Mike, you just made that up and then used it as evidence that your opinion should prevail over mine. to build freely upon the ideas and information found in other While the right of the state to grant state copyright expired with passage of the 1976 Act, state conferred copyrights may still remain in effect to some degree and must be considered when assessing a question of copyright infringement. If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...I bet you, 100% that somebody will eventually say "copying is stealing" in their post.Why not post about America’s broken welfare system, or that cigarettes are unhealthy?It appears that my first reply didn't get through techdirt.One more of those very LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOng pieces of nonsensical shit from Mikey, the master of demagogyMaybe I should add "I bet you 100%, that angry dude will make a personal attack at Mike."
We might need a historian to research the development of telephone communications in Switzerland from 1880 to possibly 1900 and see just where innovation actually occurred. than to focus on improving the idea (and generating money from consumers) except when the monopoly is already established and consumer interest in licensed products begins to wane. As such I've identified a few core issues:Apologies if this is painfully obvious to everyone else, but I found Mike's initial description of the interpretation of the "key clause" to be a little confusing. academic, commercial, or hobby, the growth of knowledge is very However, copyright is also intended to encourage others Because Bell's electromagnetic telephone did not use Gray's invention in public demonstrations or commercial use, Bell did not steal Gray's invention. dependent upon the efforts of other researchers. Open menu. After that, Bell focused on improving the electromagnetic telephone. And the telephone system in the US was not innovatively developed soon afterwards? That is, where did the citizens of a country actually That could be a better indicator of innovation and "promotion of progress. Possibly this was truly a success story where Bell was granted a short-term monopoly that created the opportunity for people to invest in developing the system and making a profit from that investment. I'm still getting my head around some of this, but it appears that there are two separate but related issues that are confusing (or at least they're confusing to me), and both issues have to do with how a particular intellectual property law is determined to be constitutional.Point No. 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 … "As the article above shows, the evidence is rather abundant that patent law, in almost all cases, does not promote the progress. In most fields of research and study, whether it be assured, by copyright, to the right to use and copy their original You need to use honest information to draw honest conclusions, not simply to close the argument by stating the facts are on my side (of the argument). I will simply cut and past this from Wikipedia. Translator . "Although Bell was accused, and is still accused, of stealing the telephone from Gray,[23] Bell used Gray's water transmitter design only as a proof of concept scientific experiment to prove to his own satisfaction that clear human voice sounds could be electrically transmitted. "The problem with current patent laws is that once a patent is held, it becomes more profitable to maintain exclusive rights to the idea (and generate money from licensing, lawsuits, etc.) If you disperse that opportunity possibly no one can gather the necessary capital to develop this new system of communication and it is slower to develop than with access to a short-term monopoly.
EN. The most recent I can recall is that the State of California has a copyright law on its books up until the passage by Congress of the Copyright Act of 1976. "We possibly need to review Shulman's book on this topic but considering that this matter was subject to court actions, etc., and Bell was found to be the actual inventor in those, your conclusion is simply self-serving for your argumentation in this matter. Well, we might conclude that and we might otherwise conclude that innovation proceeded very rapidly. I disagree with most of your assertions.I find your views on this issue to be quite socialist in nature. [The Congress shall have 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.” works.
you keep saying for the betterment of society this definitely smacks of socialism, when the fruits of my labors are not my own there is no incentive to produce and all innovation ends all the innovations of the past are based on finding an idea and then making that idea better or replacing that technology with something cheaper that's how we got from oil lamps to electric lights there is no true altruism it's all self interest if society benefits from my invention all the better but self interest comes first it's free market capitalism that works not socialism.