I have a, possibly peculiar, perspective on Intellectual Property: I think it's a lie. My own belief is more in line with Newton's sentiment when he stated that: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.". I see knowledge as an organic living thing that stretches way back into the past and hopefully way off into the future. The notion that someone can claim right over one momentary part of knowledge doesn't sit well with me. Obviously a business needs to recover any capital investment and generate profit to innovate. But to extend protection of, what are purely business needs, to the realm of human knowledge in any way that acts as a barrier to curiosity or intellectual endeavour seems counter-productive in the long run.

Thinking that this is hard to do once again points to an outdated thinking style. It's really easy to make incredibly cheap knockoffs, and there's already a very lucritive business doing it. The only thing keeping it at bay is trademarks, copyrights, and patents. If you go to a country without as strict a policy on those things and you'll find the items everywhere.

Once again, you're thinking in terms of the reality as it is now. That reality comes crashing down once you get rid of the only protections in place... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14503724

BTW: a good amount of the modern technology and medication we enjoy in our society would never have come about without patents. There are those that abuse it, yes, but there is a lot of capital-intensive R&D done because companies know they have 14-28 years to recuperate their losses on a new product. We've benefited from this greatly.


How on earth did it end up the case that I'm the one defending patents in this thread?


Trademarks and copyright don't have any negative impact on human knowledge.

In order to apply for a patent, you must disclose your knowledge in a written form that anyone can read. A proper patent system would only boost human knowledge. The only problem is that the current patent system is broken.

That made me laugh I think that you allude to part of the dilemma. It is right that a business can thrive in an environment that protects its research for a fixed amount of time, but when IP battles have come to rounded rectangles and generic hand movements the protection has gone too far. It begins to look ridiculous and hard to defend.

neither do i know how it ended up the assumption that i am for getting rid of them completely, although i still disagree completely that every one will just give up and die because there will be a rise in fly by night knock offs.

Which is why I said that the patent system needs to be completely rewritten. Your point is the same as my points 4 and 5 for why the system is broken in my original post.

Less lawsuits!? Un-American!

Because in the OP you posted that 2 of 3 things were required for intellectual property, and that requirement would make virtually all copyrights and trademarks impossible. Almost all the patents worth keeping would be impossible under it too, as the patents actually worth while are purely technical (hardware as you described it) patents, and have no aesthetic or written aspect.


For example, a medication that cost a MediCorp countless manhours and tens of millions of dollars can cure Alzheimer's disease. A medication is purely technical. The writing on it or method of delivering the medication have little to no impact on the effectiveness of it. As such it can be copied by anyone.

Consequences of this? In the short-term, society benefits from super-cheap cures. In the long term, new cures are no longer created because companies like MediCorp go out of business and can no longer pay the bills needed to be paid to do research. Research and Development, unlike copying other people's works, is incredibly capital intensive.

There's no sign of any significant reform happening in the UK. I think in Europe you have to apply to each individual country's patent office. Kind of crazy to try and protect IP within arbitrary national boundaries. Especially so in a digitally connected world.

I see just as many suits for infringement regarding logo's ans use of phrases as i do see hardware suits. Im not convinced that the idea from my op is impossible is any thing but your opinion.

Now all you have to do is convince those with money and power to change the laws so they aren't skewed in favor of those with money and power.

How can you trademark a company name if you can't trademark something just written or a drawn logo? (These things only fill one of your three things, and two are the minimum you stated)

How can you patent a new technology or medication if it has no written or aesthetic part of it?

You can't under your system, and therefore you cannot have trademarks or copyrights by definition, and pretty much all the patents worth having cannot be done either.

Ironically, one of the few patents allowed under your system is the worthless "bouncing blob" patent Apple holds for when you reach the bottom a a page on the iphone. That patent has both an aesthetic and technical part to it -- it's also a completely worthless patent.

I am, by the way, in 100% agreement with your title for this thread. The patent system is in dire need of reform. Your solution, though, just breaks it further.

We seem to agree that the system is dysfunctional. I think it then becomes hard to say that copyright and trademark laws are not having a negative impact on the development of knowledge as a wider human interest. Copyright and trademark protection are firstly business needs; how the provision of protection to business needs may or may not benefit humanity is wider question. It's certainly true that innovation has occurred within the current system, but whether its the best system...?

if i knew how to do that i wouldn't be talking about the way things should be on this forum.


no no no. you got it backwards

the premise is that you could not press a copy right infringement suit unless the alleged infringement replicated 2 out of 3 categories. it wasn't meant to be a restriction against what CAN or can't be copyrighted, but rather what can be defined as copy right infringement.