the first line of the article "a record 300,000 electric cars sold in the US in the third quarter of 2023"; the spreading of FUD around EVs continues, nothing new here; this time it is from the opposite end of the spectrum from the crowd saying "Getting Americans to ditch driving altogether would be the most effective way to reduce emissions, but it would require a massive rethink of our transport system."
classic case of the great being the enemy of the good;
Not sure, but there is an argument out there that a cell phone + social media is as addictive as a slot machine, read some of Georgetown's Comp Sci Professor, Cal Newport: https://www.gq.com/story/cal-newport-digital-minimalism
wants? this is the way it has been done for a long long time in the US (the first US patent grant was from George Washington in 1790), there is Property category where there is at least Real Property & Intellectual Property, patents which are in the Intellectual Property 'bucket' so to speak
There are multiple of forms of intellectual property beyond patents: copyright, trademarks, etc
This is the way the legal system has always worked, not an invention of a modern corporate interests, the ancient Greeks recognizes some forms of patent, the modern version is based around the implementations of Italy's patent system in the 1400s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
no conspiracy here....but yes corporations do like to see a return on their significant research and development investments
There is no intellectual "property", merely a temporary exclusive grant made by the public to encourage the arts and sciences. To call it "property" is, as I warned, the goal of the "IP" industry in equating a patent as no different from a house and land. Then it magically becomes some sort of right, but one is fundamental a restriction of your own fundamental human rights because a patent can be accidentally infringed.
A patent can be accidentally issued, but it can be hell to accidentally UN-issue it. Meanwhile the patent constraints your actions and speech through its power. And we want to treat it like a house? The house limits what you may do upon that land, a patent limits what you may do anywhere any everywhere. And you don't even need to know the patent "property" upon your actions even exists.
Intellectual property is real. Try stealing some IP from Apple and see what happens -- something real will happen.
IP is as real as any other legal construct, such as, contract rights. The term intellectual property is a term of art that just happens to model some of the analogues that exist between intellectual property, real property, and personal property.
It is interesting to see the electronics/computer science side of the patent debate. On this side of the argument there is a desire for a short duration, very narrowly tailored patents (for some that is even too much) because technology moves so fast. On the biomedical/genetics research side of the argument there is a desire for long lasting, broadly tailored patents because it takes so long to develop medicine, do clinical trials, get FDA approval, etc.
What I find most interesting is that I believe most (not all) members of this side of the debate 1) don't know there is another side and/or 2) don't care about the needs of the other side. This author makes good points, but lacks proper context I believe.
Statements like '20 years was set in the days of horse and carts, does it make sense in the modern age?' are great for pandering to an already complicit audience. However, the point is that for some industries 20 years makes sense, and for some of them 20 years isn't long enough.
I'd be willing to bet Myriad Genetics or Monsanto thinks 20 years is not enough.
reply