An open letter to the economies of the United States and to all those in trouble around the glo

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
This one act will create limitless jobs available to all those who so choose.

One simple change to the patent laws will create millions of jobs.

no one can claim exclusive laws on their invention or patent and anybody can use it and sell if if they choose

And to perfect this, all manufacturing techniques and methods of everything produced, or possible must be filed as a patent and made public for anybody to use, advance and perfect and to bring to market.

By everything is meant all propriety information, schematic, formula, secret recipe, technology, everything in current use including coke.

The only thing that can't be done is sell your product by the same name or company already in use.

There will be no propriety secrets. an economy based on the ability and drive to seek perfection and make the best product, satisfaction and the need of a human being challenged to do the best he can because he wants to and can, without legal hinderance.

It has noting to do with money, salary or profit, those are the rewards of doing so and being a part of it. there is nothing wrong with profit if everybody has an equal chance in making the same thing if they so choose or by improving it or works above and beyond to do so.

People will still buy coke, because they like the taste. if someone made the exact same thing, but sold it cheaper, they will buy that one. a job created. if coke wants to stop losing business, they'll sell it cheaper because they have the infrastructure in place.

If they improve it and people stop buying coke, they will have legal access to the competitors formula and offer and make the same drink to market, but sell it cheaper, offer promotions etc. to get consumers back to coke. and the cycle goes on and the work never stops.

The stock market would be stimulated because smart investors will invest on the winners and change sides accordingly, or to who has the better idea because there will be no secrets. as it will be public. hence no insider trading.

The best company will get the best investment support.

A possible exception could be made for the military. but if the technology has dual purpose then the peaceful alternative must be made public and legal to manufacture.

This one act will change america over night or any nation that so choses. and benefit humanity as a whole.

The reasoning is this;

If people other than the inventors were allowed to make and improve a product, technology or medicine, and have free access and use he will add to it to make it profitable, be either finding a way to make it cheaper, better, more reliable or better.

This will drive down prices and benefit the consumers, i.e. the people.

It will force the original inventor to improve his original product or what his competitor is doing, or lose his business.

The cycle is repeated until the best possible product, technology or medicine is produced at the best possible price and benefit to the consumer.

If he doesn't, then he has not done all that is possible because some one else found or did something that is better or improved it.

Some of you will ask, what is the benefit and profit to the inventor. the profit would be that he was the first to market, that his reward. that is his profit. the first one to sell a product no one has or has ever seen becomes a billionaire.

They can step aside and enjoy their vast wealth, or they can improve it just for the sake of improving it, love of business, love of the work and profit more, or risk losing or pass on the future profit (that they don't really need as an act of generosity) to someone who can or will.

The benefit would be that the inventor will find out if it can be improved, and use the improvements or force him to use his ingenuity to improve the product if he wants to continue to profit.

But this has to be open to all people, if they so choose.

Everything ever made must be made available for anyone to make and sell, let the consumer decide.

Everybody will find a place, the reward to the worker would be he will gain knowledge and connections that he can use freely and profit from if he decides to go on his own or make a better product.

And anybody in turn can use what he learned.

They say the mother of invention is necessity, but in america patent laws have made the mother of all invention greed and selfishness. which benefits no one.

Manufacturing will return to america with this one act. right now there is one country that appears to be doing this, and it is not communism, but healthy competition that benefits everybody who so has the will to do so.

No one man can claim an invention as is own as he has used knowledge that was passed on to him that was acquired thru millennia of human history and existence.

Does an author write a book without the english language, did he invent the english language that he can use it to sell a book. what he is selling is his ideas, his story, his imagination.

If copyright laws were changed where anybody can sell a book, but has to pay the author for his story, then jobs will be created and the person who can make the best book at the best price will profit the most or anyone in general can try.

What has to be changed are contracts and copyright laws that prevent the author from selling their story to anybody other than the publisher.

And from anybody negotiating with the author directly.

You'll ask why will people invent. for the same reason they do now, for profit, for curiosity, for challenge, for awe, for knowledge, to help, by ingenuity, by necessity or for the simple reason, because they can.



edit on 19-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Um no I would rather not have someone steal my idea for their gain. If I create a jet engine that runs on thin air I don't want boeing stealing it the moment I try to make a few dollars on it. Even if I patented it the world is still getting the technology but only I can make it.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
There would be no incentive to invest time and money into inventing new things or even improving on old things.
why would anyone waste time and money doing that when they can sit back and wait for someone else to do it and then just make money off of their work.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
This would create a fluid and unstable enviornment for business, investment, employment, security, etc. your flaw is that open information and technology would be subjected to the most corrupt govts and powers, that nothing would have any stability therefore no future.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
In the past humanity used to share thier knowledge - fire, the wheel, agriculture, herbal medicine, zero, the alphabet, etc. We have become so competitive, we dont do it anymore.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
As some have already posted this would create problems
But how's about a half way mark ?
Patents are only in place for 8 years ?

5 would be too short I feel, in order to develop market and make a reasonable return on your efforts
Maybe 10 years



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
what you are suggesting here amounts to another plank in the communist agenda.

an attack on the skilled, talented, and motivated people [bourgeoisie] of this world so that the total losers [proletariat] can get what they want without any sweat off their sac, er i mean back.

inventor: IT'S AN UNPAID PROFESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they literally need TO GIVE UP the comforts of life, which includes 'consuming', something that the people of your plan seem to think is their god given right.

not to mention all the ABSOLUTE BULL### that they have to go thru at the hands of the total losers.

a great example of this is the extreme disrespect heaped on them
HERE AT ATS !!!!!!!!!!!
just look at the 'debunking' threads started about any of the 'free energy' inventors and their concepts.
none of them are ever going to get out of the prototype stage and into production without alot of support, meaning they need much more than just money, plus they need money.

i'll admit that the patent process isn't perfect, and there has been much corruption in this area, but with the stakes involved, it's to be expected

a succsesful inventor need to find away for the patent process to work for them. removing the corruption from the patent office is a first good step.

i'll give ya' a star though for letting me get my early morning rant out of the way. thanks.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 

Copyrights and patents are privileges granted by a society to allow only the first claimant (or one authorised by him/her) to financially benefit from the work.

So if a society deems that such a privilege be withdrawn, don't see a problem with it.

However, if copyright is not granted, I don't see how a society can force the user of the work to pay the author/inventor as you were proposing. It is not copyright laws that prevent the author of a work from selling it to many publishers. It is that no publisher is willing to publish a work unless they are granted the exclusive rights by the author.

You also seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the secrecy of the formula is what makes the likes of Coke and Pepsi tick. If that were so, it defeats your own argument that they didn't contribute anything significant for them to enjoy the exclusive financial benefits of their inventions. They are not preventing anyone else from coming up with the same formula on their own and making their own equivalents and making the same money.

Like you rightly pointed out removing the privelege of being the sole financial beneficiary of an invention or work doesn't in itself bring to halt innovation or creativity. However that doesn't magically solve the economic problems of any society either.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Another one of those utopian fantasies. Why spend money and time on research and development when you can let the other guy incur these costs and then use his hard work to turn a profit? You didn't really think this one out did you?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 

This is a fallacious argument. People do things all the time against their best interest or that cost them. Your opinion is based on the assumption that monetary rewards are the only consideration and driving factor that motivates somebody and it is utterly bs.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by th3dudeabides
reply to post by Tardacus
 

This is a fallacious argument. People do things all the time against their best interest or that cost them. Your opinion is based on the assumption that monetary rewards are the only consideration and driving factor that motivates somebody and it is utterly bs.


I base my assumption on the fact that i`ve never read or heard about anyone who spent their time and money inventing something and then giving it away or selling it for no profit.There may be isolated cases of someone doing this but i`ve never heard about it so i assume that most people don`t do it.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 



Here's a simple one, it's such low hanging fruit the only explanation is you are really young or really insulated from the rest of the world. Look up Sita Sings the Blues, Nina Paley. Worked 5 years on it and donated it the public trust after a lawsuit prevented it's distribution.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I thought China was already ignoring patents. Canada ignores pharmaceutical patents and there has been a call for banning labeling. The rest of the world is already doing what you propose and it is killing us.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join