|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 02:26 PM EST |
Under the common law, anything 100 years or longer was "forever", and
there are a large number of rules based on this. The US Constitution was
written by lawyers who were very familiar with the common law at the time and
would have known the rule against perpetuities backwards and forwards.
Therefore when they said "limited", they meant less than 100 years!
If there were any originalists on the Supreme Court, they would have accepted
this argument. There aren't any, of course. There are "living
constitution" proponents, and then there are "whatever supports my
prejudices, to hell with the law" proponents like Scalia.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:56 PM EST |
| cannot logically be longer than an unlimited jail term. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 04:48 AM EST |
What's the difference between "forever" and "currently 5 years,
but in every 4 years we'll add another 5 years to the duration"?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 09:51 AM EST |
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries.
... to the authors and inventors, but not to others.
If we hadn't already allowed works for hire and trade in the rights, it would be
fairly clear that terms that extend beyond the lifetime of the typical author or
inventor are effectively unlimited.
The contradiction should be seen as proof that there is not a Constitutional
basis for allowing rights to be granted to the party hiring the work done, nor
for trading in rights.
Stabilizing the migration of intellectual capital (I'm thinking I like that term
better than intellectual property.) should go a long way to preventing not only
the abuses which have occurred throughout the history of the US (see the notes
someone else brought up about the inventor of FM radio), but should actually
stabilize the industries and the economy itself.
If value isn't fungible, it can't be used as a weapon in corporate warfare, and
it is precisely that warfare that has continually destabilized the economy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
