Ergohead: Patenting is very competitive. It is that legal monopoly – reward potential, that fuels it.

Competition, is well suited for satisfying self-interest. It adds a certain, dynamic, to accomplishment.

Without self-interest – what would one desire to compete FOR?

There have been less than 8 million Utility Patents issued in the U.S. in the past 220 years, and probably, to only about 5 million inventors, a very small percentage of a 220-year population accrual.

You, Peter, are probably not one of them.

It appears you derive YOUR satisfaction from attempting to manipulate people instead of things.

You probably think that makes you, superior – especially if you have hope of eliminating the satisfaction others have earned.

Better Business Model? Ohhh, I’ll bet your are a clever one. Oh, your are. You are.

This is called competition my dear. Get used to it. Especially since you seem to live in the US.

Cheers,
Peter

NEVER MIND.

99 if Heterosexual.

I wonder why Hitler, the Socialist, admired Mussolini, the Fascist, so much. Was he a closet gay?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/michigan/534379-big-tall-wish-about-new-president-13.html#post7069524

Capitalism – When Big Business is on top.

Socialism – When Big Government is on top.

Fascism – When Big Business and Big Government are spooning.

U.S. Constitution – Free Enterprise.

I wonder why Hitler, the Socialist, admired Mussolini, the Fascist, so much.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/michigan/534379-big-tall-wish-about-new-president-post7068087.html#post7068087

The ease of theft of IP today is mostly the result of utility innovations.

On the business side – computers, CD burners, and oh yes, copy machines – and on the Government side, the non-utility, non-copyrighted, INTERNET.

Anything invented by the Government, is by the very existence of the U.S. Government – Public Domain.

“Tyranny” is a word generally assigned to a “property” of Government – an unlawful property in this country, and usually restrictive in its effects.

For many years in the USSR, copy machines were prohibited from the general public’s use in order to keep IDEAS from spreading. The Gutenberg lesson.

Currently, the Greedy are responding to the overwhelming ability to steal, caused by the “tyranny” of utility patents. This reduces the creation and availability of art to the public by debilitating compensation for effort.

Someone might invent a tool that would dismantle all known automobile security and identification systems, and this also would allow the Greedy to “respond” to an increased ability to succeed at Greed.

Yup, an unintended consequence of IP law is a major tilting of the playing field away from the intention of IP law. Believe it or not.

Oh, would that utility patents were outlawed years ago!

Ergohead: “I would hate to see the Government confiscate my new technology and then regulate the price of it.

Ergohead: “I would rather let the market make the call on my patent-protected products.”

ysw: “I think you’re assuming too much in making that call, namely that your ‘patent-protected products’ are in fact worth what you hope they are (unlikely as a rule), and you are assuming you’d always necessarily get a more favorable price in the free market. That is not the case.”

THE MARKET IS THE ONLY EMPIRICAL AND LEGITIMATE METHOD FOR TESTING AND THEREWITH ESTABLISHING PRICE.

I, LIKE MOST INVENTORS, AND GOOD SCIENTISTS, DO NOT TEND TO WALK AROUND WITH, OR RELY ON, ASSUMPTIONS.

THAT IS MORE THE BEHAVIOR PATTERN OF LAZY-MINDED PEOPLE, WHO ARE ONLY ONE KNOTCH ABOVE BELIEVERS.

ysw: “How the market prices commodities is not related to your love for them, or how vital they are to your livelihood. Rather, it’s much more related to how vital those products are to the livelihood of other people. You seem to be putting a seller’s psyche into a buyer’s wallet, which is absurd.

THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT IS TO TEST IT IN THE MARKET. I, LIKE MOST INVENTORS AND GOOD SCIENTISTS, DON’T TEND TO WALK AROUND WITH, OR RELY ON, ASSUMPTIONS.

ysw: “When government intervenes to regulate price, it is usually to regulate it at too high a price, making it over-favorable to the seller, taking ‘caveat emptor’ a little too far.”

I AM INTRIGUED. CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES?

ysw: “When government intervenes on behalf of the buyer, it is usually not to regulate price, but simply to ban the product.”

I AM INTRIGUED. CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES?

Yes, Kiba, I will grant you that. Regardless of the ethics of the matter, the fact remains that I simply cannot stay in business in an environment in which that which I produce looses all sales value the instant it is made available. Unfortunately because in my business, I deal with a niche market, I cannot avail myself of mass market advertising revenue. I AM out of business and all I have produced for the last twelve years avails me nothing.

I have other skills that I could use to be productive, but those too would create ‘intellectual property’ which everyone again will simply avail themselves of for free, simply because they can. Yes, I can concoct perversions of my ideas which by obscene machinations can manage to twist some measure of revenue out of their mutation. But those are pale and ugly versions of the visions I would otherwise create, given an environment in which I would have the right to own what I create.

I would rather let the market make the call on my patent-protected products.”

I think you’re assuming too much in making that call, namely that your ‘patent-protected products’ are in fact worth what you hope they are (unlikely as a rule), and you are assuming you’d always necessarily get a more favorable price in the free market. That is not the case.

How the market prices commodities is not related to your love for them, or how vital they are to your livelihood. Rather, it’s much more related to how vital those products are to the livelihood of other people. You seem to be putting a seller’s psyche into a buyer’s wallet, which is absurd.

When government intervenes to regulate price, it is usually to regulate it at too high a price, making it over-favorable to the seller, taking ‘caveat emptor’ a little too far. When government intervenes on behalf of the buyer, it is usually not to regulate price, but simply to ban the product.

Believe me – at the time – they were the only game in town.

I hope we won’t see more of that circumstance for others.