Do Patents Encourage or Stifle Innovation?

[TheHumbleWun]

Salaam,

I like to get some input on this issue. Do you think patents makes the rich richer and the poor poorer? Are they only for wealthy & developed countries? Are they just used to create jobs for lawyers?

I read along time ago that China is going back in time and trying to patent things from wayyy back. How far should they go back?

Should Muslim countries go back and see if they could patent some of the inventions they created in the past, because people today are taking credibility for it.

Here's two articles that gives some view on it:

http://www.unionsquareventures.com/2006/07/sessions_patent.html
http://www.inventorbasics.com/Patent Pros & Cons.htm

P.S. Taxhonesty - I'd appreciate if you have any response

 

[Aapa]

Salaam,

My take on it is simple. Think of the telephone. the person who got credit didn't do it. Many years ago there was a wonderful television show, I think the English came up with it, called Connections. It helped us to understand the nature of discoveries and how they are interdependent upon each other.
I, too, would love to hear Taxhonesty.

 

[Muhammad_A]

Ah, good old James Burke's Connections.

From the golden age of British edutainment programmes

 

[taxhonesty]

We are dealing with a number of issues here. We need to first understand the economic and governmental sort of philosophical aspect. There is the idea of collectivism vs. individualism. If you say the individual is where political power starts and the individual is where innovation begins then the patent belongs to the individual not the state. This is the essence of Libertarianism/ individualism. If you believe that political and economic power begins at the top and goes down, then it is the state that innovates and they should have the intellectual property. This is the essence of collectivism/ communism/socialism/ fascism, another wards any command control type system. The point I am getting at is this is an ideological battle. I am in favor personally of individualism because in America before the Big Banks and essentially the corporatist state it was individuals that innovated not corporations but now it is in the hands of the oligarchy or oligopoly and you have a gouging of the consumer because of it. This one way in which the prices in for instance the medical industry are driven up, but not the only way. The other way is the third party payer system. You know insurance doctors can charge those who have it whatever amount they please because it is the insurance company that ultimately pays not the individual. If you don't have insurance you can't really afford medical care. Now this is where Corporate patents come into play is they get away with charging whatever they want for new prescription drugs or treatments or whatever the example is. The problem is not patents. The problem is who controls the patents. I really want to hammer this home that if you want to understand how important the concept of individualism is you really have to study The American Revolution. Study the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Up to that point in history the norm was Oligarchy or totalitarianism and when The Patriots said no to the British and broke off they eventually wrote the Federal Constitution which limited government and we said you know people have rights that are endowed by our creator, or God or Allah pick your word, with rights. We have rights not privileges. This is the concept that everyone needs to understand. The Constitution and Bill Rights just changed everything it influenced every society that yearned to be free and wanted to set up a democratic society and just about everybody has a constitution and bill of rights. My personal favorite from the revolution is that crazy Christian Patrick Henry. So once again it is a battle of ideology collectivism v individualism. My view is limit government get it out of business and out of our lives. As government has grown individual innovation has been stifled, prices have gone up, and most of the innovation has been transfered to the merchants of death. I am going to post a few links for you to start your research. My question is who came up with the ideas that China or whatever country is trying to patent.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/ then click on an idea whose time has come


http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...487&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4870224407360952135
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8018874590848634400
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1980674934527237459
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509747643152392910
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3601271545224839349
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5824859883322263421

Federalist Papers
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm
Anti-Federalist Papers
http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html

 

[TheHumbleWun]

So once again it is a battle of ideology collectivism v individualism. My view is limit government get it out of business and out of our lives. As government has grown individual innovation has been stifled, prices have gone up, and most of the innovation has been transfered to the merchants of death. I am going to post a few links for you to start your research. My question is who came up with the ideas that China or whatever country is trying to patent.

Thanks for the prompt response Taxhonesty. I agree it cerntainly can be seen as an issue of individualism vs. collectivism. In what sense are you speaking when you say "get the government out of our lives." Are you specifically talking about it's involvement with individual creativity, innovation & patents? I agree with limiting their powers but getting rid of them completely would be disasterous.

U.S. Government agencies such NIH, DOD, NSF fund institutions by offering grants (aka taxpayers $$) to promote and encourage innovation. I'm not quite sure who claims the patents, the individual or the government. Since it's the government's money and if they claim it, then I guess it really would stifle individual innovation.

Thanks for the videos. I'll look at it.

 

[taxhonesty]

Thanks for the prompt response Taxhonesty. I agree it cerntainly can be seen as an issue of individualism vs. collectivism. In what sense are you speaking when you say "get the government out of our lives." Are you specifically talking about it's involvement with individual creativity, innovation & patents? I agree with limiting their powers but getting rid of them completely would be disasterous.

U.S. Government agencies such NIH, DOD, NSF fund institutions by offering grants (aka taxpayers $$) to promote and encourage innovation. I'm not quite sure who claims the patents, the individual or the government. Since it's the government's money and if they claim it, then I guess it really would stifle individual innovation.

Thanks for the videos. I'll look at it.

The government ultimately work for the multinational corporations who can afford an army of lawyers to steal ideas and patents from the individual thus stifling individual creativity and increasing prices in a given sector. The ideas can be easily stolen and given to the multinational corporations via the coercive powers of government. It works in much the same way that we are forced to use Federal Reserve Notes and are by de facto forced out of common law and into the uniform commercial code or ucc. I don't advocate no government. I advocate limited government. The quote from George Washington sums it up best "Government like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." So he is saying yeah if you want to stay warm and cook your food you need fire but not too much otherwise you will burn down your house. As far as scope of government is concerned you have to ask what is the role of government? For many people this is a perplexing question and this goes to the heart of the collectivist v individualist debate. If you say collectivist then government will be all over your life. You will have religious police, militarized police, surveilence etc. this the road to totalitarianism. That is the essence of collectivism. Now if you are an individualist you would say well government exists to protect people's rights and their property. If this your answer then you are an individualist. When the government steps and says no you can't do that then things start getting destructive to your rights. For instance can I drink alcohol? I sure can. I am certainly not following the quaran, but it has to be my choice to follow or not to follow. This is freedom of religion or some cases freedom from religion when we analyze theocratic states. Here is another question we have at least eighty years of drug laws has that stopped people from using drugs? During prohibition did that keep people from drinking? Reguarding DOD if you analyze in The Constitution Article 1 section 8 clause 12 it states"Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Have we had a standing Army for longer than two years yeah. Well it is unconstitutional. Let me define unconstitutional for you. Unconstitutional= Illegal. Why? Article 4 states "This constitution shall be the supreme law of the land." Finally to get back to the to the topic more directly of patents and innovation. It states in the constitution in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 "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." So obviously since the government is no longer securing the patents of individuals they are obviously stealing then transferring to corporations that fund campaigns. Is this illegal? Yes

 

[TheHumbleWun]

Here is another question we have at least eighty years of drug laws has that stopped people from using drugs? During prohibition did that keep people from drinking? Reguarding DOD if you analyze in The Constitution Article 1 section 8 clause 12 it states"Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Have we had a standing Army for longer than two years yeah. Well it is unconstitutional. Let me define unconstitutional for you. Unconstitutional= Illegal. Why? Article 4 states "This constitution shall be the supreme law of the land."

You mentioned some good information that perhaps many don't know. You see I have a problem reading the Constitution right from the get-go. I can't even get passed the first sentence of the Preamble, which states "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..." Either you're perfect or you're not! How can you be more perfect than perfect? This is perhaps why I never had the enthusiasm to move forward with reading the rest.

 

[Aapa]

Salaam,

Oh I love this thread. OK. To form a more perfect union. This is really a core of Christianity. To make heaven on Earth. This is anthema to Islam. I think of the beautiful La Humbra. There is perfection in everything except a door. The door is hung crooked. Why? Because on Earth we can not have heaven.

Remember the Consititution is a politcal work based on philosphical works, mainly from the period known as the Enlightment. Man has an obligation to live in a society and support the society. As man supports his society he will in turn be protected by it. This is the social contract. In the social contract are limitations for the protection of the society. There are certain freedoms but there are many restrictions: Locke and Hume. Also bear in mind the fathers of the Consitution only wrote the Constitution to serve those who were the landed gentry. It serves to protect the financial intrests of those who have. It is that simple. It did not include any provisions for women nor slaves.
In essence it is a document for the rich, by the rich and to the rich. There is no sense of justice or equality in the Consitution.

 

[taxhonesty]

You mentioned some good information that perhaps many don't know. You see I have a problem reading the Constitution right from the get-go. I can't even get passed the first sentence of the Preamble, which states "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..." Either you're perfect or you're not! How can you be more perfect than perfect? This is perhaps why I never had the enthusiasm to move forward with reading the rest.

Let me use an example the constitution was set up to allow the tyrant or the scoundrel to get in office and effect no real change on people's life, so it shouldn't be an issue of oh I want to vote for the good man. The only real requirement is that we have to stick to the constitution. People like Jefferson heavily fought for religious freedom and were extremely secular hence Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The reason for a "more perfect union" was because of the problem of inflation and economy came to a stand still. The economy was the prime reason for drafting the constitution. Apparently there were some flaws in the articles of confederation.I am heavily against religion in government because they attempt to set up the utopia but ultimately tyranny is set up. My friends the only utopia is paradise that is what we live for.

 

[TheHumbleWun]

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It sounds good on paper, but it's actually Alice in Wonderland, because the reality speaks otherwise. They use it to protect themselves. Please see my thread:

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/sh...&mode=linear&highlight=Shut+school#post132742

I am heavily against religion in government because they attempt to set up the utopia but ultimately tyranny is set up. My friends the only utopia is paradise that is what we live for.

Are you speaking about Christian government-run countries?

Sharia law or Islamic law is a system of devising laws, based on the Quran, hadiths (sayings and doings of Muhammad as well as his followers), some consensus of the people. It has numerous details such as:

-Fundamental human rights;
-Dress codes;
-Marriage & divorce;
-Punishment; etc

Sharia law doesn't bring utopia but a civilized society of justice, morality, equality and peace. Humans are not animals. You see the amazing thing is the Quran shows people a complete way to live. Unfortunately, today many Muslim countries have "softened" away from the Quran & hadiths.

 

[Aapa]

Salaam,

Brother I completly agree that Sharia is the complete system for us to live on Earth until we return to Allah subhana talla. I know it to be true from the bottom of my heart.
Each day I amend my life in one simple way to abide by the Truth. It is our Path.
Utopia is not a word in Islam. Forgive me as I digress but we are grateful servants of Allah subhana talla regardless of the situations we are placed in as they are the testing ground for our faith. We can not bemoan our circumstances. We can be grateful and move on. We can ask Allah subhana talla to remove one of the 70,000 veils from us, should He do so.
I am rambling but what I want to convey is we do run into many contradictions when we live in a secular world run by secular governments.
It is funny that this government claims to be secular yet it is Christian in nature and running of its machinations. The breeding ground for this is greed. Each day we become a more facist state; we are more of a police state.
Islam allows us to live in the duyna but remain faithful to Allah subhana talla.

 

[taxhonesty]

Salaam,

Oh I love this thread. OK. To form a more perfect union. This is really a core of Christianity. To make heaven on Earth. This is anthema to Islam. I think of the beautiful La Humbra. There is perfection in everything except a door. The door is hung crooked. Why? Because on Earth we can not have heaven.

Remember the Consititution is a politcal work based on philosphical works, mainly from the period known as the Enlightment. Man has an obligation to live in a society and support the society. As man supports his society he will in turn be protected by it. This is the social contract. In the social contract are limitations for the protection of the society. There are certain freedoms but there are many restrictions: Locke and Hume. Also bear in mind the fathers of the Consitution only wrote the Constitution to serve those who were the landed gentry. It serves to protect the financial intrests of those who have. It is that simple. It did not include any provisions for women nor slaves.
In essence it is a document for the rich, by the rich and to the rich. There is no sense of justice or equality in the Consitution.

I really can't let this go because it is completely and totally wrong on such a level it is almost unfathomable. You are correct in that is influenced by The Age of Enlightenment. However the view that the constitution serves the rich is a typical Marxist view and is completely flawed. He writes what Lord Rothschild tells him to write. Both being based in London. This argument of yours is us and them and tax those simply because they have. If we analyze the Constitution we find in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 it states " Congress shall have the authority to coin money, and regulate the value thereof,, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard weights and measures". This is a direct attack on the central banks, whom you seem to loathe I can hardly see how that serves the rich. Many of the founding fathers loathed the banks and openly belived there was a conspiracy by the British bankers and the crown to enslave them. Further the establishment of the federal constitution, we get for the first time that people can own land in allodial title. This means it is yours, you own it and nobody can touch it or tax you on it. If you are taxed on your property then you don't own it. I happen to live one of the two states in the union where you can still own land in allodial title(Texas). There are people here who don't pay property taxes because they own it in allodial title some of those people have the original Spanish land grants. I am not sure how to obtain land in allodial title but I am researching that. My understanding is they are trying to close the doors on that rather rapidly. I am not going to argue that slavery was wrong or that women couldn't vote or what ever. One thing I will point out is the flawed nature of the fourteenth amendment. It is suppose to abolish slavery that sounds good right? Here is a concept you need to understand the created are never more powerful than the created. Allah created us. We the people created the congress. We are superior to the government supposedly, but with the fourteenth amendment, the congress creates the United States Citizen. So now the congress is over you. We were lowered down to level of slaves that is how they get away with what they do. It states that we get privileges and equal protection under the law. So you are a United States Citizen here is that ball and chain for you. I reject that, I have God given inalienable rights and I am superior to Congress.

 

[Aapa]

Salaam,

Forgive me but much of the Consititution was based on the works of Hume and Locke. Were not the writers of the Constitution many men who were given the land grants. They did not earn the land..it was given to them. They wanted to protect it. Many were plantation owners. They needed to protect their interests.
From my limited perspective the founding fathers did not take into account everyone. The Constitution did not give me inalienable rights. My freedom comes from Allah subhana talla. The Quran is my Consitition.
We would not have had the likes of a Malcom X or a Hewey Newton if the Consitution were a fair document. Where was the Consitution when it comes to to helping the detainees?
Please understand that I am not a scholar of the Consitution. I am not a Marxist. I do hate banks, as should all Muslims. I am simply a Muslim.

 

[taxhonesty]

Salaam,

Forgive me but much of the Consititution was based on the works of Hume and Locke. Were not the writers of the Constitution many men who were given the land grants. They did not earn the land..it was given to them. They wanted to protect it. Many were plantation owners. They needed to protect their interests.
From my limited perspective the founding fathers did not take into account everyone. The Constitution did not give me inalienable rights. My freedom comes from Allah subhana talla. The Quran is my Consitition.
We would not have had the likes of a Malcom X or a Hewey Newton if the Consitution were a fair document. Where was the Consitution when it comes to to helping the detainees?
Please understand that I am not a scholar of the Consitution. I am not a Marxist. I do hate banks, as should all Muslims. I am simply a Muslim.

The constitution doesn't give you anything that is true and it says that. You don't get rights from a piece of paper or even the Quaran. In the preamble to the Bill of rights it states ".....that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added:...." Another wards they are saying I am telling you that I have rights and by the way keep you hands off. Further the only rights you have are the ones you are willing to fight and die for. You have to stand up to the establishment, it is scary and apparently not for everybody. I stood up to FBI an action most would say is stupid. When you have the FBI showing up at your doorstep that is the test. My question is what are you willing to fight and die for? I am willing to die every single right there listed in the bill of rights and then some.


I like the idea of a little revolution here and there. We need people like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and now Alex Jones, G. Edward Griffin etc. Thomas Jefferson has this to say about liberty, "And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people maintain the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and of tyrants." Give me or give me death, don't tread on me."---Patrick Henry Remember our last defense against tyranny is our right to keep and bear arms because the first thing tyrants do is to ban firearms or disarm the populace. Keep that in mind.

 

[Bawar]

Hello dear taxhonesty!

As much as I enjoy reading your posts and learn something from it, I would like to point out a few things.

1- USA is not the whole world. Beware that you are on a global forum. Bearing this in mind, it may not necessarily guarantee the rights of others, especially, its enemies, who by the way are also humans. To me, US constitution means nothing nor do i know much about it.

2- To be realistic, US constitution and its government is made on the land of Indians who, I suppose, are hardly ever to be seen in New York and Washington today. My point is, the foundation of US has been layed on injustice and brutality to its original inhabitants.

3- You can't compare US constitution and Islam. One is man made and the other, sent by the creator. To compare its effects, I will refer to your example. The eighty year anti-drug law could not stop the use of drugs, but on the contrary, increased it in US.
Quran eleiminated the use of alcohol forever, even to this day only within a matter of a few years.

You mentioned sayings of some knowledgeable people that, inorder to maintain freedom and justice, it is inevitable from time to time to take arms and let the blood be spilt.

How brutal these ideas are. It clearly shows that only writing laws is not enough. It has to have a spirit and power in it so that its followers will implement it whole heartedly and repeated spillage of blood is not deemed necessary.

US constitution or any other man made laws fail purely because of this reason.

On the other hand, Quran, the law of our creator, has this special power in it that its follower will implement it whole heartedly and that is why it produces marvelous results.
Quran emphasises prevention more than cure.

Thousands of Rehabs are at work in the west, but it hardly ever has any success story.
While Quran has produced a global community of tetotallers.

Isn't it a miracle?

Peace

 

[taxhonesty]

Hello dear taxhonesty!

As much as I enjoy reading your posts and learn something from it, I would like to point out a few things.

1- USA is not the whole world. Beware that you are on a global forum. Bearing this in mind, it may not necessarily guarantee the rights of others, especially, its enemies, who by the way are also humans. To me, US constitution means nothing nor do i know much about it.

2- To be realistic, US constitution and its government is made on the land of Indians who, I suppose, are hardly ever to be seen in New York and Washington today. My point is, the foundation of US has been layed on injustice and brutality to its original inhabitants.

3- You can't compare US constitution and Islam. One is man made and the other, sent by the creator. To compare its effects, I will refer to your example. The eighty year anti-drug law could not stop the use of drugs, but on the contrary, increased it in US.
Quran eleiminated the use of alcohol forever, even to this day only within a matter of a few years.

You mentioned sayings of some knowledgeable people that, inorder to maintain freedom and justice, it is inevitable from time to time to take arms and let the blood be spilt.

How brutal these ideas are. It clearly shows that only writing laws is not enough. It has to have a spirit and power in it so that its followers will implement it whole heartedly and repeated spillage of blood is not deemed necessary.

US constitution or any other man made laws fail purely because of this reason.

On the other hand, Quran, the law of our creator, has this special power in it that its follower will implement it whole heartedly and that is why it produces marvelous results.
Quran emphasises prevention more than cure.

Thousands of Rehabs are at work in the west, but it hardly ever has any success story.
While Quran has produced a global community of tetotallers.

Isn't it a miracle?

Peace

Is this why countries in the Middle East by and large say no separation of mosque and state and they just happen to be some of the most brutal and totalitarian states in the world. Oh wow now that is what I call infallible. I suppose no one in the middle east uses drugs or alcohol as well. The very essence of the government is men serve in government and men are fallible and corruptible it doesn't matter on the system. If you don't stand up for your rights you have no rights. When government fears the people there is freedom when people fear the government there is tyranny. Further I don't advocate violence but if you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable. You know freedom is not easy: freedom is not free and as we will see freedom is not for everyone and apparently you may be one of them.

 

[Bawar]

I think there won't be need to write more in your response as a few lines will be sufficient.

Is this why countries in the Middle East by and large say no separation of mosque and state and they just happen to be some of the most brutal and totalitarian states in the world

this is what your biased media says. I can't see more brutal than USA and Israel in the whole wide world. None of the accused used atomic bombs anywhere and non sell weapons to the world.

I suppose no one in the middle east uses drugs or alcohol as well

Ofcourse they do, but compare the numbers and you will see that its comsumption is neglegeable in the middle east compared to the US. And they are those who follow the western ideals.

freedom is not free and as we will see freedom is not for everyone and apparently you may be one of them.

Another mistake. I am from Afghanistan.

Peace

 

[taxhonesty]

I am from Afghanistan.

Peace[/quote]


All this tells me is where you are from.

 

[Aapa]

Salaam,

It is important that we have Brother Taxhonesty working so hard to free many Americans. It is another bridge to cross to come to an understanding of how Islam is the only path to freedom. We live in the duyna. We can not escape it. This thread has made us aware of perceptions of govements i.e. the US both interanally and externally.
Now as to patents...I got lost a long time ago.

 

[TheHumbleWun]

You know freedom is not easy: freedom is not free and as we will see freedom is not for everyone and apparently you may be one of them.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom! Are we free from eating, sleeping, gravity? Perfect freedom is impossible. I'm sick & tired of going to work every day without spending time with my family or reading the Quran. Where is the freedom in this? We are so content with our complacency that we forget those people dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Darfur everyday, are we any more free than those being oppressed? We are so worried about the material gains of this world, yet to me a homeless & frugal man is more free.

Malcolm X once said, "You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has freedom."

Are you living in peace?