aflanigan wrote: 

FYT

 LordBaltimore wrote: 

I must warn you, m'lord, that I am authorized to report your postings in support of a third party candidate pursuant to 99 C.F.R. 2.345 under the bipartisan maintenance and political security act to the appropriate authorities.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

I was looking at the creative, conceptual aspect of invention since that's what m'Lord Baltimore and I were discussing.  Most people have a basic idea that this typically involves thinking about a problem that needs solving, and trying to conceive of a solution.



The logistics of actually patenting and marketing an invention is not really what we were discussing (because that's not "intellectual property" subject to patent protection is).  You're right, few people understand how difficult and expensive the process of patenting an invention, and actually bringing it to market, is.

I like your idea of acknowledging parallel effort.  I believe that for significant discoveries and inventions (laser, calculus, etc.) it is the norm; in fact James Burke liked to point out that inventions or discoveries we consider profound are seldom if ever the fruit of one person's mind.

I probably misspoke in implying that eliminating or fundamentally changing the patent system would require the amending of the Constitution.  It says "the Congress shall have the power", but it doesn't compel Congress to utilize it.  Congress could decide that it would not avail itself of the power (yea, good luck with that!) to grant patent monopolies.

 islander wrote:
 
this should be an eye opener for the masses

but they're not conditioned and marketed this way

the vast majority put greed and politics in front of principles

we see the results

peace

aflanigan wrote:
1. Um, no. I doubt very much that even most people know what it involves. Especially concerning patents, but even what it takes to turn an idea into a product (and whether it's even possible in any given case). We could take a poll if you like.

2. No, I wouldn't. I think even you have good ideas (as long as they aren't about politics or economics ).

3. Having made my living reducing ideas (mine and others') to practice for almost 30 years, I have to disagree. Good execution makes ideas look good.

Some flawed concepts can't be made to work of course, or we'd all be enjoying free power from perpetual motion machines—but there are always more than one solution to a technical problem. Some are easier to implement than others, some have one advantage or another over other approaches, but as you reduce them to practice they tend to converge on the same solution.

4. Long answer. I think the patent process we have now could work better; an administrative (rather than civil law) process to invalidate a patent based on prior art would be very helpful, as would the European practice of publishing applications before granting patents. Patent examiners could take the concept of novelty a little more seriously; that wouldn't require any changes to the constitution, but it might require hiring some more examiners in the short run to clear the backlog.

I'd like to see some mechanism to acknowledge parallel invention rather than the first-past-the-pole, winner-take-all approach we have now. Specifically we could change the disclosure rules to encourage (rather than punish) publishing results, but shared ownership makes sense too.

But I'd also like to revisit the concept of owning thoughts. Yes, that would involve at least modifying the constitution, but James Madison wouldn't recognize the process we have now either.

 islander wrote: 
I believe, based on studies of non-voters I've read, that the major reason (not always stated, of course) is indifference.  Shameful. That we don't get 70-80% turnout, at least in a Presidential year is shameful.  And many of those non-voters will be affected by the outcome.  The indifference, when it is defined, has been described as being like the weather, can't do anything about it (my vote doesn't count), so why bother.

As for third parties.  Enviable idea with no traction in the real world at all.  Even TP candidates with money and a following couldn't really do too much, though a case can be made for Nader possibly in effect throwing one of W's. terms to him.

 islander wrote: 
At my age, this is all that a principled vote will get me.

 islander wrote: 
It's currently impossible for a third party candidate to compete against the big $$$$$$. It's not an equal playing field. Unfortunately, a candidate needs to run for at least a year if not longer, and this requires funds. 

 islander wrote: 
Yes, but there needs serious regulation at the very least, it has gotten obnoxiously out of control and is a major factor towards preventing any movement or party from being able to compete with the machine.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Could you agree less?

 hippiechick wrote: 
I could not agree more.

 hippiechick wrote: 
We won't have a viable third party candidate until people start voting for a third party.  Money drives exposure, but everyone sees a raft of choices on the ballot. It's fear and a sense of wanting to back a winner that keeps us stuck in the current dilemma.  If it's not profitable, the money will move.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
If only we could get the ~40% of the electorate who doesn't vote to come out and at least put a mark in the box. I think so many don't vote because they either don't like the choices or have assumed the outcome already. If we could get their voices heard - even if it's just a loud "none of the above", it would help to shake up the establishment.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
We won't be able to have a viable third-party candidate until the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ component is removed.

 aflanigan wrote: 
What I am talking about is a slow evolution, the general public needs to be reassured that it is ok to vote for someone other than the 2 "supposedly" diametrically opposed candidates out of fear the other will be elected. Well, guess what, half of the country is going to wake up November 7 upset and scared that their worst nightmare came true and guess what no matter who you want to win, they are right.  We must have the courage to make the vote for other until slowly more and more do so, wake up and throw da bums out for real instead of just replacing them with bums with one or the other same old R or D behind their name.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Do you like the two party system we currently have?  Do you feel that either of the candidates in the two party system are truly the best available people that most closely represent your views?

If not, then a vote for either major candidate is a wasted vote.  Voting for someone you don't feel is the best for the job is wasting your vote on a lesser candidate based on fear of an assumed outcome. If no one ever votes for the best candidates, then the best candidates will never win. 

 sirdroseph wrote: 
If he could attract some actual support from a significant number of voters, then he could potentially get some things done, if he was also able to ensure that most incumbents in Congress get defeated by similarly minded Senate and Representative candidates in the 50 states.  That's a tall order, even for a triathlete.

In his own state Gary Johnson holds 7% of the polling vote, with Obama at 45% and Romney at 40%. Obviously, if these people vote the same way, this will clearly hurt Romney.

 aflanigan wrote: 
You could make an even stronger case that voting for Obama or Romney would be a wasted vote if you actually want something to get done. This is based on more track record of experience of having both Democratic and Republican Presidents for the past 200 years or so. The only way to break the stranglehold of the duopoly is to vote for someone other than the duopoly, no?

 hippiechick wrote: 

LordB actually was revising to strike the IP plank because of the diversion we took for quite a while this afternoon on his view on that topic, which is a bit different than that of Gary Johnson 

He is just trying to re-set the thread, using a bit of humor.