Thread: Advice

Originally Posted by Yarin

Still not fraud, series companies are not deceptive or criminal. Taking the hit is why they exist.

But what makes them fraudulent is that, in your example, they are created specifically with the intent of infringing patents, and it wouldn't be hard to convince a grand jury that fraud charges should be filed in that case.

Still not fraud, series companies are not deceptive or criminal. Taking the hit is why they exist.

O_o

I don't think Elkvis is saying the limited liability companies are fraudulent.

You should look into the relevant history yourself.

You can find plenty of cases where the protections of limited liability companies was "pierced" as fraudulent precisely because a company was created to further an unlawful operation.

Soma

I've never understood this aspect of intellectual property. What is the argument against ownership of an idea developed in parallel to those holding the patent?

I mean how or why are you not considered to own a thing you created yourself? (I am asking for real, not making a point)

There are some advocates of the so-called Independent Invention Defense. The arguments for laws that allow for defendants to argue they did not copy are actually surprisingly sound: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...feasible.shtml

What is the argument against ownership of an idea developed in parallel to those holding the patent?

O_o

Once upon a time, the various intellectual property systems rewarded a few by allowing individuals and business interests to hold temporary monopolies on particular forms of ideas.

One aspect of temporary monopolies is protection from invalidation through incremental improvement for part of the life of the monopoly. Let's say that, for example, you seek protection for a transactional memory model you developed. You did a lot of work developing the new system and luckily was able to receive a patent on your creation. You wouldn't want me to invalidate your monopoly, thus your artificially guaranteed rights to benefit from your creation, by simply adding more primitives to the model. I can add primitives to your model, and I may even be able to get a patent on my extensions, but your creation still belongs to you.

Yes. I know I've not directly addressed the question. The point of the example is to show that such a kind of ownership is generally limited simply by the nature of the sameness being "your" property.

The intended nature, at least for some many years, of the various intellectual property systems was the advancement of ideas. Before the various intellectual property systems became commonplace, the nature of secrecy in a some areas had the potential to stagnate certain fields. The intellectual property systems say "You can have your temporary monopoly, but you must document your ideas for use by others.". For a great many years, the second bit was actually considered by most to be the import part. We want to push innovative and creative people with the promise of success so that we may all advance our ideas, but we don't want a system where innovation and creativity is unfairly compromised by secrecy or perpetual protections.

*shrug*

The goal of the systems in the beginning then was ensuring an eventual state where everyone had equal ownership.

The entire concept is, these days, a very different beast. The argument, a rather recent development all things considered, is that shared ownership devalues innovation and creativity. The argument has been literally "No one would innovate." and "No one would create." due to a presumption of "There would be no money in it.". The argument has become so accepted that the "document your ideas for use by others" almost doesn't exist to such point that most existing patents are impenetrable without a lawyer.

Soma

Originally Posted by Mario F.

There are some advocates of the so-called Independent Invention Defense. The arguments for laws that allow for defendants to argue they did not copy are actually surprisingly sound: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...feasible.shtml

That's a good insight into the subject, the aspects the guy brings up while presenting the argument are illuminating as well. One example of that is the mention of liability for harm, which if I'm not mistake is the "lost revenue" argument. I've never understood how the lost revenue argument is proven, it's like companies are saying they are owed money for their expectations.

Originally Posted by phantomotap

The intended nature, at least for some many years, of the various intellectual property systems was the advancement of ideas. Before the various intellectual property systems became commonplace, the nature of secrecy in a some areas had the potential to stagnate certain fields. The intellectual property systems say "You can have your temporary monopoly, but you must document your ideas for use by others.". For a great many years, the second bit was actually considered by most to be the import part. We want to push innovative and creative people with the promise of success so that we may all advance our ideas, but we don't want a system where innovation and creativity is unfairly compromised by secrecy or perpetual protections

I actually hadn't thought of the ideas being made public, although I've read films and books are protected for educational use so that makes sense.


<!-- Not related to independent discovery, just a story about how I became aware of intellectual property misuse -->

Around a decade ago when I got off drugs, there was a pharmaceutical company who had come out with an alternative to methadone called suboxone, it worked better at staving off cravings, and was much less addictive. You could quit it without much chance of death or seizures, although you would have insomnia and some other side effects for weeks afterward. It's basically superior in every way to methadone, if you can afford it. However it cost thousands a month, and there will be no generics for probably another 20 years because of patents.

Luckily I weaned myself off shortly after getting out (something they discourage you strongly from doing). Many of the people who were in with me, many who refused to even consider questioning the doctor, went bankrupt, mortgaged their house, or moved back in with their parents in order to stay on it. I don't judge the people for this, all of my judgement is reserved for this system which squeezes sick people like grapes because they have legal monopoly on a necessity.