I shared my Patent Markets video discussion on a few different locals channels and had an interesting response in one of the comment sections. To vastly summarize the point brought up, the commenter brought up that the government forcing all patents to be licensable would make it so the government could use the same logic to force everyone to license any of their property. I found this odd because I have never considered patents property, but I didn't know what to consider them. For now, I will say that I probably think of them as something closer to a government service (though I've only just thought about that as I write this).
I wanted to bring this up as I found the consideration to be important. Whatever the base logic is for any government argument, it can also successfully be made for any other comparable action. If a patent is considered property, then the licensing of patents can of course be used as an argument for the forced licensure of all property. I believe we may be able to get around that argument by arguing that patents are not and cannot be property, as they can be argued to be time-limited government services. You pay to patent your ideas and the government, through the duration of the patent, will give you ownership rights over the patented technology or idea, and gives you the right to sue anyone who does. But this is something that cannot exist without the government.
I've begun to reform my thoughts on patents and have begun developing a framework that goes as follows: Any technology can be patented whenever it is first developed. Therefore, patents are virtually infinite for everything that could and eventually will be created. Most technology in the world is developed in parallel (that is, new developments are generally only ever a few months ahead or behind another place developing the same technology for the first time). In other words, it is a race to be the first to complete an idea, more than anything else. In this sense, there are no novel ideas. More like finish lines that aren't yet found. So then what is a patent if not a government service to reward the victor in the race of developing ideas? Because of the universality of ideas, and there ability to be created without the theft of the idea from another, it seems like an undo punishment for someone to not be able to capitalize on their idea just because they didn't realize they had it second, or at least couldn't submit it to the government in a functional schematic first.
I would say that an idea is a thing, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it "property" per se. I would rather say that the manifestation or realization of those ideas is what becomes property. This is where you get into things like individual IP. IP being a way of using a patented idea to create a property. For example, Nintendo may have been able to patent the idea of sidescrolling in video games, if they had wanted to, meanwhile Super Mario would be their exclusive IP. In the way that I would design government patents, the patent service would still enable others to create their sidescrollers, so Nintendo wouldn't be the only company that could make them, but Nintendo's ownership of Super Mario would mean they are the only people who could ever use Super Mario as long as they maintain the IP.
Yes, I know Nintendo didn't patent the sidescroller, but WB did just patent the Nemesis System: a gameplay mechanic where enemies that kill the player will become stronger or otherwise acknowledged in game for this feat. So the hypothetical I made isn't something so far off of what could happen in reality. Hopefully this clarification will help people understand what I mean when I describe my ideas for what to do with patents and why I see making them a government service right as opposed to a property would be more ideal in framing.
Anyhow, I wanted to ask what all of you think in regards to all of this. Do you think patents are property and that changing the laws about them to remove exclusivity could have negative effects for property across the board? Or do you think there should be something done to improve the efficacy and competition of and within our industries? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and tell me that I'm crazy if you think I am. Regardless, I hope you found this discussion as interesting as I have.
Just thought I'd share this comment I was trying to comment on a Lotus Eaters video. Btw, ya'll should follow the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters if you aren't already. Great analysis and discussion
It's been a while since I've made a video, and this time with a locals exclusive. A cherry on top that I managed to fit within the size requirements. I like making shorter form content like this, considering my tendencies to ramble. Having content exclusive for my followers here is something I'll be working on doing more and more. I'll be creating more value here for my subscribers as well, with some subscriber exclusive content in the future. No timeline promises, cause I think we know how I get when I make a ton of promises (go hardcore for a week and then fall flat on my face unable to keep up with the sprint, lol).
Anyhow, let me know your thoughts and questions below. Have a great day everyone!
A direct upload! It turns out I recorded a video just short enough to meet the minimum upload offerings that locals offers to small communities like mine. That means you guys get this exclusively on locals!
I didn't sleep much last night, so I decided this was the perfect time to mull over my confused thoughts on how businesses are viewed from a legal perspective. Businesses are somewhat legal enigmas to me. Corporations are kinda treated as persons so that they can be double taxed, but have other protections, other types of businesses aren't treated the same way. They're able to consolidate power like governments, yet aren't subject to any form of limitations in regards to violating natural rights the same way the government is, despite being treated somewhat like persons they can still buy each other. It's just very odd to me from a principled, legal, and philosophical position.
Anyhow, my ramblings here are just that, ramblings. Still, I am curious what you all think of this topic. ...
The 2020 election is over, and the battle has just begun. What do I expect to come from the end of the election? Will the legal suits turn over anything for this election, or will they mean something for later down the line? I reflect on these questions and more in this discussion, and I also reflect on some final thoughts relevant to the Rise and Fall of Empire Series, that, thus far, being episodes 8 through 10 of the Construct Cast. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have any reflections of your own from this year's political cycle or other developments that you can't seem to get off your mind in the comments below.
In this episode of the Construct Cast, I discuss my analysis of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, with an emphasis on my own consideration for what it would take to help an empire survive, or reboot. If immortality for an Empire is impossible, is rebirth impossible in the same way? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's Note: Returning to the podcast versions of the Construct Cast, I want to catch our content up to the videos we have had released over the past month. I apologize for this getting away from me for a bit. With the rise in content production, I had allowed this to get away from me. We will be returning to audio podcast uploads of the Construct Cast as per our original regular schedule, at 12PM EST on the day of the original upload, going forward.
In this second Crossover podcast, we are once again recording with Kevin @Eng_Politics. His channel is a bastion of political thought and analysis from the perspective of a conservative engineer. Interested in diving deeper into my concept of Progressive Traditionalism and combating the concept with his own beliefs of what it means to be Conservative, we decided to put our definitions and beliefs to task in this crossover episode!
Be sure to check out Kevin's locals community here:
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
As someone who works with daily reporting to the Fed, big companies dealing with regulation are basically a clusterfuck and the requirements basically leave the companies in a position where they can never really update their systems because they need their systems literally every day. They can make new systems, potentially, but updating the regular system is more of a liability since missing a single day can screw the company up. At the same time, it seems like the big companies, at least the one I'm in, are mostly carried forward by the inertia of their own weight. I am fully convinced there will be another massive financial crisis if other major banks are like mine, just cause there really isn't anything that can be done if something is messed up. It's like fake it til you make it, only in reverse. Once something goes wrong, the requirements for constant regular action leaves no time to go back to correct the damage. All you can do is mitigate. Like debt gaining interest, eventually ...
Does anyone have any advice for the work, life, content creator balance? I just genuinely have not had the spirit in me to be able to create the content I want to be able to create these past few months as I am just feeling totally worn out day in and out. I'd like to get back into the philosophic deep dives and contemplations you followed me for, yet that's feeling like a lifetime ago now and every day feels like a step away from where and what I'm supposed to be doing
My locals app is finally working again. Been sick lately. Started considering the differences between corruption and evil. I decided to look at it from a moral framework and came up with a new perspective on how to define the 2 from a moral standpoint. A corrupt person will defy their morals to achieve their goals, whereas an evil person will determine their morals based on whatever ends satisfy or help to achieve their goals. In this way, you can see that a corrupt person may acknowledge when they are doing something morally wrong and feel guilt over it, whereas an evil person will determine that all who oppose them are the true evil threat and could even assess their own will as being justice.
Just a little thought that's been running through my mind lately. And it's interesting because it really makes you wonder which is worse? One who will defy morals or one who will redefine them? Perhaps they both have the same end result, but do they both have the ability to find redemption? I ...
Welcome to Commutation Construct. This is a community designed around maximizing open dialogue and discussion. Get your first month on us by using the coupon code "STARTHERE" or by following this link:
Happy to have you!