Intellectual Property shouldn't exist.

IP is a capitalist tool used by big companies to crush competition. It needs to be completely overhauled into a socialist style system.

The way IP should work is it should reward innovation, and punish stagnation. As of now it does the opposite, large companies go to war with small creators and inventors to try and steal their inventions or stifle creativity though the patent and copy right process. My idea would change this.

The Patent/Copyright is limited to the creation of the product- When you come up with an idea you hold the exclusive rights to bring the idea to life.

If a company or the government or anyone wants that item to become reality they must guarantee its funding. The person with the Patent holds it until they die, so if its not funded to completion no one else can create it.

Once its created and hits the market it becomes public domain instantly. This allows for people to build upon the successes of the past. It also keeps prices low because since anyone can just make the same product if a company like apple wants to sell their iphone for $1K someone could make the same product different logo for $500 same functionality and everyone will buy that one instead.

 

Am I correct in assuming that you do not support your family by producing intellectual property?

 

Yes no one does, IP doesn't benefit anyone but the billionaire corporations.

 

You are incorrect. I create intellectual property for a living. I am not a billionaire, but enjoy a good living from my work. Lets think your plan through. Why would I work long hours to develop something someone could easily steal by giving it a few tweaks?

 

because it allows for a business opportunity. You get your hands on it first and that's a huge advantage. Being the first to create something truly innovative will net you the majority of the market. "off brands" need to prove why they are better than the original which if the product is quality and not overly pricy is hard to do.

 

I don't see how that is possible. You are taking away my incentive to create. Why would I work long hours producing something that could be stolen with just a few tweaks?

 

Because it's not that simple. Currently you need to have the resources to create something on your own. This system will allow you to be funded and then competitors will have to find their own funds.

 

And what is the source of funding?

 

And what incentive would there be to work your butt off creating something that is useful? That’s why China has to steal intellectual property instead of creating it.

 

I own about 30 copyrights so I'm not sure what you are proposing.

Can you give us a bullet pointed presentation, a summary?

Are you suggesting that a creative work, once published, becomes 'public domain', is that what you are suggesting?

If that is what you are suggesting, that would destroy creativity.

As one who has earned money from copyrights on creative works, I can speak with a modicum of authority.

 

How? PLease explain.

Moreover, public domain disallows you to continue to profit on your work, and it allows others to create derivative works, and not compensate you for your original work.

Thus far, nothing you have written makes sense,

One thing is certain, if I invent something, if I cannot obtain a patent for it, no one is going to fund it. If it becomes public domain after it is released, it will never get released because no one will fund it.

If you are asserting a socialist system, then who is the arbiter of whether your invention is funded? The government? You want me to trust the government for approval and they are going to fund it? That would involve an approval process by committees, none of whom will have a vested interest in the product. Without a vested interest, there is no incentive. And how will I get paid? A one time fee?

I'm not seeing any advantage to your idea.

YOu can get funding for a business idea in china, but you will be allowed to keep your trademarks, copyrights and patents (though chinese competitors will steal your idea if your idea is any good, but Chinese knock offs have a bad reputation).

Still not seeing anything merit worthy about your idea.

The market place for products is best left to private entrepreneurship. Let government do what it is good at, health services, fire, police, military, public policy and let the private sector make the goods that people by, and the services they need.

I'd like to see some revision in the IP system, it could use it, but socializing it isn't the answer.

 

I think trademark is a reasonable form of property, but there are things in copyright that are questionable.

 

I totally agree. Back in the 1980's I designed a "Six degree of freedom platform for laser aiming utilizing piezoelectric elements". I worked for a large defense contractor and since I was working under a government contract for them, they said the IP was theirs. They won until I showed them a new design of my own that replaced the mechanical aiming with a fiber optic bundle. Then I won. A LOT.

 

IP is a good thing that you don’t fully understand and how not protecting it would lead to scenarios like China

 

Intellectual property should not be protected forever, for sure, but we need it, otherwise corps would steal all the great ideas, as they have the $$$ to roll it out to the public faster and cheaper

now, back when Bill Gates created DOS while working at IBM, he owned his work, now corps can steal that work and fire the creator

I would say if a corp fires the creator, they lose the intellectual property rights

 

The People's Republic of China does in fact honor intellectual property rights, they just got lot's of governmental problems that the people have to put up w/. In this day and age no economy can function w/o ip rights.

 

Most people don't agree w/ that & I can see their point. Reality is what it is, let's deal w/ it.

 

He purchased DOS from another company.

 

The government steals IP in China.

 

You are wrong- big time.

One can spend years developing a product or an idea. Copyrights and patents provide some protection, but in fact to get a patent, you have to tell the world how to make your product- reveal all the process it took years to create. Then what you get is a piece of paper saying you thought of it first.... But, if someone else wants to produce your patented product, the government does not lift a finger to stop them or help you. help. You must go to court and sue the party stealing your right to produce your own product. Many a company has gone bankrupt trying to do that. Intellectual properties are often the easiest and cheapest to steal, and the hardest to get recourse for your loss. And an idea does not pop into you mind ready to sell at a profit. The gap between an idea and a marketable product or idea is wide, usually expensive, and time consuming- and often fails anyway.

The ideal way to protect a product is secrecy, IF the situation allows it. IF your product is made with a formula or treatment that can't be reverse-engineered, you might well keep a lock on it for a long time, and never have to risk losing everything trying to defend it. The formula for Coca Cola is not patented- but it's secret. There's a company with a metal treating process that makes massive strength changes in aluminum- same thing. Most things can't be protected that way. Anything mechanical or electronic can be reverse engineered or copied. The people importing Chinese tools into the US simply sent the best American made tools over as working models, and had them reproduced with cheap labor. The result of this is that very few tools are now produced in America. In some cases, there are more import copies of a product in the USA than there are original models made here. Being first is not worth much when an exact copy at a lower price comes out. The price can be lower for two primary reasons- first, they spend no time or money creating the concept, building the prototypes and proving the product, because someone else did that for them. Secondly, because the loyalty of the buyer rarely goes farther than their own wallet.

I'm saying it's hard enough now to protect the fruits of your labor. For you concept to work, the government would have to take the responsibility for seeing your work was rewarded- and they are not about to do that.

What you are trying to say is that all the things that would make your life better should be free.... and others should dedicate years of work and sleepless night coming up with ways to make those things for you.
That recognition that they thought of it first seems to be all the protection you think they should have.

One sided street you have here. You propose virtually nothing for the people who make what you want..... just more for you. You don't like having to pay for the work of others? OK....then that is an opportunity for you. IF my invention is too expensive, then just invent a product that will provide the same benefit, and sell it cheaper- run me out of business.

A product succeeds because it is seen as worth the price by those who buy it. That price must include amortizing the costs of development- sometimes years and millions of dollars invested, which sometimes never return anything. If the price is higher than what people want to pay, the person or company producing the product goes broke. Ultimately- the consumers to regulate the economic balance. The fact someone else invents a product or idea- entitles you to nothing. The limited degree of protection from predation such people get now is inadequate in most areas. Your idea would destroy that too- and the result of that is we would all have less.

 

After thinking on it more these are what would change.

• Only individuals can claim a patent or copyright, companies can not.
• The patent/Copy right exists for 12 months after publishment before going into public domain.
• The patent/copyright protects direct copies. There must be a tangible difference.
• Every new change can be a new patent.
• If someone creates the patented product before the patent holder the holder gets 10% of all sales for the first year.
• If you can deconstruct their product showing they used your method you win the 10% fee.

 

--and before WW1 the Brits said that the Germans ate babies. The good news is that in this wonderful info age we can all talk to folks living in China. My experience is that a lot of folks there got much bigger problems than IP rights disputes.

 

Individuals who work for corporations employed to invent things or create creative works, know that they have the option to opt out of any work for hire agreements. I would not support anyone who signs a work-for-hire agreement voluntary that they should not be allowed to do so.

However, I would support legislation that makes it illegal for a corporation to fire anyone who refuse to sign a work-for-hire agreement, unless the work-for-hire agreement allowed the creator/inventor to be paid a reasonable license fee per unit sold. However, the agreement should, at the minimum, allow for profit sharing via licensning. After all, the employees are receiving a paycheck for their work, and the corporation is entitled to a portion of the profits of the invention created at their expense.

Incentive destructive, I wouldn't support it.

That is the status quo, except for the 'change' part, which refers to derivative works, which, currently, require consent of the original creator, and that is as it should be.

Vague. No one can patent 'car', but they can patent 'Lincoln' and thus brands, like Chevy, Lincoln, etc., are allowed to be created.

However, changes to 'Chevy' or 'Lincoln' by anyone other than the patent owner/copyright owner, are not allowed (without consent), and rightfully so. So, depending on your clarification, I would not support.

On creative works, derivative works require consent of the original copyright holder. I do not support changing the law.

That's far too simplistic. Infringement cases are litigated, and outcomes are negotiated, Each case is different, and has to be weighed, evaluated, negotiated, on a case by case basis.

Simplistic, and unworkable.

 

Actually, intellectual property encourages competition, not hinder it. If there was no intellectual property, it would be too risky for businesses to invest into new techniques, medicines, etc to make progress for anything and everything, including personal computers. What is the problem is the law for intellectual property where the inventor will just have to "tweek" the original patent, copyright, etc in order to continue that government induced monopoly.

 

I'm curious as to why you think this is an issue that needs to be overhauled.