Sorry, I should have worn briefs with these shorts.

If we're voting, I agree with this.

Tasers: because cops are too fat to catch up.

HEYOOOOOO

Sorry, I don't agree that getting a patent, and thus "promot[ing] the Progress of Science" is morally wrong, UNLESS it's done knowing there is no legitimate right under the law. And you are right, it does not need to be accepted by society. But I have also seen how society can be very ignorant and still opinionated and obnoxious about things.

Please explain the last part to me. I agree with you that enforcement of a patent that is clearly invalid should be disrespected, but we do live under the law where patents are presumed to be valid, and there's a high burden to invalidate a patent (and please do not misread this that I believe that every patent that is granted should have been granted). But I don't understand wht you mean by "used harmfully." One can certainly misuse a patent by enforcing it when there isn't a colorable case of infringement, or if it's clearly invalid. Is that what you mean? Are you suggesting that if I have a genome invention, I shouldn't get it patented? That's against the whole reasoning behind the patent laws.

And here, where a guy developed his own work --comedic bits-- and from what I understand, a guy blatantly copied them, he should be pissed and feel violated. His property was effectively stolen.

Come on. Congress is directed by the Constitution to create some exclusive rights in order to "promote the Progress of Science." Surely you don't think that whatever scheme they come up with necessarily does that.



I believe that the patent system fails at several points: 1) many things are legally patentable even though they shouldn't be, including (for now) isolated genes (because they are not inventions) and software (because algorithms are math/ideas); 2) an overwhelming number of patents are granted that shouldn't be, because the review process is antiquated and insufficiently thorough; and 3) the law, in its presumptions and remedies, favors patentees too strongly.

In other words, the fact that a patent is granted is a poor indicator of its legal validity, the fact that a patent is legally valid is not any indicator of its social utility, and nonetheless the law favors patentees and makes it difficult to defend against all of these shitty patents. As for the "whole reasoning behind the patent laws," it has very little to do with how the system works, and may have been mostly wrong to begin with.



No, property is effectively stolen when one person takes it and the other doesn't have it anymore. If anything was taken here, it was some indefinite portion of a joke's future marginal value. It's hardly the same thing.

http://eqfl.blogspot.com/2010/05/breaki ... -bill.html

"rentboy"

dude was suckin' on it.

You guys are bogging down the random thread with all this serious patent law talk! I do have a few questions for you both though...

You both imply that patent law applies to Oswalt's jokes... why? Copyright law is a different beast isn't it? And from what I've read, protecting future earnings was not the original intent of copyright laws - rather, it was created to protect current earnings - to give the author a reasonable timeframe to profit before the work entered the public domain.

This is very different from a Great White cover band, BTW... unless the cover band it trying to claim Once Bitten, Twice Shy is their own song.

FemmeRabbit and I went to a liquor store tonight to get some beer. She forgot to grab her ID on the way out the door (this was not the intended destination), and the guy wouldn't sell me the beer because she had no ID. I can understand the rules, but still...that really sucked not being able to buy beer at 30.

No no, we only started talking about patent because Stone's a patent lawyer. Patent and copyright are very different things, although the "purpose" of both can be traced back to the same clause in the Constitution, which gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Copyright has since traveled a long way from "useful Arts" and "limited Times." There is no "reasonable timeframe" about it -- under copyright law the author (musician, comedian, whatever) gets an exclusive right until 70 years after he/she dies. One theory according to which the term of copyright/patent is set is that it should balance two competing interests of the public: its interest in encouraging the production of new works, and its interest in having access to works already in existence. Sonny Bono and some other assholes think that nobody's going to write new songs unless they get 2 lifetimes to exploit them.

RIP, Ernie Harwell.

A legend if ever there was one. A primary reason why for me baseball will always be a radio sport. Moreover, Ernie was one of the kindest, most genuine people ever put on the planet. "Field Of Dreams" now has its play by play voice.

A guy at work turns 55 today and he was born on 5-5-55...pretty amazing odds there.

yeah, that's really crazy that someone lived to 55 years old.

(or are the pretty amazing odds that he works in your office?)

Ernie was a truly amazing man, and will be greatly missed.

Jose Feliciano should play Amazing Grace -- or something else appropriate for a funeral -- at the memorial service.

are you being funny or no, I can't tell...well,...the fact that he was born 5-5-55 and turned 55 today is kinda neat.

you can call z any name in the book but please don't ever call him funny.

Pretty sure Z's point is that the odds are basically 100% that many people were born on 5-5-55, and nearly 100% that many of those would live to be 55. You said "pretty amazing odds," but the odds were strongly in favor of the whole scenario up until the "a guy I work with" part. The odds are relatively low that you'd work with someone born on 5-5-55 at the moment he turned 55, unless you work for a fairly large organization that employs a decent percentage of middle aged persons.

yeah paper don't you feel dumb

point taken, I need to remember to measure my words on here more often.

all the time.

I'd imagine 70 years after the author dies is meant to preserve the economic rights for the author AND his/her living heirs. Isn't the american way to try to build a nest egg for our children? I think you are tilting far too much to a narrowly defined definition of the public interest. This isn't just about trying to strike a balance at the exact minimum level of compensation that an author would continue to produce works even if public policy makers were so omniscient to be able to know what that is. I'm not surprised that lawmakers are willing to protect the rights of living heirs (who vote) but end the rights thereafter. Philosophically though, I might ask why shouldn't the copyright be permanent? If a publishing company is going to continuing printing and selling classical works, why shouldn't an author's heirs be compensated?

Patent law to me is an entirely different animal. Literary or musical works don't build on each other in the same way that scientific advancements do. I think a large part of the reasoning behind the expiration of patents is that the discoveries have become part of basic scientific knowledge at some point. Again though, I think your views of the public interest are simplistic and narrowly defined. Private property rights are at the core of capitalism and the level of their legal protection is one of the greatest differentiators between first world economies and third world economies. I'm not going to argue that there aren't gray areas in what should be protected but I think we should be erring on the side of favoring patentees. I also disagree with the distinction you seem to be making between product inventions and the application of new scientific knowledge. Most products at their core consist of some combination of raw materials that are not patentable on their own. Its the unique manufacturing process or combinatorial chemistry which makes them patentable. How is gene therapy or software that different? In the short term, the public might be better if we changed the law to allow people to use Windows or MS Office for free but would society be better off if Microsoft had not had the profit motive to create the software to begin with?

I don't like Patton Oswalt so I didn't watch that video clip. I have a hard time equating a joke as having the same level of uniqueness and protectability as a book or song if only because it seems much more easy to think that two people would have coincidentally came up with the same joke. That said, if you think that a joke or routine is uniquely his, I think you're wrong to say someone else using it without permission is not theft. I'm not going to argue it has the same level of harm as stealing all of someone's physical belongings and financial assets but taking something owned by someone else without their permission is the very definition of theft.