that puts to much burden on the public. If someone makes something and its been in common use for 20 years who is responsible for continuously monitoring the requests to make sure it isn't patented later when it makes no sense?

I think all that would really do it give companies a change to cause trouble.. the ones that can afford to anyway. Prior art does need to be researched more but this has more to with patent office having time to deal with stuff than competence.

I think the main people here will be companies clogging the system with more junk to delay and manipulate.

I don't understand patenting software binaries in your post. Are you basically advocating copy writing? That would make more sense.

As for 2, I don't think that would be good because physical objects could be quite costly and some guy in a basement might have an innovative idea, but not have the resources to produce it. He needs the patent to protect his great idea (reward) while he can sell royalties for production or sell the patent.

I think with 3 you will just end up with company wars. All the companies that care will be the only ones watching for the patent scrutiny period and they will spend lots of money to debunk it while stealing the idea or trying to steal the patent. And the guy in his basement inventing something already pays a lot for a patent. I don't want to add the fear of getting sued to that.

One of the problems is the patent office makes money for the government. That money does not go into making the patent office better. Underpaid patent clerks learnt he system and get hired away for high salaries at companies to make patents which means you have new people at the patent office a lot and the senior people are overworked.

Next time you complain that something is bad in the world remember that :P Most problems are caused by people wanting quick money without consideration for long term value. I am just this was a joke post, but just pointing the obvious out :D

I think Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It is a good book on the patent system and its problems.

haha, that does happen though.... when the government is involved.

sarcasm isn't a substitute for an argument.

I find it odd that only a government can guarantee these things. The same government that can't balance a ledger. I simply will never agree with someone that think 600+ people playing politics in washington know what is best for 307,765,999 people by writing a law. Despite your sarcasm, if someone did want to get their brain-ass transplant in your unclean apartment (go clean it you dirty person) then they will do it despite the government.

I am not going to to pretend that the government has magical power to fly around protecting us.

what is the difference?

If we are equal and I am free to do something then so are you? Its odd that you think that the pronoun matters.

yes, this is exactly why I am for -regulating the network providers- that have taken subsidies and used government power to get what they want. If they want to have complete control over THEIR property then they need to make sure they don't make it partially public. I am not in favor of the government saying every network must be neutral. I am not interested in the government having power to tell networks what to do, but I am interested in the public telling companies that took public money what to do.

ok, this is not related but little phrases like 'funny how' are annoying. What is funny about it? Are you trying to make a real point through sarcasm. bleh... I just hate those

You seem to believe that a company, interested in making money, is supposed to spend time figuring out what the cheapest price it can sell something at is. Do you spend your time figuring out the cheapest salary that you will work for. When a raise comes your way do you say, 'no no, that is to much. My income is sufficient right now'? The figure out the price that people are willing to pay and that they can sell lots of units. They want to make money. It is very simple. And people are buying it so they are basically voting for that to happen with their money. Each dollar is a vote saying, 'this is a good thing to do'.

You seem to blame corporations here for everything. Where is the onus on the people/consumers to be responsible? No one is forced to buy this stuff. They could learn a free OS and build their own computer, but they think its worth it to just pay the money. It confuses me how so many people expect a company to be so righteous but leaves out all responsibility for the consumer. It is all very simple. A company makes something to get money. A consumer wants something and gives money. Both sides of that are equally important. They are bound together. A free market does not mean a company can do what it wants. A free market means a company will do what the consumer allows. The freedom is actually yours. Abuses by companies are most often tied to law and government power.

So a "free market" (your quotes) is free. It is a puppet and YOU are holding the reins. So next time you buy that cheap piece of crap item you don't really need for the lowest possible price you can find that was made in china by some poor child then don't blame McEvil Corp. Blame yourself.

I am libertarian. I believe in freedom. freedom is hard because it allow some people/business to do thing you do not like, but that is being free. All you do by making rules is giving the government power.

How about YOU making an organization that helps those 'plebeians' not spend their freely earned money on something they are willingly buying? Instead you rather use the force of government to enact your will because you don't want to have to worry about it yourself? I am sorry if you want to give up more of your power to the government to have a little less responsibility, but I do not. I find the 'wants the big bad business to have power over everything' silly. I rather just not spend my money somewhere than to give up power to the government which has proven for decades that it does things far worse than any private organization. Money will keep businesses in line more than politicians with to much power worried about their election campaigns.

Personally I am for network neutrality, but not because I just want it an think its a 'good' thing to do. I think the government has given subsidies to those company and they should have to pay a price for that government money. They should have open networks. If they had paid entirely for the system themselves, thus it belonging entirely to them, then they could do whatever they wanted. I am also not sure why someone would compare open source to network neutrality. I am perfectly fine with open source. I love it, I use it. It is people exercising freedom. I also think most standard people have no clue what it is and neither do most libertarians.

Corporations only have power then 1) we give power to the government such that corporations can use lobbyist to manipulate government (don't give them the power in the first place, and 2) when you vote for that corporation to do what it is doing with every dollar you spend. If millions of these people are spending their money on an 'evil' corporation that you hate then that corporation must be providing some service they desire over its supposed evilness.

I know it is easier to blame a big bad corporation instead of millions of nameless people who don't want to be personally responsible, but that is what the issue is really about. I am not going to sacrifice my power to the government because others are so willing to not be responsible.

As far as unions, I do support them. That is what people are free to do. But that doesn't mean I have to like all unions. I think a giant union that has become a bloated political machine (like the teachers union in california) no longer serves the will of that group, but I am not going to try to use government force to break them up. I will try to discuss it and deal with it through social channels.

So please refrain from your absolute statements. I am a libertarian and I am fine with unions and do not think I am better than anyone. I am not the one that is trying to push my ideas onto others through government force. I encourage everyone to learn more about what libertarianism really is. Freedom and responsibility is the heart of it and that is not the easy path but it gives people the most power.

I don't think they made sense even right after the war. Repressing speech does not solve problems. Running away or hiding problems doesn't work. Although we have been trying for thousands of years. If someone is an intolerant bastard they should be able to stand up and proclaim it so society can mock and shun them. We don't need laws to make everyone feel that the problem is dealt with appropriately.

"forced"? there was a person threatening your life to be unethical and perhaps immoral?

He already has ballot access.. they others didn't follow the rules they set up. So it is a publicity stunt when the two main parties kick out third parties for not following the rules?.. its happened.