And adds to the price of the end product.
But Apple just stole Nokia's idea and is making a nice profit off of it.which is a better alternative then letting your competitors steal all your ideas until all that R&D/money is worthless.
profit drives R&D drives creativity.
But Apple just stole Nokia's idea and is making a nice profit off of it.
I favor Amending the Constitution to take away the Federal Government's power to issue copyrights and patents. Why you might ask? Because it raises the costs of things and kills creativity. It's also too expensive to enforce, there are simultaneous inventions, and IP is not physical, so even if someone else uses an invention they didn't create, the creator still has it.
I never once advocated simple consumption/replication of someone else's IP without consent. And if you read my very next post nor do I call for abolishing patents and copyrights. But there has to be a fair distinction drawn where a derivative work becomes its own original idea because everything is derivative of someone else's work. The words, themes, plots, style, etc. of your novel has been influenced by the works of others. Nothing is created in a vacuum, which is precisely why perpetually locking down everyone's creative ideas will stifle innovation over the long term.
I don't understand what you're saying.
You *can* write your own book about a boy wizard taken to a magic academy, if you want.
That's exactly my point. As long as prior elements are free to be used in new works, new works can continue to be created. We are heading in the opposite direction with copyrights and patents, starting to lock down the very elements that creativity is based upon.
I don't see any threats coming to Gonad the Wizard Boy. Where are you seeing this?
I'm not saying there aren't problems - look at greedy Paul Allen's lawsuits - but not the ones you are suggesting, and I'm still not clear what you're saying is in danger.
Where are all books on boy wizards becoming prohibited?
I only kept going with the literary example because it was the one initially presented. What I'm arguing is happening more specifically in scientific areas: software, genetics, biochemistry, etc.
LOL.
Harvey.
Nobody (including the establishment and their patent treasure trove) cares about you. Your patents are easily ignored. Do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a patent battle? I thought not. Patents benefits massive corporations, not you.
I'm writing a novel, expecting that when it gets published I'll make a certain amount per copy sold over the life of the copyright. And maybe there will be film rights and profits from tie-ins.
If copyright protection is abolished, meaning that anyone can copy for free any book I write and legally sell as many copies as they want, or can use characters I create without paying me compensation, or can make a movie from my novel without paying me anything, what possible reason (other than the pursuit of a time-consuming hobby) would I have for spending countless hours creating a novel in the first place?
People who advocate abandonment of IP protection are basically trying to rationalize their own theft of IP. They want to pretend that they're entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor for free. Of course, if you ask these thieves to work for free, they'd be outraged at the notion.
The honorable thing to do if you're not willing to pay the going rate for a product is to simply forego the product.
What if the lifespan of the inventor/artist were to say, get cut short?IP rights should have a finite life and an expiration date. Definitely not past the lifespan of the inventor/artist.
It's funny how many leftists become little monopolists as soon as copyright enters the picture. You despise corporations and their evil coporatey ways, in their corporation buildings, where they make money. You want the government to bust up those companies that you feel are making too much money and they shouldn't be allowed to. But when it comes a movie, you're quite in favor of government protection of monopolies.
So predictable. So transparent. So hypocritical. So sad.
LOL.
Harvey.
Nobody (including the establishment and their patent treasure trove) cares about you. Your patents are easily ignored. Do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a patent battle? I thought not. Patents benefits massive corporations, not you.
LOL.
Harvey.
Nobody (including the establishment and their patent treasure trove) cares about you. Your patents are easily ignored. Do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a patent battle? I thought not. Patents benefits massive corporations, not you.
But Apple didn't in this case. It outright stole it.
It's funny how many leftists become little monopolists as soon as copyright enters the picture. You despise corporations and their evil coporatey ways, in their corporation buildings, where they make money. You want the government to bust up those companies that you feel are making too much money and they shouldn't be allowed to. But when it comes a movie, you're quite in favor of government protection of monopolies.
So predictable. So transparent. So hypocritical. So sad.
I know you don't know me, and unless you're really, REALLY well versed in analog circuitry and advanced analog multiplier topologies, I doubt that you know jack shit about my patents, let alone understand anything about them, proving once again that you don't know your ass from that hole in the ground full of your typical lying bullshit.
All you've proven is that you've got nothing to say and far too many words to say it.
LOL, BoberFett, your continuing pissing game on democrats and republicans without EVER standing up for anything at all is getting boring.
Patents benefit inventors, some of them work for a company, in that case the company has the patent rights, in other cases patents benefit original creators, in any case, it drives competition, which is key in the free market and something you should love.