Right, that's where international law takes over. In the case of the US/Mexico border, I think there were some mutual agreements between the two countries as to what laws should be followed....which I'm sure just ends up being primarily US law, which, IMHO is wrong.
"It's strange to think that you forfeit your rights just because you happen to be at the border."
Umm, dude? You do realize that "your rights" ONLY apply in this country, right? Now, I don't feel I have enough information on this topic to decide how I feel about it, one way or t'other, but I do know that no one just HAPPENS to be at the border. It's not an accident.
Also, this is sort of the flip-side of an argument I've used before "The US Constitution ONLY applies to US citizens." I say it's the flip-side because it also ONLY applies INSIDE US Sovereign territory (embassies, military facilities, etc.). Once you leave US "soil", you are now subject to that country's laws and/or international law, which doesn't necessarily follow US law.
After reading that, I'm getting the impression that someone who is against copyright law (at least the way it currently exists) can actually form a well-thought-out, coherent argument. You must be disguising your agenda, because that's clearly impossible.
Or have you not been swayed by the copyright lawyers' propaganda? How could you not be swayed by such emotional legal mumbo-jumbo?
Seriously, though, my only problem with your argument can be summed up with a quote by David Keuck: "Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple." Which is not to say that it doesn't have it's place, just that overuse is, well, obscene.
See my perspective on patents is "Good job coming up with the idea. You get credit for being the first one to do it that way. Now that you have come up with an original idea, and gotten credit for it, STFU and let someone else improve on it if they want to."
"Again, which would be great, but has nothing to do with the point of the article. Without patents, all of that could easily happen. With them... not so much."
Well if the original inventor patents the product in such a way that does not restrict any "vertical innovation" thereof, then you would be correct. However, it is my understanding that many patents DO NOT allow that to happen. Which is a huge problem IMHO. Take the company 3M for example. Their slogan is "We don't make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy BETTER." That's "vertical innovation" at work with patents that allow it. Take Microsoft, however. How many problems does Windows have? How many people out there know EXACTLY how to fix those problems? How many of those people will Microsoft ALLOW to legally fix those problems? The first two questions are pretty much rhetorical, however there is a definite answer to the last: ZERO. That's patent law completely stifling "vertical innovation".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's the distinction that I see.
"Patents promote horizontal innovation, but restrict vertical innovation."
I would add that patents restrict vertical innovation to the point of practically stifling it altogether. We see that everywhere these days. New and "improved" ways to get the same thing we already have. The problem is that it's not a BETTER mouse trap, it's a DIFFERENT mouse trap; both are equally effective.
"Without patents we will have more vertical innovation but less horizontal innovation."
Key word there is "less", and therein lies the distinction. While horizontal innovation, IMHO, is no less important than vertical (and vice versa), if you can't take someone else's mouse trap and make it better, then innovation tends toward stagnation. Another way of putting it is that if someone comes up with a new invention, it's probably the best one they could come up with, so why make it legal for ONLY that person to improve it? That'll take a long time at best.
Yes, someone will always be able to come up with a better WAY of doing things, and that's what patents seem to promote. However, at least under US law, they also ENFORCE that aspect at the expense of people coming up with making the previous one better.
I have to be a tad nitpicky though. Die Hard 2 wasn't all that great. But then, that opinion may just be because I've seen it on TBS 18 times too many. Which means, btw, that I can't count how many times I've seen it, just the last 18 of those were too many.
"Republicans emphasizing the need to have all possible tools for law enforcement available because another major terrorist attack could occur at any time."
Statements like that make me sad, not that I am a conservative, but that THEY claim to be. On the surface, this statement makes sense: I do think that law enforcement agences SHOULD have all possible tools available to them. However (emphatic pause), wiretaps which violate the Constitution are not among those tools.
Flip side of that coin is that the US Constitution DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-US CITIZENS!!! It doesn't apply. End of story. If the government wants to do a wire-tap on a citizen of another country, it's perfectly legal according to the Constitution. You can argue till you're blue in the face about it, but in the end, your only accomplishment will be cyanosis.
While this story sort of grazes the surface of the First Amendment, this directly impacts the FIFTH amendment: the right of every US citizen to say NOTHING about ANYTHING.
Example: If I were to reveal a news story to you by word-of-mouth, technically, that instantly qualifies me as an amateur journalist. If you were to then ask me about my source, I am well within my Constitutional rights to stand there silently.
On the post: Google Destroyed Missent Bank Info Email Unopened... As More Legal Questions Are Raised
Re:
On the post: DHS Reveals Some Data On Border Laptop Searches
Re: Laws and borders
On the post: DHS Reveals Some Data On Border Laptop Searches
Re: Interesting
Umm, dude? You do realize that "your rights" ONLY apply in this country, right? Now, I don't feel I have enough information on this topic to decide how I feel about it, one way or t'other, but I do know that no one just HAPPENS to be at the border. It's not an accident.
Also, this is sort of the flip-side of an argument I've used before "The US Constitution ONLY applies to US citizens." I say it's the flip-side because it also ONLY applies INSIDE US Sovereign territory (embassies, military facilities, etc.). Once you leave US "soil", you are now subject to that country's laws and/or international law, which doesn't necessarily follow US law.
On the post: DHS Reveals Some Data On Border Laptop Searches
Re: Re: Used so rarely?
On the post: DHS Reveals Some Data On Border Laptop Searches
Re: Wouldn't it be far more productive...
:::GASP:::
On the post: Complications Of Ownership Society: Family Claiming Rights To Spiderman Doesn't Seem To Have Created Spiderman
Re: Common Sense
LOL! Man, you should copyright that!
On the post: Complications Of Ownership Society: Family Claiming Rights To Spiderman Doesn't Seem To Have Created Spiderman
Re: Taking my childhood away from me
After reading that, I'm getting the impression that someone who is against copyright law (at least the way it currently exists) can actually form a well-thought-out, coherent argument. You must be disguising your agenda, because that's clearly impossible.
Or have you not been swayed by the copyright lawyers' propaganda? How could you not be swayed by such emotional legal mumbo-jumbo?
Seriously, though, my only problem with your argument can be summed up with a quote by David Keuck: "Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple." Which is not to say that it doesn't have it's place, just that overuse is, well, obscene.
On the post: Complications Of Ownership Society: Family Claiming Rights To Spiderman Doesn't Seem To Have Created Spiderman
Re: Limits
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Re: Re: Re: Horizontal vs. Vertical
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Re: Re:
Which pretty much sums up my point, below.
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Re: Re: Horizontal vs. Vertical
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Horizontal vs. Vertical
"Patents promote horizontal innovation, but restrict vertical innovation."
I would add that patents restrict vertical innovation to the point of practically stifling it altogether. We see that everywhere these days. New and "improved" ways to get the same thing we already have. The problem is that it's not a BETTER mouse trap, it's a DIFFERENT mouse trap; both are equally effective.
"Without patents we will have more vertical innovation but less horizontal innovation."
Key word there is "less", and therein lies the distinction. While horizontal innovation, IMHO, is no less important than vertical (and vice versa), if you can't take someone else's mouse trap and make it better, then innovation tends toward stagnation. Another way of putting it is that if someone comes up with a new invention, it's probably the best one they could come up with, so why make it legal for ONLY that person to improve it? That'll take a long time at best.
Yes, someone will always be able to come up with a better WAY of doing things, and that's what patents seem to promote. However, at least under US law, they also ENFORCE that aspect at the expense of people coming up with making the previous one better.
On the post: Obama Administration: New State Secrets Rules = Really, You Can Trust Us
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah, The Who...
On the post: Obama Administration: New State Secrets Rules = Really, You Can Trust Us
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah, The Who...
On the post: Obama Administration: New State Secrets Rules = Really, You Can Trust Us
sad to be a conservative..
Statements like that make me sad, not that I am a conservative, but that THEY claim to be. On the surface, this statement makes sense: I do think that law enforcement agences SHOULD have all possible tools available to them. However (emphatic pause), wiretaps which violate the Constitution are not among those tools.
Flip side of that coin is that the US Constitution DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-US CITIZENS!!! It doesn't apply. End of story. If the government wants to do a wire-tap on a citizen of another country, it's perfectly legal according to the Constitution. You can argue till you're blue in the face about it, but in the end, your only accomplishment will be cyanosis.
On the post: Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don't Deserve Shield Protection
Not the First Amendment
Example: If I were to reveal a news story to you by word-of-mouth, technically, that instantly qualifies me as an amateur journalist. If you were to then ask me about my source, I am well within my Constitutional rights to stand there silently.
On the post: Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don't Deserve Shield Protection
Re: Re: Re: That's Lobbyists for you!
I say "Yes."
On the post: Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don't Deserve Shield Protection
Re: Re: wow, smart anon
--Thomas Jefferson
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Re:
Then I guess there was no innovation prior to patent laws. I guess there is no innovation in countries where there STILL are no patent laws.
Patents do not DRIVE innovation. Competition drives innovation. Need for recognition and/or monetary compensation drives patents.
Patents, on the surface, are a good thing. The current laws, especially in the US, need to be completely re-done.
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Re: Reality
Next >>