OregonStateHospital.net

When patents serve no further purpose to society, as mere methods to stifle competition and society advancement.

Example of modern patent: we know that atoms are constructed of subatomic particles of assortments predefined. We know that all molecules are made of those same assortments and we have secretly mapped it all out to all possible combinations. We know how to rearrange matter into new shapes doing things with the basic properties of the universe. We know how math works and how information can be displayed in various ways. We know new information will come and need displayed. The modern patents are about pulling one of these designs out of the hat that is fully mapped out and predicted that anyone can fathom is there, because everything is made the same, giving whoever filed for the patent exclusive rights for monetary gain holding up and preventing others from using it.

Like we could imagine new types of atoms of different particle arrangements even without observing the atom itself, we knew it was there and could be made. This is what patents are being used for today. We are patenting things we already knew existed and which required nothing to invent. First come first served often times. Or whoever had the legal team and resources to get the patent filed, typically exclusively big corporations.

In today's system everyone is a patent troll because we are all at the same level of technology, and expertise, capable of "inventing" the same things. Subsequentialy there is no value in any invention (other than to corporations and rich people who use patents improperly, as I laid out), thus patents should be abolished entirely.

Copyrights similarly serve no purpose to the common man and while are more useful (a book author can have exclusive rights to their work for income), should be heavily restricted to prevent copyright being used merely to monopolize information and to bully others in society around who use it for cultural purposes or human expressions. Let's say a 20 year copyright is long enough, today it is life plus 70 years and keeps getting extended (despite constitution written to limit length). Then information should enter the public domain, and fair use rights should be expanded to allow information to be freely used socially and culturally.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/03/04/ ... nnecessary

A new argument to undo the copyright extensions in America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... ension_Act

Let's say before the copyright act of 1978 and the sonny bono copyright act extension, the law said copyrighted work would become the property of the public domain. Thus the public had a public right to have the content become their property and Congress had no right to extend copyright to take from the ownership of the public domain. Never before has this been argued precisely as this but people have talked about it in many contexts.. I do believe the impact on this copyright extension stifled businesses and people who might have used the new public domain material for their own work and profits. For example, people would have started new business packaging and maintaining public domain work and new content created based on the old copyrighted material, characters, and stories. Also think about people possibly sued or dissuaded over what should be public domain work today, ie in file trading or someone who made some art or fanfiction. Fuck congress.

Can congress take from people a right granted to them, such as the right to inherit and own and use (previously copyrighted but expired) public domain work? Or can they not take such right, that the system was established under? Kind of like taking the right to collectively bargain from people with the right to. This sounds unconstitutional.