but you can't pass yourself off as Apple. Patents are useless government tools and I can't believe some here are advocating them as good ideas.

green73

11-11-2012, 08:49 AM

If patents didn't exist, we would be lightyears ahead technologically than we are right now.

This.

I was really let down by this article.

S.Shorland

11-11-2012, 08:54 AM

What about 'intellectual passports',the description of the invention in the form of a 'book' that then uses copyright law to protect the idea.

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 10:15 AM

I wonder what Mises or Rothbard say about patents. So far I found this.

Several stories recently in the news call for a fresh look at patent law. For the last few months there has, quite rightly, been great consternation throughout the software world over Amazon.com's "one-click" patent, whereby the company has patented the idea of purchasing items with a single mouse click. James Gleick, writing in the NY Times Sunday Magazine of March 12, said: "When 21st-century historians look back at the breakdown of the United States patent system, they will see a turning point in the case of Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com and their special invention: 'The patented One Clickr feature,' Bezos calls it."

More horrifically, British Telecom announced a couple of weeks ago that they have a patent on hyperlinks, and that they mean to begin enforcing it. Apparently, in 1989, someone at BT succeeded in registering this patent, despite several decades of "prior art." After doing nothing with it for over a decade, BT suddenly woke up to the fact that they had the opportunity to collect tolls on the Information Superhighway.

Adding to the list of current worries, the completion of the mapping of the human genome last month raises the specter of the patenting of genetic information.

As Gleick says, "In ways that could not have been predicted even a few years ago, the patent system is in crisis." Innovation in high technology fields is overwhelming the capabilities of patent examiners, who cannot be expected to judge these issues well. It is impossible for a trained engineer working full-time in a specialized section of the computer field, say, database technology, to keep up with more than a small percentage of the advances in the area.

However, this is not really a new problem, but, rather, the worsening of an old one. Gleick quotes the commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Q. Todd Dickinson, as claiming: "The patent system has done its job for two centuries of protecting and nurturing and rewarding innovation. The system has worked."

But what is the evidence that patent law ever "worked"? Certainly, the U.S. has had a great history of invention. Some of these inventions might not have existed if patents did not exist. On the other hand, we may have had other inventions that would have existed except for patent law. The late economist Murray Rothbard says, in Man, Economy and State:

It is by no means self-evident that patents encourage an increased absolute quantity of research expenditures. But certainly patents distort the type of research expenditure being conducted. For while it is true that the first discoverer benefits from the privilege, it is also true that competitors are excluded from production in the area of the patent for many years... Moreover, the patentee is himself discouraged from engaging in further research in this field, for the privilege permits him to rest on his laurels....

And, as intellectual property lawyer Stephan Kinsella points out, "...maybe more money for R&D would be available if it were not being spent on patents and lawsuits."

The idea that patent law "used to work" relies heavily on the indefensible notion that someone could objectively determine whether "too little" invention is occurring. Gleick says, "[Patent law] fueled industrial progress in the early United States..." But how does he know? Did he examine the history of an alternate-universe United States and observe that it had less industrial progress? All we can say for certain is that the early United States had both patent law and rapid industrial progress. Perhaps it had rapid industrial progress despite patent law. Or perhaps it was powdery wigs that led to America's prosperity. We can gain an understanding of whether patent law "worked" only with the aid of a coherent theory of property rights and their effect on economic progress.

If we examine these foundations, we find that patents are not grounded in common law notions of property rights, but, instead, are a government intervention that strips the property rights of those who, through independent invention, arrive at the same device as a patent holder. To again quote Rothbard, "Patents prevent a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor."

Most of the positive aspects of patents can be gained through trade secrets and licensing agreements, while avoiding many of these negative ones. The conclusion of Gleick's article is well reasoned and persuasive--except that what he views as an argument for "reforming" the patent system is actually an argument for eliminating it:

One thing is certain: the modern Internet entrepreneur is not a species in need of extra government incentives. If one-click ordering had not been patentable, surely Jeff Bezos would have invented it anyway in May 1997, put it to work in September 1998 and seen it copied in subsequent years by Barnes & Noble and thousands of other Internet merchants, all learning from his success, to the benefit of consumers.

Surely he would have become a very rich man; and his future success would depend on his ability to continue outperforming his competitors, and to continue innovating.

* * * * *

Gene Callahan is a programmer and writer.
http://mises.org/daily/468

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 10:52 AM

“If the government objects to monopoly prices for new inventions, it should stop granting patents.”
–Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
However.

Bettina Bien Greaves Mises on Copyrights

The widespread reproduction and “sharing” of copyrighted music on the Internet led a friend to ask me what Ludwig von Mises would have thought about the situation. The more I pondered the question, the more I concluded that Mises would have considered this just another case where copyright law must play catch-up with new technology.

Many people believe they should be allowed to reproduce and “share” copyrighted material free of charge, some because they don’t want to pay for the privilege and others because they believe it is wrong to grant monopolies to authors, composers, musicians, or anyone at all for that matter. But there is more to the problem than monopoly.

Mises once said, more or less facetiously, that while he had known book authors who opposed patents because of the monopoly privilege they give inventors, he had never known a book author who opposed copyrights because of the monopoly privilege copyrights give authors. Mises may have had Murray Rothbard in mind, for in Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Rothbard defended copyrights and criticized patents. Rothbard said it was possible for an inventor independently to come up with precisely the same invention that someone else had developed earlier and had already patented. In that case, the earlier inventor would receive patent protection and the other would be out of luck. Rothbard considered that unfair.

However, Rothbard said it was inconceivable that a second author would ever succeed in arranging words in the same order as they had appeared in a previously published book without having knowledge of the earlier book. Being a unique production, a book is entitled to copyright protection.

Mises, of course, didn’t talk about monopoly itself as being “good” or “bad.” Monopolies could exist on a free market in the rare case when the owner of a factor of production controlled the total supply of that factor. And in the even rarer case that the demand for a monopolist’s product was such that buyers were willing to pay an above-market price for it, he might be in a position to reap a greater financial gain by restricting production and selling fewer units at a higher price per unit. Mises considered this perhaps the only instance in which producers could violate consumer sovereignty with impunity.

The case of government-created and/or government-protected monopolies was another matter. He didn’t discuss them from the point of view of their “morality” or “immorality,” however. He simply talked about their economic aspects, saying that government-granted monopoly privileges change the situation by introducing coercion into the picture. Such privileges make consumers pay higher prices for the monopolized good or service and force them to restrict their consumption of other things. Government grants of patent and copyright protection are examples.

However, it appears from what Mises wrote in Human Action that he wasn’t opposed to copyrights and patents as such. A patent or copyright is defined as an agreement on the part of the government to protect the property rights of an inventor or author to his creation for a certain period of time. The inventor or author pays a price for this protection: he agrees to turn his creation over to the public, at no cost, when the protection expires.

Now if the government is to protect property, it must define that property.

Technological development is nothing new, and when it affects the character of a form of property, it inevitably requires the refining and redefining of the rights of individuals to their private property. The copyright laws have had to be revised and adapted whenever new methods of production and reproduction were developed. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that according to Roman law, when a person wrote words on a parchment, the composition belonged to the owner of the blank materials. This definition of ownership must have arisen when monks copied manuscripts laboriously by hand, letter by letter, on valuable parchment sheets furnished by their monastery.

The Development of Printing

When printing came along and books could be copied more cheaply, the question of property rights became more urgent. However, William Blackstone (1723–1780), the authority on British law, said the rights of an author “being grounded on labor and invention” were “too subtle and unsubstantial a nature to become the subject of property and the common law, and only capable of being guarded by positive statutes and special provisions of the magistrate.”1 Copyright was looked on as “a doubtful exception to the general law regulating trade,” which at that time was generally opposed to monopoly.

Again according to the Britannica, British law began to protect intellectual property with copyrights in 1709 as “in the nature of personal property. . . . A man’s own work, in this view, is as much his as his house or his money, and should be protected by the state.”2 This, of course, puts the onus on the government to define what personal property is copyrightable.

James Madison, fourth president of the United States, had been a participant in the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia. The U.S. Constitution that he helped to write gave Congress the power to secure “for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Several years later, Madison, when listing the various forms of property the government was “instituted to protect,” included a person’s intellectual property, his “opinions and the free communication of them . . . [their] enjoyment and communication.”3

By the nineteenth century, the idea that published books would be copyrighted was widely accepted. Washington Irving, after whom Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, was named, was one of the first American authors to earn a living from royalties received from his books, although not a handsome living—he was usually close to broke. Charles Dickens was another prolific author who relied on the royalties his books earned under British law. His attitude toward America turned somewhat negative when pirated versions of his books were published in the United States.

It may be impossible to describe all the changes that have been made in copyright law over the years in response to the different ways copyrighted material might be disseminated. Adjustments have been made from time to time. For instance, arrangements were worked out over several decades to compensate musicians whose works were played on mass-produced recordings, in movies, and on radio and TV broadcasts. And as photocopy machines proliferated, it was determined that copying excerpts from copyrighted works for reference, research and study fell within the law’s “fair use” principle.

The government’s protection of an author’s or an inventor’s creation makes it possible for the creator to ask a monopoly price. Although monopoly prices generally benefit sellers, harm buyers, and infringe the supremacy of the consumers’ interests, Mises saw copyrights and patents as an exception to this rule. He wrote in Human Action—and here I quote with some interpolation in brackets:

If on a competitive market one of the complementary factors, namely f [a recipe or invention], needed for the production of the consumers’ good g, does not attain any price at all, although the production of f requires various expenditures and consumers are ready to pay for the consumers’ good g a price which makes its production profitable on a competitive market, the monopoly price for f becomes a necessary requirement for the production of g. It is this idea that people advance in favor of patent and copyright legislation. If inventors and authors were not in a position to make money by inventing and writing, they would be prevented from devoting their time to these activities and from defraying the costs involved. The public would not derive any advantage from the absence of monopoly prices for f. It would, on the contrary, miss the satisfaction it could derive from the acquisition of g.4

External Economies

Later in the book Mises discussed patents and copyrights further, pointing out their “external economies,” that is, the benefits they furnish to persons other than those who produced the protected material.

The extreme case is shown in the “production” of the intellectual groundwork of every kind of processing and constructing. The characteristic mark of formulas, i.e., the mental devices directing the technological procedures, is the inexhaustibility of the services they render. These services are consequently not scarce, and there is no need to economize their employment. Those considerations that resulted in the establishment of the institution of private ownership of economic goods did not refer to them. They remained outside the sphere of private property not because they are immaterial, intangible, and impalpable, but because their serviceableness cannot be exhausted.

People began to realize only later that this state of affairs has its drawbacks too. It places the producers of such formulas—especially the inventors of technological procedures and authors and composers—in a peculiar position. They are burdened with the cost of production, while the services of the product they have created can be gratuitously enjoyed by everybody. What they produce is for them entirely or almost entirely external economies.

If there are neither copyrights nor patents, the inventors and authors are in the position of an entrepreneur. They have a temporary advantage as against other people. As they start sooner in utilizing their invention or their manuscript themselves or in making it available for use to other people (manufacturers or publishers), they have the chance to earn profits in the time interval until everybody can likewise utilize it. As soon as the invention or the content of the book are publicly known, they become “free goods” and the inventor or author has only his glory.5

Mises went on to say that this problem has nothing to do with the genius who creates out of the sheer urge to do so; he does not wait for encouragement. But:

It is different with the broad class of professional intellectuals whose services society cannot do without. . . . [I]t is obvious that handing down knowledge to the rising generation and familiarizing the acting individuals with the amount of knowledge they need for the realization of their plans require textbooks, manuals, handbooks, and other nonfiction works. It is unlikely that people would undertake the laborious task of writing such publications if everyone were free to reproduce them. This is still more manifest in the field of technological invention and discovery. The extensive experimentation necessary for such achievements is often very expensive. It is very probable that technological progress would be seriously retarded if, for the inventor and for those who defray the expenses incurred by his experimentation, the results obtained were nothing but external economies.6

Controversy Continues

Mises understood that patents and copyrights are controversial. “They are considered privileges, a vestige of the rudimentary period of their evolution when legal protection was accorded to authors and inventors only by virtue of an exceptional privilege granted by the authorities. They are suspect, as they are lucrative only if they make it possible to sell at monopoly prices. Moreover, the fairness of patent laws is contested on the ground that they reward only those who put the finishing touch leading to practical utilization of achievements of many predecessors. These precursors go empty-handed although their contribution to the final result was often much more weighty than that of the patentee. . . . [T]his is a problem of the delimitation of property rights. . . .”7

It should be noted that merely because copyright grants a monopoly privilege to the producer of intellectual property, there is no guarantee that buyers will pay a monopoly price should the producer choose to ask it. Many books, poems, and musical compositions don’t sell well, or may not sell at all, and their authors and publishers may suffer losses. As Mises wrote, “Under copyright law every rhymester enjoys a monopoly in the sale of his poetry. But…[it] may happen that . . . his stuff . . . can only be sold at their waste paper value.”8

Also, the producers of some copyrighted intellectual property, eager to spread their ideas, readily grant reprint permission for free. For instance, this is true of most articles in The Freeman.

With the new technological developments that now make it so easy to reproduce and “share” musical compositions, we are entering a whole new ball game. Without copyright protection, musicians, authors, and composers are in the position of having to bear all the costs of production while the benefits go to others. Thus the new technology calls for further refinement of the rights of private property owners.

Contributing editor Bettina Bien Greaves was a long-time FEE staff member, resident scholar, and trustee. She attended Ludwig von Mises’s New York University seminar for many years and is a translator, editor, and bibliographer of his works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1.Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1910, vol. 7, p. 118.
2.Ibid.
3.James Madison, “Property,” March 27, 1792; http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html.
4.Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996 [1949]), pp. 385–86.
5.Ibid., p. 661.
6.Ibid., pp. 661–62.
7. Ibid., p. 662.
8.Ibid., p. 277.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/mises-on-copyrights/

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 12:07 PM

While Rothbard seems hypocritical in his veiw of copyrights i agree with the dilemma of original inventor or the inventor who developes his/her invention independent of others, to that person it is original. Putting a patent on it does not make it any less his or her idea. It just means they have to pay someone else for the privilege to produce their own invention. IMO patents are less about who invented it first and more about who has the means to get the patent. One argument claims that without patents inventors will keep their invention a secret for fear someone else will produce it. One could also argue that with patent laws an inventor would keep his/her invention a secret for fear that someone else would patent their invention. I my self held that veiw many years ago long before i ever heard of such terms as intellectual property or read any arguments on the subject of patents. I have had many ideas over the years a few i have prototyped and actually used. One prototype I shelved because I didn't think it would sell only to see it produced a decade and a half later, the other i built only to find out something similar was already in production. The false assumption in both fears is that it is assumed that no one else is working on the same idea or ever will. Once I realised that i no longer had the fear of discovery. One things for sure no matter the argument nothing will come of it. If there is one part of The Constitution that will not be ignored it is patents. To many politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats have an interest in seeing it protected.

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 05:15 PM

It's called reverse engineering. China has been doing it for years. China built a car a few years back that was identicle to a GM model.

Yes, reverse engineering.

It's only possible to reverse engineer some aspects of some products. It's not possible everywhere. Hence the concept of Trade Secrets.

One very common tool used by reverse engineers is: patent filings.

Patents only serve to monopolize profits from an idea for a set amount of time, not help share ideas.

Patents don't monopolize, as I explained in an earlier post.

Patents don't cover ideas, as I explained in an earlier post. An invention is not the same thing as an idea.

Patents do help share ideas. What else would you call it when they contain a full description of how to recreate something?

Also patents and intellectual property rights are not the same thing.

Agree. Patents are a form of protection for a form of intellectual property.

IP restricts people from selling their products as your products. Patents protect designs of the product.

IP is property that does not have physical form.

Patents protect inventions that cover a specific way of doing something. Not design.

Patents are useless government tools and I can't believe some here are advocating them as good ideas.

Patents are not tools of government. They are tools for inventors, to protect their inventions. Patents are enforced by government.

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 05:31 PM

While Rothbard seems hypocritical in his veiw of copyrights i agree with the dilemma of original inventor or the inventor who developes his/her invention independent of others, to that person it is original.

Cases where someone develops the same invention as another at close to the same time are rare. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but we shouldn't let rare cases distort the purpose and value of the law.

The law for determining who is "first" varies by country. In the US, it's first to invent. In all other countries, it's first to file. I lean toward the latter as being better, although I understand the arguments for the former, too.

Putting a patent on it does not make it any less his or her idea.

True.

It just means they have to pay someone else for the privilege to produce their own invention.

They can produce it for their own use, and would not have to pay anyone.

Patents only restrict them from selling the product. Imagine the following scenario: you invent a product at the same time as someone else. They spend millions or even billions and develop a market for the product, while you sit around. Once the market is in place, you decide to start selling the product, too. You are benefiting the market that the other company built, without having paid to develop it. That market is one of the things patents help protect.

IMO patents are less about who invented it first and more about who has the means to get the patent.

Patents are cheap. Companies that don't get them either don't understand them or don't think their inventions are worthy of protection.

One argument claims that without patents inventors will keep their invention a secret for fear someone else will produce it. One could also argue that with patent laws an inventor would keep his/her invention a secret for fear that someone else would patent their invention.

Also known as Trade Secrets. Although, in the US, patents go to the first to invent, not first to file, as I mentioned above (although there are rules regarding timing about when the invention was disclosed and to whom).

To many politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats have an interest in seeing it protected.

What about inventors? What about the public that benefits from those inventions? They have an even bigger interest in seeing patent law protected.

Henry Rogue

11-11-2012, 07:51 PM

known Cases where someone develops the same invention as another at close to the same time are rare. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but we shouldn't let assumed rare cases distort the purpose and value of the law. Fixed it for you. I think it is more common than you think. Inventions build off of the science and technology that came before. When the science and technologies of yesterday merge with market forces of today. The fruit is ripe for the picking.http://www.amazon.com/Pinball-Effect-Renaissance-Carburetor-Possible/dp/0316116106 here's an interesting book as it relates to science.

The law for determining who is "first" varies by country. In the US, it's first to invent. In all other countries, it's first to file. I lean toward the latter as being better, although I understand the arguments for the former, too. Why the preference, because that form of protectionism works best with a Keynesian market?

They can produce it for their own use, and would not have to pay anyone.Great. I guess I should have specified sell.

Patents only restrict them from selling the product. Imagine the following scenario: you invent a product at the same time as someone else. They spend millions or even billions and develop a market for the product, while you sit around. Once the market is in place, you decide to start selling the product, too.I thought you implied in an earlier post no patent law results in no inventions because there is no incentive to invent, paraphrased obviously, so i guess this scenario couldn't happen

You are benefiting the market that the other company built, without having paid to develop it. That market is one of the things patents help protect. and would benifit with a patent after it expires. and they benifited from the market and inventions from before. Patents sure are a great way to eliminate competition. Why not have patents for life?

Patents are cheap. Companies that don't get them either don't understand them or don't think their inventions are worthy of protection.
How cheap? How much do the patent disputes cost?

Also known as Trade Secrets. Although, in the US, patents go to the first to invent, not first to file, as I mentioned above (although there are rules regarding timing about when the invention was disclosed and to whom). Nothing wrong with trade secrets. It's not putting a gun to anyones head. Secrets don't stay secret forever especially when someone else can have the same original idea as i stated above.

What about inventors? What about the public that benefits from those inventions? They have an even bigger interest in seeing patent law protected. According to your preferece of first to file screw some inventors and protect others. Looks like classic Broken Window Theory to me. Protectionism benifits some of the public at the expense of others. Great book you can read on line here>http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/ Thanks for the response. After reading Mises I was on the fence, but you convinced me my instincts were right.

heavenlyboy34

11-11-2012, 08:28 PM

Interesting, yes. But also flawed and incomplete.

For one thing, patents don't protect any "idea." Not only does the idea have to be original, it also must have a concrete implementation--which is why patents constantly use the word "invention" and not just "idea."

In addition, inventions are about more than just knowledge. One important, key aspect that the quote from Jefferson seems to neglect, is the fact that inventions require work. They don't pop into one's head without effort. They require not just creativity, but time, effort and money (sometimes lots and lots of it). So if I invent something that has commercial value, and then just give it away, am I diminished? Absolutely, yes I am. I may or may not be willing to accept that, and I might get other things in return that I value more, but it should be my choice (there's that pesky free market again).

Another thing about patents that the anti-IP folks don't seem to grasp: one of the benefits and original goals of patents was precisely to foster the concept of sharing of ideas. Without patents, many inventions would be held as trade secrets, and their details would never see the light of day. Patents require full disclosure of an invention, in enough detail to be able to recreate it. Those who want to abolish patents should consider the consequences of that double-edged sword. No patents also means no disclosure--which was precisely the point of the SpaceX guys in the OP, BTW. They don't want patents, because they don't want to disclose.
Copyright and trademark cover that. Patents weren't designed to foster the sharing of ideas. They were and are a state-granted privilege.
As Thomas Jefferson—himself an inventor, as well as the first Patent Examiner in the U.S.—wrote, “He who receives an idea from me,
receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” Since use of another’s idea does not deprive him of its use, no conflict over its use is possible; ideas, therefore, are not candidates for property rights. Even Rand acknowledged that “intellectual property cannot be consumed.” pg 62-63, "Against Intellectual Property", Kinsella.

The Free Hornet

11-11-2012, 08:31 PM

If patents didn't exist, it would be much more difficult to raise money to research and create new things.

Circular BS. This isn't about "creating" but getting state-protected monopolies. No doubt, without state-protected monopolies it would be a lot harder to raise money to acquire state-protected monopolies.

I won't weep for any losses the jack-boot manufacturers suffer either.

Patents protect not just the idea, but the market that the stems from the idea--which is part of what provides entrepreneurs with an incentive to risk their resources in coming up with new things.

Theory used to suggest patents are to protect inventions, not ideas (http://www.tenonline.org/art/9010.html). Corporatists and their apologists have turned the tables on this which is why a smart phone is covered by 250,000 patents (http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/10480520734/there-are-250000-active-patents-that-impact-smartphones-representing-one-six-active-patents-today.shtml). Likely, most of those are bogus idea patents. When Amazon patented one-click shopping, they sought to protect an idea as the technical details of implementation are trivial. This is the case with most software patents. The technical invention - e.g. source code - is not present because they seek to protect an idea.

As to what incentive entrepreneurs have to risk their capital, that incentive is profit as it has always been. The lie you promote is that they are willing "to risk" anything. Risk is being offloaded to the taxpayer. Thanks.

If patents didn't exist, much more information would be held as Trade Secrets, stifling idea sharing and innovation. Where an idea couldn't be protected by Trade Secret, the incentives to invest in bringing it to market would be much lower.

The information is held in trade secrets regardless!!! Why do you still write of protecting ideas? Your side is supposed to defend jack-booted thugery in the defense of inventions, not ideas. The information in patents is of interest to lawyers, not inventors or manufacturers. Do you think the details of drug manufacturing or the source code of Windows is revealed in patents? If you're working, chances are your employer may discourage you from learning anything from patents as that could mean willful patent infringement. The information - however little - is poison fruit.

No, if patents didn't exist, we would be much further behind technologically than we are today.

Bullshit: (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/business/patents-an-economist-strolls-through-history-and-turns-patent-theory-upside-down.html)

''In economics, we are taught that patent laws are what create incentives for innovation,'' she said. ''But many of the best innovators in what was the high technology of the day came from some of the smallest countries in Europe, and these nations did not have patent laws.'' (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/business/patents-an-economist-strolls-through-history-and-turns-patent-theory-upside-down.html)

I'm not saying there isn't abuse, but on the whole, patents are a good thing.

No. They are rentseekers extracting income with force. Guess what? The US isn't the leader in patent filing. This little game, useful for keeping the little guy down, is taking the whole country with it. China it the top patent filer (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-china-patents-idUSTRE7BK0LQ20111221) - how much money do you want - taken by force - to protect their patents?

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 09:14 PM

Fixed it for you. I think it is more common than you think. Inventions build off of the science and technology that came before. When the science and technologies of yesterday merge with market forces of today.

Real inventions take time, money and effort--and often lots of it. An idea isn't patentable. Just thinking something would be cool isn't patentable. Patents require ideas that you have translated into something concrete. That's why true inventions don't often happen at the same time.

Why the preference, because that form of protectionism works best with a Keynesian market?

I prefer first to file because it removes uncertainties that can otherwise linger. In the US, patents can be overturned (successfully challenged) in the event of "prior art." Uncertainty isn't good for producers or consumers.

I thought you wrote in an earlier post no patent law results in no inventions because there is no incentive to invent, paraphrased obviously, so i guess this scenario couldn't happen

I didn't say no patents would result in no inventions. I said no patents would result in a reduced incentive to invent, and an increased incentive to use Trade Secrets instead.

If I have an idea for a product that would take years of my life and millions of dollars to bring to market, but the product could be easily copied once others saw it, why would I take that risk, unless I could be confident that my invention and the market I create as a result of it would be mine for at least a while after I created them?

Because there's an implicit deal between patent holders and the public: government will help you enforce ownership of your invention and the associated market for it for a limited time, provided that you fully disclose to us exactly how to duplicate it.

The time granted is enough for a company to get established with their invention. If they fail, then after the patent expires, others can pick up where they left off.

[quote]How cheap? How much do the patent disputes cost?

There are books available that describe how you can file a US patent yourself for a few hundred dollars. The cost of a dispute only matters if one arises. There are a variety of fee-sharing/fee-reducing approaches available.

Secrets don't stay secret forever especially when someone else can have the same original idea as i stated above.

Again, we're not talking about ideas. Inventions.

Trade Secrets can be kept secret for much, much longer than a patent.

According to your preferece of first to file screw some inventors and protect others. Looks like classic Broken Window Theory to me. Protectionism benifits some of the public at the expense of others.

My preference is to protect the first real inventor, so that they have some incentive to both invent and to create a market for their invention. No one is getting screwed except those who want to leech off of the productive work of others.

The Broken Window theory shows how destroying property does not make anyone richer. Nothing is being destroyed here.

This "protectionism" benefits both the inventor and the public. It means more inventions and therefore more competition, not less. It means more sharing and disclosure of principles and procedures, not less.

BTW, you can't patent an entire industry, just a particular way of making a particular thing.

It sounds like you're basically advocating that we should all become China. Just wait for others to invent things, then steal and copy them, and to hell with the original inventors. "Invention is easy," I hear you saying. Sorry, no. Patents are a natural extension of property rights, which are, in turn, the cornerstone of Capitalism. In other words, if you work to build something, you should own it, with all that ownership implies.

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 09:37 PM

Patents weren't designed to foster the sharing of ideas.

Of course they were. They require full disclosure of how to duplicate an invention. There are people who make a living mining old patents for good ideas that could be re-applied today.

They were and are a state-granted privilege.

Patents are a formal agreement that the government will help an inventor enforce their property rights for a limited time, in exchange for full disclosure about how the invention works.

As Thomas Jefferson—himself an inventor

I don't agree with Jefferson's comments. I covered this earlier in the thread: first, patents are not about ideas, they are about inventions. Second, if I invest time, money and energy inventing something and establishing a market for it, and then you begin taking advantage of that without my consent, then I have definitely been diminished ("darkened" as Jefferson said).

Since use of another’s idea does not deprive him of its use, no conflict over its use is possible; ideas, therefore, are not candidates for property rights.

Again, we're not talking about ideas. Inventions.

Even Rand acknowledged that “intellectual property cannot be consumed.” pg 62-63, "Against Intellectual Property", Kinsella.

Perhaps IP can't be consumed, but inventions and markets can be.

Again: it takes time, money and effort to invent something. In a Capitalist society, why shouldn't the results of those efforts be protected?

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 10:18 PM

Circular BS. This isn't about "creating" but getting state-protected monopolies. No doubt, without state-protected monopolies it would be a lot harder to raise money to acquire state-protected monopolies.

Now who's being circular?

You can't just raise money and get a state-protected monopoly. There's a big step in the middle there: you know, actually inventing something.

I won't weep for any losses the jack-boot manufacturers suffer either.

"Jack-boot manufacturers"? WTF? You mean like the ones in China that reverse engineer products from published patents without paying the inventors?

Theory used to suggest patents are to protect inventions, not ideas.

Well, if you've ever actually filed a patent application, it's pretty obvious that's how they work.

When Amazon patented one-click shopping, they sought to protect an idea as the technical details of implementation are trivial.

I don't support the idea of being able to patent something obvious. The one-click shopping patent was a step too far, IMO.

This is the case with most software patents. The technical invention - e.g. source code - is not present because they seek to protect an idea.

Not an idea, but an implementation of it. Even if the software isn't present in a patent, it still must contain enough detail to recreate the invention. (I'm the primary inventor on five software-related patents, so I've been through this).

As to what incentive entrepreneurs have to risk their capital, that incentive is profit as it has always been. The lie you promote is that they are willing "to risk" anything. Risk is being offloaded to the taxpayer. Thanks.

I've been in the room when new companies were being formed, and where one of the big questions asked was whether it was possible to establish barriers to entry for competition, usually in the form of patents. If not, then the company wouldn't be created, because it would be too easy for competitors to pop up once the market had been created. Without patents, the company and the entire line of business would simply never exist, nor would their eventual would-be competitors. Fact.

What "risk" is being offloaded to the taxpayer? That the inventor won't actually use his invention? That someone else might invent the same thing who would perform? Those risks are minor; the benefits are much, much larger.

The information is held in trade secrets regardless!!!

There's a mix today, of course. But if something is disclosed in a patent, it can't also be protected by Trade Secret laws. And if a Trade Secret is ever disclosed, then it's no longer a secret, and loses protection under the law forever.

Why do you still write of protecting ideas? Your side is supposed to defend jack-booted thugery in the defense of inventions, not ideas.

Inventions are what patents are about, not ideas.

The information in patents is of interest to lawyers, not inventors or manufacturers. Do you think the details of drug manufacturing or the source code of Windows is revealed in patents?

The details vary hugely by industry and indeed by applicant. Patents are supposed to contain enough information to recreate the invention. Sometimes companies only patent a small but key part of an overall process, and hold the rest as Trade Secret. Sometimes they patent and disclose the whole thing.

If you're working, chances are your employer may discourage you from learning anything from patents as that could mean willful patent infringement. The information - however little - is poison fruit.

That only involves current, non-expired patents. Old, expired patents are fair game.

Bullshit:
''In economics, we are taught that patent laws are what create incentives for innovation,'' she said. ''But many of the best innovators in what was the high technology of the day came from some of the smallest countries in Europe, and these nations did not have patent laws.''

And what happened afterwards, after patent laws were created? An increase or a decrease in innovation?

No. They are rentseekers extracting income with force.

Force? No one is being forced to do anything except not infringe; to not violate property rights. People are still free to choose which products they like and which they don't, and what they're willing to pay. Competitors are still free to create alternative inventions that work in different ways.

This little game, useful for keeping the little guy down, is taking the whole country with it.

Patents are one of the few mechanisms that allow the little guy to compete with the big guy. If you come up with some super-cool invention and get it patented, you can easily use the patent to either prevent the bigger companies from using your invention or to require that they pay royalties. Microsoft alone has paid out hundreds of millions in patent fees to very small outfits on this basis.

Without patents, what recourse would the small guy ever have? He invents something, the big guy copies it, and he's screwed.

China it the top patent filer - how much money do you want - taken by force - to protect their patents?

Government should provide the vehicle for patent enforcement, not the money. That should come from user fees, not be taken by force.

heavenlyboy34

11-11-2012, 10:19 PM

Perhaps IP can't be consumed, but inventions and markets can be.
Yes, but irrelevant.

Again: it takes time, money and effort to invent something. In a Capitalist society, why shouldn't the results of those efforts be protected?
IP isn't capitalist and never has been. If you want to "protect" something in a laissez-faire manner, you would have to keep it locked away and only allow people to use it under conditions you can actually control. That's perfectly legitimate. But you won't make any money that way. As was pointed out earlier, the act of patenting something makes it public (on file in the patent office). Anyone who's interested in your IP can go down to the patent office and learn how to copy it.

heavenlyboy34

11-11-2012, 10:22 PM

I don't support the idea of being able to patent something obvious. The one-click shopping patent was a step too far, IMO.
Why is that too far? It's taking patent to its logical conclusion. Taking out a patent a rent-seeking behavior by nature.

How do you determine what is and isn't "too far" without being completely arbitrary?

Confederate

11-11-2012, 10:28 PM

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 10:49 PM

IP isn't capitalist and never has been.

Patents are a particular corner of IP law that represents ownership over an invention and the associated market. The concept is derived from property rights: if you work to build something, you own it. Simple.

There are many other kinds of IP, some of which I have concerns about, but which isn't what we're debating in this thread.

If you want to "protect" something in a laissez-faire manner, you would have to keep it locked away and only allow people to use it under conditions you can actually control. That's perfectly legitimate. But you won't make any money that way.

Sure you can. It's done all the time: Trade Secrets. The problem is, though, that Trade Secrets only work for certain types of inventions.

Are you saying that whenever an invention includes something that can be reverse engineered by inspection, that it should not be possible to own it?

As was pointed out earlier, the act of patenting something makes it public (on file in the patent office). Anyone who's interested in your IP can go down to the patent office and learn how to copy it.

Which gets back to how patents encourage sharing, and why SpaceX has decided not to use them.

heavenlyboy34

11-11-2012, 11:08 PM

Patents are a particular corner of IP law that represents ownership over an invention and the associated market. The concept is derived from property rights: if you work to build something, you own it. Simple.
Incorrect. The concept orginated in State privilege to buy the loyalty of "creators".
"The monopolies now understood as copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree, bestowed as a form of favoritism and control. As the power of the monarchy dwindled, these chartered monopolies were reformed, and essentially by default, they wound up in the hands of authors and inventors." (Eric E. Johnson, quoted in "How To Slow Economic Progress (https://mises.org/daily/5325/How-to-Slow-Economic-Progress)" by Kinsella)

Are you saying that whenever an invention includes something that can be reverse engineered by inspection, that it should not be possible to own it?
I'm saying that a reasonable man would understand that when he sells or otherwise relinqueshes himself of property, he loses any say over what happens to it. To claim otherwise is to claim that the buyer doesn't truly own his property. It's a logical contradiction (if you believe in property).

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 11:09 PM

Why is that too far?

Because patenting something obvious should not be possible.

Taking out a patent a rent-seeking behavior by nature.

Sure, "rent" on something you created--but only if others choose to buy.

Rent-seeking is bad? Lots of rent-seeking in Capitalism.

How do you determine what is and isn't "too far" without being completely arbitrary?

If it's obvious, then it should be denied. I believe this is already part of patent law, though perhaps not as well-enforced at it should be for high-tech stuff.

How do you know what's obvious? Seems to me the answer is obvious.

AceNZ

11-11-2012, 11:17 PM

I'm saying that a reasonable man would understand that when he sells or otherwise relinqueshes himself of property, he loses any say over what happens to it. To claim otherwise is to claim that the buyer doesn't truly own his property. It's a logical contradiction (if you believe in property).

I agree with this on the surface.

However, is the right to duplicate and then sell property part of the physical property? Or is it separate? If they're normally together, can they be separated by mutual buyer/seller consent?

Do some people actually not believe in property? I guess so. Hard to imagine for me, though; property is such an important cornerstone of life.

heavenlyboy34

11-11-2012, 11:26 PM

Because patenting something obvious should not be possible.
Why not? How do you define "obvious"? Once you establish the idea of patent, there's not much limit to what can be patented. Same with copyright. Did you know that the Happy Birthday song is copyrighted? It is! There is a whole industry based on patent trolling because the whole idea is so corrupt. Like this example (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57548040-37/apple-loses-bid-to-nix-patent-trolls-screen-rotation-suit/).

Sure, "rent" on something you created--but only if others choose to buy.

Rent-seeking is bad? Lots of rent-seeking in Capitalism.
No, rent-seeking is not capitalist. It's fascist. I mean "rent-seeking" in the economic sense. Per wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking): In economics, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Economic_rent) by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Value_added). One example is spending money on political lobbying in order to be given a share of wealth that has already been created. A famous example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Guild) or modern state certifications andlicensures (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Licensure). People accused of rent seeking typically argue that they are indeed creating new wealth (or preventing the reduction of old wealth) by improving quality controls, guaranteeing that charlatans do not prey on a gullible public, and preventing bubbles (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Economic_bubble).

If it's obvious, then it should be denied. I believe this is already part of patent law, though perhaps not as well-enforced at it should be for high-tech stuff.

How do you know what's obvious? Seems to me the answer is obvious.
It may be obvious to you and I, but the law doesn't necessarily "care" about that. Even when the "reasonable man" standard is applied, foolish decisions come about in law courts. Hence the need for very specific definitions.

Tpoints

11-11-2012, 11:40 PM

Why not? How do you define "obvious"? Once you establish the idea of patent, there's not much limit to what can be patented. Same with copyright.

Not quite. People may disagree over what is or isn't obvious, but that doesn't mean there isn't any definition.

The same is true when we are talking about "confusingly similar" or "substantial certainty".

There are actually lots of limits of what can be patented. And patents themselves have limits to how they can be enforced.

And no, the very fact there are "trolls" for a legal loophole is PROOF that the idea is not itself corrupt, just abused by TROLLS. By your logic, the internet and rational discussion must be corrupt, fruitless and abolished because there are TROLLS who will mess up the order for the rest.

Tpoints

11-11-2012, 11:50 PM

Incorrect. The concept orginated in State privilege to buy the loyalty of "creators".
"The monopolies now understood as copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree, bestowed as a form of favoritism and control. As the power of the monarchy dwindled, these chartered monopolies were reformed, and essentially by default, they wound up in the hands of authors and inventors." (Eric E. Johnson, quoted in "How To Slow Economic Progress (https://mises.org/daily/5325/How-to-Slow-Economic-Progress)" by Kinsella)

I'm saying that a reasonable man would understand that when he sells or otherwise relinqueshes himself of property, he loses any say over what happens to it. To claim otherwise is to claim that the buyer doesn't truly own his property. It's a logical contradiction (if you believe in property).

Correct, it would be. But you are assuming paying for something automatically means "owning it". Not so, licensing and renting for use does not constitute buying and owning. So even if you may colloquially refer to the act as "buying", or ignorantly, mistakenly think you bought something, it does not mean the seller or provider gave up all his rights and say until he does.

heavenlyboy34

11-11-2012, 11:55 PM

Not quite. People may disagree over what is or isn't obvious, but that doesn't mean there isn't any definition.

The same is true when we are talking about "confusingly similar" or "substantial certainty".
You're thinking like a layman, not a lawyer. The reason giant legal dictionaries exist is partly because of vagueries like "obvious".

There are actually lots of limits of what can be patented. And patents themselves have limits to how they can be enforced.True, but I already said there's not much limit. Aside from those few limits, it's a huge field.

And no, the very fact there are "trolls" for a legal loophole is PROOF that the idea is not itself corrupt, just abused by TROLLS. By your logic, the internet and rational discussion must be corrupt, fruitless and abolished because there are TROLLS who will mess up the order for the rest.
No, this does not logically follow. Webbernet trolls don't use the force of law against others just because they can profit as IP trolls do.

heavenlyboy34

11-12-2012, 12:00 AM

Correct, it would be. But you are assuming paying for something automatically means "owning it". Not so, licensing and renting for use does not constitute buying and owning. So even if you may colloquially refer to the act as "buying", or ignorantly, mistakenly think you bought something, it does not mean the seller or provider gave up all his rights and say until he does.
And you're assuming the legitimacy of licensing, EULA's and such. That is exactly what has yet to be proved. (it's been asserted in many ways, but not proven) How did renting get into this discussion on your side, btw? Renting agreements are generally quite specific. A rented item is not the renter's property by definition. In a rentee/renter relationship, the renter always gets to set the terms of agreement. That's entirely different that the seller/consumer relationship.

Henry Rogue

11-12-2012, 12:00 AM

It sounds like you're basically advocating that we should all become China. Just wait for others to invent things, then steal and copy them, and to hell with the original inventors.No. My point was and is if two different people invent something without knowledge of each other that is not stealing. I would say it is you who is saying to hell with the original inventor. That it's ok to steal from him/her with your advocation of first to file. You seem pretty blase` in regards to the loser of that race. If person A and person B invent the same thing and person A gets the patent. Person A robs at gun point person B everytime person B sells his own property.

"Invention is easy," I hear you saying. I never said it was easy. I know it is not easy. I've put alot of time, effort and money into it myself, but you don't have to invent the wheel, you don't have to discover fire. Complex even simple inventions take from previous inventions, discoveries and theories. They come together at a point in time and in an environment that makes it likely that more than one person will conceive an idea. The idea is likely, the invention is difficult, production and marketing worse yet. Difficulty alone does not exclude same invention multiple times, but fear of losing the race might.

Tpoints

11-12-2012, 12:01 AM

You're thinking like a layman, not a lawyer. The reason giant legal dictionaries exist is partly because of vagueries like "obvious".

True, but I already said there's not much limit. Aside from those few limits, it's a huge field.

No, this does not logically follow. Webbernet trolls don't use the force of law against others just because they can profit as IP trolls do.

Oh, but that's not the point of the analogy.

IP trolls didn't invent the idea of profitting from courts, they're using the existing system as legitimate users of the system would, in an abusive way. So the only thing wrong about IP trolls is the trolling part. Just like the only thing wrong about web trolls is the trolling part. Trolls do not discredit the system they use, that's why they're called trolls.

Tpoints

11-12-2012, 12:03 AM

And you're assuming the legitimacy of licensing, EULA's and such. That is exactly what has yet to be proved. (it's been asserted in many ways, but not proven) How did renting get into this discussion on your side, btw? Renting agreements are generally quite specific. A rented item is not the renter's property by definition. In a rentee/renter relationship, the renter always gets to set the terms of agreement. That's entirely different that the seller/consumer relationship.

you're denying the legitimacy of voluntary contracts, you lose. Renting agreements are no more specific than EULA, and no less legitimate.

The Free Hornet

11-12-2012, 12:16 AM

I've been in the room when new companies were being formed, and where one of the big questions asked was whether it was possible to establish barriers to entry for competition, usually in the form of patents. If not, then the company wouldn't be created, because it would be too easy for competitors to pop up once the market had been created. Without patents, the company and the entire line of business would simply never exist, nor would their eventual would-be competitors. Fact.

Fact?! Wow, you were in a room filled with corrupt motherfuckers seeking to create unfree markets with state barriers to competition. Wow! Do you think the thin veneer of capitalism doesn't make you stink? No doubt lobbyists schemes ways to get money as do protection rackets and bank robbers. If Monsanto would cease to exist, it wouldn't bother me.

Why is it do you think that farmers just don't grab their rifles and blow their own brains out? Anybody can throw those seeds into the dirt! Of course, you weren't in a room filled with farmers but a room filled with motherfuckers seeking to monopolize stuff like FDA approved medicines or government-licensed communication equipment. They weren't seeking to work or create but to extort.

The Free Hornet

11-12-2012, 12:20 AM

Inventions are what patents are about, not ideas.

That's NOT what you said in post #19 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395327-SpaceX-If-We-Published-Patents-It-Would-Be-Farcical&p=4727285&viewfull=1#post4727285),

Patents protect not just the idea, but the market that the stems from the idea--which is part of what provides entrepreneurs with an incentive to risk their resources in coming up with new things.

If patents didn't exist, much more information would be held as Trade Secrets, stifling idea sharing and innovation. Where an idea couldn't be protected by Trade Secret, the incentives to invest in bringing it to market would be much lower.

Get your act together and then return to the internets.

heavenlyboy34

11-12-2012, 12:20 AM

Fact?! Wow, you were in a room filled with corrupt motherfuckers seeking to create unfree markets with state barriers to competition. Wow! Do you think the thin veneer of capitalism doesn't make you stink? No doubt lobbyists schemes ways to get money as do protection rackets and bank robbers. If Monsanto would cease to exist, it wouldn't bother me.

Why is it do you think that farmers just don't grab their rifles and blow their own brains out? Anybody can throw those seeds into the dirt! Of course, you weren't in a room filled with farmers but a room filled with motherfuckers seeking to monopolize stuff like FDA approved medicines or government-licensed communication equipment. They weren't seeking to work or create but to extort.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Free Hornet again.

IOU a +rep for that excellent post when I get more ammo! :)

heavenlyboy34

11-12-2012, 12:23 AM

you're denying the legitimacy of voluntary contracts, you lose. Renting agreements are no more specific than EULA, and no less legitimate.
Not even remotely true. I'm denying the legitimacy of fascism. You lose. Your premises and conclusions are all incorrect.

Tpoints

11-12-2012, 12:25 AM

Not even remotely true. I'm denying the legitimacy of fascism. You lose. Your premises and conclusions are all incorrect.

Oh, but I did equate licensing and EULA to voluntary contracts, you're equating it to Fascism? Novel!

heavenlyboy34

11-12-2012, 12:34 AM

Oh, but I did equate licensing and EULA to voluntary contracts, you're equating it to Fascism? Novel!They aren't really voluntary contracts, though. They're tacit "contracts". Not really contracts in any legitimate sense. (tacit contracts are virtually unenforceable in non-IP fields...IP folks get away with it because they have special relationships with the regime)

Tpoints

11-12-2012, 12:36 AM

They aren't really voluntary contracts, though. They're tacit "contracts". Not really contracts in any legitimate sense. (tacit contracts are virtually unenforceable in non-IP fields...IP folks get away with it because they have special relationships with the regime)

how are they not voluntary contracts?

You agree, or you don't agree. If you don't agree, walk away and stop using the product.

What's a tacit contract?

The Free Hornet

11-12-2012, 01:01 AM

A pertinent wiki article:

Wright brothers patent war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war)

The patent war stalled the development of the American aviation industry. In response, after the beginning of World War I, the U.S. Government pressured its aviation industry to form an organization that allowed the sharing of aviation patents. [How nice of government to solve an "industry" problem of its own creation!]

...

The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[10] Indeed, aviation development in the U.S. was suppressed to such an extent that when the country entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines.

...

The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who previously had been generally regarded as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions may have retarded the development of aviation,[10][15] and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly.

This is like Apple today, not that Apple is as inventive but they make up for it in litigiousness. Twenty years from now, I hope our handheld computers are controlled by the users and not the manufacturers (http://www.infowars.com/apple-granted-patent-to-disable-cameras-according-to-location/). Fear not, Ace, "new companies" are meeting in backrooms with spooks seeking to control people through technology. Maybe your loyalty will be rewarded.

Natural Citizen

11-12-2012, 02:45 AM

I swear, I'm beginning to loath this website. I just spent a bit of time...a considerable bit of time replying to the last post that addressed one of my scribbles and when I went to post I had been automatically logged out with no means to recover the post. Gosh, my reaction was comparable to the lady ranting on the youtube video in the grassroots section.

It's a mess. Gosh, that ticks me off. Every single time with this crap. It's almost like you're regulated to little one liners that accomplish nothing and really is comparable to the silly "like" button that accomplishes nothing in scope. Unless all you want to do is quickly paste somebody elses spew. I guess that's useful for ...something. Who knows...

Natural Citizen

11-12-2012, 02:50 AM

I don't know what that means. Science is the study of the physical world. It's not property; it doesn't belong to anyone, much less everyone.

I spent a great deal of time explaining what it means but unfortunately, the WEB SITE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE $%#GGIN INTERNET. Gosh..I'm still ticked about that.

I'll change my signature in the mean time. It's a simple once over that more folks should consider and hopefully provides some understanding of why I reponded as I did initially.

Natural Citizen

11-12-2012, 03:03 AM

In physics, escape velocity is the speed at which the kinetic energy plus the gravitational potential energy of an object is zero.[nb 1] It is the speed needed to "break free" from a gravitational field without further propulsion.

For a spherically-symmetric body, escape velocity is calculated by the formula

where G is the universal gravitational constant (G=6.67×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2), M the mass of the planet, star or other body, and r the distance from the center of gravity.[nb 2]

In this equation atmospheric friction (air drag) is not taken into account. A rocket moving out of a gravity well does not actually need to attain escape velocity to do so, but could achieve the same result at any speed with a suitable mode of propulsion and sufficient fuel. Escape velocity only applies to ballistic trajectories.

The term escape velocity is actually a misnomer, and it is often more accurately referred to as escape speed since the necessary speed is a scalar quantity which is independent of direction (assuming a non-rotating planet and ignoring atmospheric friction).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Newton_Cannon.svg/220px-Newton_Cannon.svg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
In the book Rocket Boys by Homer Hickam Jr. (the book the movie October Skywas based on) the rocket boys contemplated sending their last and most powerful rocket up in a ballon to see if they could reach space, but decided against it.

Here... Learn. Pt.1 of the paper- http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm Pt. 2 of the paper - http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun2.htm

Sorry for being so short but I'm ticked about the way this web site works. Can't find a better paper that would reflect the idea I was trying to show before I wasted all of those keystrokes but this one is actually a very good one that comes close. I mean Von Braun did re-discover antigravity and regardless of public perception of the author bearing the message. It's a pretty important thing to omit and then just give us a bunch of plastic junk made in China as some half baked "lookit what we figgered out" fodder from the space program back then. And folks were just like..."umkay". In the mean time, he went and got millions to study it and apply it to other aspects of infrastructure. Should be simple to figure out which ones.

And now this many years later we're finally asking the questions we should have asked back then but didn't. SpaceX is a concept that is not new in any way. Only now we have a merge between corporation and state and folks are so shallow to discuss the issue outside of the scope in which it truly should be discussed. And frankly, the way they are being asked is comparable to the way they were accepted back then. Specifically in this era with the msm selling the idea that the technology used in fracking and drilling is a trade secret to be patented. Well, no...it's a science...with many other uses. Does science take a back seat to someone(not really a person, btw, just a .INC in peoples clothing) elses bottom line in the form of a patent and do we (real people...humanity...civilization) miss a chance at actually advancing civilization in a practical manner because some overly wealthy dolt was allowed to patent science itself when they found a specific use for it to make a profit off? It shouldn't be that way, folks. Not for a second. People are programmed to not ask relevant questions in practical scope though and to simply accept it. I do question the extent that folks should discuss things that perhaps they don't truly understand in scope and I think that for the time being science and politics should remain separate. Genuine science, that is. Not what is accepted to be genuine science that, quite frankly, ultimately spins the more relevant discussion pertaining to the subject six ways from Tuesday and out of bounds of genuine scrutiny.

For a while, I thought it would be practical to participate in a general public political forum to get some idea of how they thought about things but I'm just not seeing that they do consider important issues in scope. I don't know. Should probably get back to the usual platform where those like me discuss such things. Folks, you take an important amendment like the 14th...for one...and try to fudge it back to the people instead of the entity, you'll never get it done in the political atmosphere that buries the relevance. Average joe's have no business even discussing it. They can't. At least not properly and in correct scope. You don't even discuss the right stuff. At all. Is why again that science (real science, not the latest itunes software or the scientific or ergonomic relevance of rounded corners on a phone or whatever, although there is a point there as well if you think about it) and politics should remain separate. Should be a truly third party that gets it done and not one derived from politics itself. And it will be, I think. It must. It's the only way it will happen.The general public just doesn't get it. At all. Just feeding at the mainstream trough.

You bring about a relevant point of discussion, Henry Rogue. So, not attacking you at all. Please don't think that. Just happened to be the one that brings about other questions that, unfortunately, folks will never comprehend and place into perspective with current events. Which, I find to be annoying in a monumental perspective.

Henry Rogue

11-12-2012, 10:06 AM

Russians also built their own Concorde, the Tupolev 144.
This is the B-29 Superfortress the single biggest endeavor by the United States in WW2. Even bigger than the Manhatten Project.
During WW2 several B-29s on there way back to their China bases after attacking Japan made emergency landings in the Soviet Union. The Soviets released the crews but kept the planes.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VNgVmL1JCkU/TE88SICCRkI/AAAAAAAAD70/rrZPHQQTFG0/s1600/B-29+BillCrump.jpg
Below is a Russian TU-4 it is an exact copy of the B-29 down to every nut and bolt even its flaws.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/ru_monino_aircraft_tu4_01.jpg

Henry Rogue

11-12-2012, 10:25 AM

Natural Citizen

11-13-2012, 08:04 AM

This is the B-29 Superfortress the single biggest endeavor by the United States in WW2. Even bigger than the Manhatten Project.
During WW2 several B-29s on there way back to their China bases after attacking Japan made emergency landings in the Soviet Union. The Soviets released the crews but kept the planes.
Below is a Russian TU-4 it is an exact copy of the B-29 down to every nut and bolt even its flaws.

Of course, the bigger question regarding patents and SpaceX's response is what makes it go vroooom. Or even shhhhh. Therein lies the hopey/changey thingy.;)

The nuts and bolts aren't really the actual nuts and bolts of the matter. I'm curious to do a once over on The President's education agenda to maybe see what he's figgerin. Or if he isn't the one doing the figgerin then who is. In this regard where we're discussing private contractors or companies bringing forth new technologies we cannot very well say it's big government calling the shots in regard to education. Or can we? Ahh...hmm. We the people are a vast flavor in perspective.:rolleyes: