you realize that a lot of songs are no patented it's just who ever likes the imitator over the creator? Here check this out
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
you realize that a lot of songs are no patented it's just who ever likes the imitator over the creator? Here check this out
Songs are not actually patented. You can't acquire a patent on a song.
Instead they're copyrighted. The criteria for acquiring the copyright of a song is the first person to publish or make it known publicly has claim to the copyright and can therefore claim a fee or royalty from those who exploit it commercially.
And like patents a copyright holder cannot stop anyone from exploiting it unless that refuse to pay the royalty.
It's all about VALUE. A shoe has value. (If no one designed or made any shoes we'd all be walking barefoot) A song has value (If no one wrote or composed any songs we would have no music) A work of art has value (If no one created them we'd have no art) An invention has value (again if no one created them we'd be living pre stone age)
The value of anything can be measured by how much it is desired by humanity (demand) and it's availability(supply)
To be continues
Yes an INVENTION has value because it is physical the IDEA of an invention has 0 value. I can say oh id like to go to the moon that means nothing unless I actually do it make sense?
You couldn't even begin to make a physical invention without having the IDEA first.
In fact the INVENTION "IS" the IDEA.
When you apply for a patent you submit the IDEA in documented form. You don't submit a physical version of it.
In fact you don't even need to have, or ever have had a physical version of it.
Even after you've been granted the patent there is still no requirement that you or anyone else ever produce a physical embodiment of it.
So it's the IDEA that the patent system recognises as having value not the physical version of it. After all, anyone can make a physical version of it once they have the blueprint.
The patent means you can stop anyone from creating your idea which is wrong and immoral just because someone said hmm cars could run on gas does not mean they have a right to physically stop people from making a car run on gas and selling it.
You're right. You, or anyone saying "cars could run in gas" doesn't give you any rights that you didn't already have.
First of all cause everyone already knows that. This is what's known a "prior art".
You can't get a patent on something unless it's "Novel" i.e. not already known to those who would know such of things i.e. not "prior art" e.g. if it was some kind of a clock it would have to be unknown to the people who make, sell or work with clocks and the likes.
An second: you would have to have been granted a patent (which is a long and expensive process. Like a long court trial in which you've as much chance of loosing as winning) and if you loose you've wasted an awful lot if time and money for nothing.
And also, say if it wasn't known that cars could run on gas, You couldn't just ask the patent office to grant you a patent on a car that runs on gas. You'd have to clearly document exactly how this car runs on gas, including drawings (blueprints)that any car engineer could understand and reproduce in physical form.
I just don't see it being right or moral to say well I made this first so now anyone who makes this must be stopped. That is just wrong if I can make a car then the car is mine not someone elses because they thought of the idea ... Sorry I used my resources to make this car so it's mine you cannot tell me I can't sell it or use it. Patents stunt innovation and that is not good when a drug gets patented it never gets improved and that is because there is no competition and competition is key
You keep going back to the same arguments. You don't seem to be reading or at least understanding what I've been telling you.
If we can't move forward in this conversation I think we should forget it as we seem to be getting nowhere.
"That is just wrong if I can make a car then the car is mine not someone elses because they thought of the idea"
You seem to be forgetting that you couldn't have made the car if they hadn't thought of the idea, which means that the idea is an essential ingredient of the car without which it simply couldn't exist.
So as I said before, If you think the inventor of your car isn't entitled to any share of it's ownership then you must have a perverted sense of morality and fairness.
Have you checked any of the links I have sent you?
Yes...and I think they are wrong and idiotic