|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:50 AM EDT |
If you can objectively prove that patents do not help innovation and thus
represent a cost to society that is greater than it's benefits, is it then still
a moral position or belief?
(I will link this again:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)
Secondly, dismissing the argument against patents because of some perceived
difficulties in getting the law changed is not helpful. Getting the law changed
- even something like the constitution - is a matter of convincing the right
people. Convincing those people is a matter of convincing enough other people.
Doing that, however, is only possible if people do not dismiss the argument out
of hand just because we happen to have dug ourselves into this hole already.
Getting out of it is a matter of climbing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
No constitutional change needed - the Constitution ENABLES Congress, it does not
REQUIRE Congress to act.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|