|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT |
Well no, not really, the grant of a monopoly over the former "trade
secrets" need not require public disclosure if it can be found that such a
practice would advance science and the arts. So, your citation is irrelevant.
Patents are designed to expose trade secrets with the intent that they will
benefit society as a whole.
If you want to further this argument, I put it to you that there has not been a
test to ensure that the copyright and patent laws actually do advance science or
benefit society.
Given that no such experimental temporary suspension of patent and copyright law
have ever taken place, how could anyone argue that the interest of advancement
and social benefit are ACTUALLY relevant AT ALL?
To continue down this line of reasoning is to call into question the validity of
the legal standing of copyright and patent law.
Ergo, the purpose of patents must only be their function. Their function is to
unshroud trade secrets. Intents are a different beast, and are also irrelevant
as they remain unclarified and untested as well.
The advancement of sciences and society is a moot point. (look up Moot -- It
means points that are uncertain and unproven, and the common meaning stems from
the practice of logical discussion wherein unfounded points are rightly
ignored)
The US constitution from which you quote does not describe the architecture of
patent system or copyright system. These monopolistic systems of information
control may have been created with a given intent to be constitutional, but
there is no proof that they provide any social benefit or advance science or
art.
Were you a scientist you would say, as I have: Let's test the hypothesis,
otherwise the ideas & theories lack any merit.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
