It always galls me when I see limousine liberals send their kids to fancy private schools while supporting public school; or Congressmen exempting themselves from their own wage and hour legislation.
IP laws are no different. Congress enacts laws protecting imaginary things, with predictably disastrous consequences. So then exceptions have to be invented, by courts or legislators, to alleviate the consequences. Without the nebulous, arbitrary, incoherent, and utilitarian “fair use” exception, copyright law would be much more painful and more obviously unjust and intolerable. In the case of patents, when a patent injunction threatened to prohibit the BlackBerry and bankrupt NTP, upsetting many Congress-critters who used BlackBerries, can there be any doubt Congress would have stepped in to stop this if necessary? And during the anthrax scares a while back when the FedGov was catching flak because Bayer was using state-granted patent monopoly rights to keep the supply of Cipro limited and its price high, the feds of course threatened to use its power to issue a compulsory license (2). So what does Congress care about the draconian effects of patent law?–it can easily alleviate the effects. Another example: in 1997 Congress added 35 U.S.C. 287(c) to the Patent Act to exempt certain surgical methods from patent liability (2).
And now the latest. Many huge banks, such as “City National, Wells Fargo, BOA, US Bank, Wachovia, Suntrust, BB&T, Bancorp South, Compass, Frost National, First Tennessee, HSBC, Harris, National City, Zions First National Bank, Bank of NY, Bank of Tokyo, Comerica, Deutsche Bank, First Citizens, Keycorp, LaSalle, M&T, PNC, and others,” have been sued by a company called DataTreasury, for patent infringement. “DataTreasury claims that its patent is necessarily infringed when a bank follows the Federal “Check 21″ procedure for electronically processing checks.”
Well, the corporate-state banking system can’t be jeopardized by a pesky patent, now, can it? And can there be any doubt that Congress is in bed with these large donors? So what does Congress do? Easy: it adds a section to impending patent reform legislation which some are calling the “Anti-DataTreasury Provision: “Although DataTreasury is not named in the Patent Reform Act of 2007, it is clear that Section 14 of the Senate Bill is primarily directed at that single patent holder. The bill would excuse “financial institutions” from charges that their check imaging methods constitute patent infringement.”
The bastards. Congress and its corporate cronies should feel the full brunt of its outrageous IP-monopoly privilege laws.
{ 13 comments }
>It always galls me when I see limousine liberals send their kids to fancy private schools while supporting public school;
Why? Is it more Randian for limo Libertarians to send their kids to private schools and vote against public schools? Or is the complaint that there are no limo Libertarians?
I think the home schoolers I know generally support the public schools.
In Seattle, where half the children attend private schools, most school levies pass. Why? A moral sympathy for those who can’t afford private schools or can’t home school?
Interesting Bill. Because most homeschooling parents I know do so for very different reasons. Namely, they don’t like their children being brainwashed with lies, and they also don’t like the concept of the education factory, which is much unchanged since it’s inception during the era of industrialisation.
“Why? Is it more Randian for limo Libertarians to send their kids to private schools and vote against public schools? Or is the complaint that there are no limo Libertarians?”
Umm, I’ve not yet seen a Randian decry opulence, inequality and wealth on the one hand and on the other make use of various luxuries, so I’m not sure what the point of this is.
Great post – I’ve never thought about the bad laws passed by legislatures this way. What is the motivation to pass consistent, sound laws when you can just endlessly append exceptions, special clauses, and other monkey patches at will?
billwald,
Would you find it acceptable if parents robbed people themselves in order to send their children to schools? Or do you prefer to have the government do it because it doesn’t seem so messy and you can easily ignore what is really happening?
billwald: “>It always galls me when I see limousine liberals send their kids to fancy private schools while supporting public school;
Why? Is it more Randian for limo Libertarians to send their kids to private schools and vote against public schools? Or is the complaint that there are no limo Libertarians?”
I don’t understand your comment.
It is wrong to advocate public schooling. But I suppose it can be an honest mistake.
But it is even worse if one isolates oneself from the detrimental effects of what you are advocating–it adds hypocrisy to it, makes it even less possible to be an honest mistake. They are willing to foist their programs on people, in part b/c they don’t bear the brunt of it.
The point is that Liberals want the hideously bad public schools for you and me, but have no intention of ever sullying their own children with the garbage they spew in them. Their patent hypocrisy is the point.
The point is that Liberals want the hideously bad public schools for you and me, but have no intention of ever sullying their own children with the garbage they spew in them. Their patent hypocrisy is the point.
The point is that Liberals want the hideously bad public schools for you and me, but have no intention of ever sullying their own children with the garbage they spew in them. Their patent hypocrisy is the point.
The non-hypocrisy would those limo-Liberals would like to see children whose parents can’t afford private education to at least have basic public education. If Liberal can afford a limo then would make them someone who pays a lot in tax in would like a say on how and where they’d like to see their taxes go. Unless this goes back to other argument of child labour and poor children who get their hands dirty have the best education – the ‘real world’.
Yes, how my heart warms to the idea of impudent fools who would force children into state pens ‘for their own good’, whilst they put their own kiddies in the best schools their money can buy, and at the same time bemoan inequality. .
The constitutionality of copyrights and patents are obvious compromises to liberty. But even if you take the “necessary evil” approach to IP, they must still be limited. Patents and copyrights have been abused beyond the wildest imaginations of our founders. It has gotten to the point that the productive software developer has to consciously ignore the possibility of patents just to get any work done.
Abolishing IP may be unrealistic in today’s world, but limiting terms and broadening fair use (extending to patents as well) is not beyond imagining. As a first step let’s try for a world where the user of technology isn’t presumed guilty.
I must admit that patent laws confuse the hell out of the everyday person (along with copyright). That I infringe them myself regularly, I have no doubt. That I could afford not to infringe them I have no doubt.
Is a fair system, that works for both the inventor (or writer) and the user, even possible? Whilst ever companies and individuals want a 1000 percent return on everything the answer to this is probably an unattainable goal.
Comments on this entry are closed.