The old boundaries are only relevant in the modern world because they used to exist. What really needs to happen is one set of common core rules that apply to everyone. Rules like these:
1) Neutral effect on environmental stability, or paying a penalty sufficient to outsource the task (with some profit).
2) Healthcare coverage mandatory for whatever constitutes a 'full' work schedule and pro-rated otherwise; any person would always have any public options including a government one, plus the options from any of their employers.
3) Standard 'old' laws, the basic concept of owning scarce resources with a provision that any new life you bring in to the world is granted a proportionate share of your resources. No murder, slavery, etc.
4) A recognition that community works projects are good ideas and allowing involved communities to establish 'local government' level support for them. Parks, Roads, other utility districts (water, sewer, power, data) to compete with any other local districts and private companies.
In all of this, old collections are largely meaningless. Countries, states/provinces, even cities only serve to add needless complication and friction to the business of advancing as a species and only minimally service the needs of getting by.
Base Command : Check
Mothership : Check
Landing Craft: Desired... after I get hired again...
Scout Craft : The scout should be aboard the Landing Craft
Escape Pod : Check, many lifeboats ready.
The solution to weak patents is to limit patents to only the cream of the crop, those most innovative, non-obvious, and fully vetted as not being obvious engineering challenges.
I would like to see patents collected in secret and a list of 12 - 365 top candidates for patents to be created. A set of engineers would then describe the -task- those patents were to accomplish and colleges around the country would have a year to try and duplicate any patents that they find. Other corporations would also have time to file. ANY duplication of the patented process would thus invalidate the patent as obvious to other skilled practitioners.
I imagine this process would probably take 2-3 years to complete. A year for collection. A year for public competition to duplicate the effort. Then the time required to examine the efforts towards the patents to ensure that they aren't getting too close or duplicating it.
Limiting patents to 10-20 years. Limit copyright to 20 years. Also, any period of greater than a year when either is unavailable would automatically and irrecoverably revoke the rights on the basis of abandonment.
Trademarks, now those should exist until abandoned. (Thus the name Mickey Mouse attributed to that cultural icon would be a trademark. However just Mickey in a generic artistic setting, or attributed to say a moose would not infringe.)
Obvious names wouldn't be protected (EG: Fido the dog), nor would concepts and contexts that had become part of popular culture. The test for that would be to ask a representative sample of plaintiff and defendant selected target audiences about samples of the 'original' and 'copied' work to determine attribution of influences. A scholarly examination of the surveys would, if audiences are selected properly, determine any cultural source works and the degree of material which should actually be tested for unattributed inspiration, or mutual discovery.
What about the forum area; the issue of patents has been discussed at length however the forum issue isn't something I noticed when I'd looked at similar topics in the past.
Why isn't there some electronic courtroom system where you'd only have to visit a local court (with a built in conference room) and it would link up with the remote court. There would have to be some witness of the local jurisdiction there, and the only applicable laws would be shared between jurisdictions (hence it would inherently be either a federal or international level law case even though the courtroom may be local.); how could anyone say someone violated a law in Texas without being there anyway?
With a bridged courtroom like that, the next issue would be judge. I see coin-toss OR availability being the deciding factor there.
Of course why not skip that step and have a national pool of judges outside of any involved states, and thus less likely to be sympathetic to either party.
RSS
Twitter
Old Boundries only relevant because they used to exist. (as Michael)
The old boundaries are only relevant in the modern world because they used to exist. What really needs to happen is one set of common core rules that apply to everyone. Rules like these:
1) Neutral effect on environmental stability, or paying a penalty sufficient to outsource the task (with some profit).
2) Healthcare coverage mandatory for whatever constitutes a 'full' work schedule and pro-rated otherwise; any person would always have any public options including a government one, plus the options from any of their employers.
3) Standard 'old' laws, the basic concept of owning scarce resources with a provision that any new life you bring in to the world is granted a proportionate share of your resources. No murder, slavery, etc.
4) A recognition that community works projects are good ideas and allowing involved communities to establish 'local government' level support for them. Parks, Roads, other utility districts (water, sewer, power, data) to compete with any other local districts and private companies.
In all of this, old collections are largely meaningless. Countries, states/provinces, even cities only serve to add needless complication and friction to the business of advancing as a species and only minimally service the needs of getting by.
Re: Re: It doesn't make sense (as Michael)
Hum...
Base Command : Check
Mothership : Check
Landing Craft: Desired... after I get hired again...
Scout Craft : The scout should be aboard the Landing Craft
Escape Pod : Check, many lifeboats ready.
Literally Limit Patents (To less than one per day) (as Michael)
The solution to weak patents is to limit patents to only the cream of the crop, those most innovative, non-obvious, and fully vetted as not being obvious engineering challenges.
I would like to see patents collected in secret and a list of 12 - 365 top candidates for patents to be created. A set of engineers would then describe the -task- those patents were to accomplish and colleges around the country would have a year to try and duplicate any patents that they find. Other corporations would also have time to file. ANY duplication of the patented process would thus invalidate the patent as obvious to other skilled practitioners.
I imagine this process would probably take 2-3 years to complete. A year for collection. A year for public competition to duplicate the effort. Then the time required to examine the efforts towards the patents to ensure that they aren't getting too close or duplicating it.
Limiting patents to 10-20 years. Limit copyright to 20 years. Also, any period of greater than a year when either is unavailable would automatically and irrecoverably revoke the rights on the basis of abandonment.
Trademarks, now those should exist until abandoned. (Thus the name Mickey Mouse attributed to that cultural icon would be a trademark. However just Mickey in a generic artistic setting, or attributed to say a moose would not infringe.)
Obvious names wouldn't be protected (EG: Fido the dog), nor would concepts and contexts that had become part of popular culture. The test for that would be to ask a representative sample of plaintiff and defendant selected target audiences about samples of the 'original' and 'copied' work to determine attribution of influences. A scholarly examination of the surveys would, if audiences are selected properly, determine any cultural source works and the degree of material which should actually be tested for unattributed inspiration, or mutual discovery.
Re: (as Michael)
What about the forum area; the issue of patents has been discussed at length however the forum issue isn't something I noticed when I'd looked at similar topics in the past.
Why isn't there some electronic courtroom system where you'd only have to visit a local court (with a built in conference room) and it would link up with the remote court. There would have to be some witness of the local jurisdiction there, and the only applicable laws would be shared between jurisdictions (hence it would inherently be either a federal or international level law case even though the courtroom may be local.); how could anyone say someone violated a law in Texas without being there anyway?
With a bridged courtroom like that, the next issue would be judge. I see coin-toss OR availability being the deciding factor there.
Of course why not skip that step and have a national pool of judges outside of any involved states, and thus less likely to be sympathetic to either party.
Re: (as Michael)
That is exactly what I was hoping when I read this.