Skip to main content

View Diary: Let us start a dialogue in search of sensible gun laws (with poll) (179 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no right to a pattent (4+ / 0-)

    But the Constitution does create a framework to reward the production of intellectual goods by allowing inventors to apply for a time limited monopoly to their intellectual good.  

    Unfortunately, we forgot that the goal of patent and copyright is to reward writers and engineers adequately to continue to produce novel works and discoveries while assuring that their works eventually enrich the public domain.  

    Here is a fuller discussion from Eric Flint, a Sci Fi author and former labor organizer:  http://www.ericflint.net/...

    And he quotes aprovingly from Macaulay:  https://en.wikisource.org/...

    I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

    by DavidMS on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:56:43 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Great patent/copyright comment (4+ / 0-)

      Let me clarify why I'm hinting at.

      There is (I believe) a universal human right to self defense. But the right to use a gun for self defense resides in the Constitution, specifically in the 2A.

      So there is a civil right to self defense and a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

      There is no universal human right or any civil right to a patent. The right to a patent resides completely in the US constitution. Any person who files a patent application and meets all the requirements and deadlines is entitled to receive a patent. The patent right even includes an extended term if the US Patent Office takes too long to process the application. That is my reasoning for stating that the right to a patent is constitutional right.

      The point I'm trying to argue here is that the origin of a right within the constitution does not prohibit Congress from regulating the right, or from leaving some/most of the  regulations to the states. I'm not con law scholar, (or any other kind of lawyer) as I'm sure you can tell.

      Am I mistaken in my reasoning?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:30:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great point! nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes, Tim DeLaney

        “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

        by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:20:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am strugling with it (5+ / 0-)

        You are believing that the Constitution grants a right to a patent.  It does not it, it just permits congress to grant patents or as law evolved, created a framework to grant a limited duration legal monopoly (the most evil of rights) to intellectual property holders.  

        I can't call it a right with a capital R, its more of a convenient legal fiction, like a corporation (CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.).  

        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

        by DavidMS on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:39:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed that it's a completely legal fiction (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WakeUpNeo, Joy of Fishes

          but the quid pro quo of early disclosure is arguably better than what came before.

          Maybe its a tortured analogy but I don't think anything in the constitution is someone sacred just because it is "enshrined" in that founding document.

          Thanks for indulging my line of inquiry.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 12:26:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think its a very good analogy (3+ / 0-)

            Its an interesting way to look at it, one, the right to self defense and the arms to accomplish it shows up in many legal codes going back to antiquity, often limiting this right based on class, ethnicity and religion.  On the other hand intellectual property was created much more recently as an expedient method of encouraging the production of intellectual output.  

            Its not a good analogy for historical reasons but its good we explored it.  

            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

            by DavidMS on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 04:21:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site