![]() |
Against Monopolydefending the right to innovateIntellectual Monopoly |
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely. |
||
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License. |
|
backA nice review Yes, we post bad reviews too...just there aren't any...As with any good review, there is value added beyond the book itself.
[Posted at 10/05/2009 01:29 PM by David K. Levine on Intellectual Monopoly CommentsArticle I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress may establish a system of patents and copyrights to promote progress in "science and useful arts." I didn't read further than that. Anyone who starts off with such a blatant misrepresentation of the US constitution's recognition of authors' and inventors' exclusive right to their writings and designs as sanction to grant reproduction monopolies is not demonstrating sufficient competence to review a book on the subject of monopoly. [Comment at 10/05/2009 02:14 PM by Crosbie Fitch] so your misrepresentation would read "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors their already existing, natural and state-independent exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" ?? [Comment at 10/06/2009 11:14 AM by Samuel Hora] Firstly, I wouldn't misrepresent it, and secondly, 'exclusive right' needs no qualification as pre-existing, natural, and as independent of the state as any other natural right.
It is a misrepresentation that the constitution grants people a right that they didn't already have. It simply recognises the right they already have and specifies that congress should have the power to secure it. Because the meaning of the term 'right' has now become distorted to mean 'legislated privilege', today it needs qualification. It didn't a couple of centuries ago. [Comment at 10/06/2009 11:49 AM by Crosbie Fitch] Submit Comment |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() Most Recent Comments A Texas Tale of Intellectual Property Litigation (A Watering Hole Patent Trolls) Aunque suena insignificante, los números son alarmantes y nos demuestran que no es tan mínimo como at 06/29/2022 08:48 AM by Abogado de Accidente de Carro en Huntington Park
at 11/27/2021 05:53 PM by Nobody
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous
|