As Monsanto is under scrutiny after its inscrutable win in the US Supreme Court, the blogosphere is loaded with paid shills arguing pro-Monsanto. This is an excellent talking point by one of the shills:
Monsanto Was Just Protecting Their Patents
Now, reading William Patry on copyright wars, his book gets into patents as well. Another one of those "any patent attorney could tell you..." amazing facts is, although the "natural rights" argument for "intellectual" "property" "rights" is widely cited by pro-IPR elements, such a foundation is no where in the law. "Intellectual" "property" "rights" in the sense of natural rights has been explicitly rejected by courts high and low in USA. The only basis for "intellectual" "property" "rights" recognized in USA is positive law, a regime fashioned to benefit society. No court recognizes "intellectual" "property" "rights" as a natural law.
So when a shill says
Monsanto Was Just Protecting Their Patents
The fact is the patents belong to all of us, not Monsanto, they are a creation of the legislature strictly for the benefit of all, not to anyone's detriment. Patent law can and has, very often, been tweaked or gone though a major overhaul, just as any man-made accommodation in law. To say Monsanto was protecting their patents plays on this natural rights argument which is in fact absent in the law.
If Monsanto gets any benefit from a patent, it is because society has agreed to it, and for no other reason. If society disagrees, then the patent law is changed, or better, eliminated. Monsanto has no say in what we as a society as a whole decides for Monsanto. (Well, of course they can buy regulatory benefits and protections with the tax dollars they get from subsidies.)
Now you know something is wrong when industry leaders sue their customers, like the record industry. Or worse, when it sues people who are NOT their customer, like Monsanto does.
That the Supreme Court made a special ruling for Monsanto is nothing new. You can read the Transformation of American Law 1789-1860 by Horwitz and see case by case, the Supreme Court's job is to protect the government against the people' will and to support big government/big business.
That the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for a special rule unique to Monsanto is merely the latest in a series of rulings you can trace back to 1789. It is how the USA works.
In fact, if you want an excellent overview of law in USA (as a consumer thereof), I'd recommend Patry's book on Copyrights, and Horwitz's book on law.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Monsanto Was Just Protecting Their Patents
Now, reading William Patry on copyright wars, his book gets into patents as well. Another one of those "any patent attorney could tell you..." amazing facts is, although the "natural rights" argument for "intellectual" "property" "rights" is widely cited by pro-IPR elements, such a foundation is no where in the law. "Intellectual" "property" "rights" in the sense of natural rights has been explicitly rejected by courts high and low in USA. The only basis for "intellectual" "property" "rights" recognized in USA is positive law, a regime fashioned to benefit society. No court recognizes "intellectual" "property" "rights" as a natural law.
So when a shill says
Monsanto Was Just Protecting Their Patents
The fact is the patents belong to all of us, not Monsanto, they are a creation of the legislature strictly for the benefit of all, not to anyone's detriment. Patent law can and has, very often, been tweaked or gone though a major overhaul, just as any man-made accommodation in law. To say Monsanto was protecting their patents plays on this natural rights argument which is in fact absent in the law.
If Monsanto gets any benefit from a patent, it is because society has agreed to it, and for no other reason. If society disagrees, then the patent law is changed, or better, eliminated. Monsanto has no say in what we as a society as a whole decides for Monsanto. (Well, of course they can buy regulatory benefits and protections with the tax dollars they get from subsidies.)
Now you know something is wrong when industry leaders sue their customers, like the record industry. Or worse, when it sues people who are NOT their customer, like Monsanto does.
That the Supreme Court made a special ruling for Monsanto is nothing new. You can read the Transformation of American Law 1789-1860 by Horwitz and see case by case, the Supreme Court's job is to protect the government against the people' will and to support big government/big business.
That the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for a special rule unique to Monsanto is merely the latest in a series of rulings you can trace back to 1789. It is how the USA works.
In fact, if you want an excellent overview of law in USA (as a consumer thereof), I'd recommend Patry's book on Copyrights, and Horwitz's book on law.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
5 comments:
These two companies, Advanced Liquid Logic and Luna Innovations (LUNA), are typical start-up companies in the US today using flawed business paradigms (e.g., IPR, government handouts, grants (SBIR), awards, bank financing, etc.) trying to achieve success. But where are the customers? LUNA has been in existence for nearly 20 years, and as far as I can tell, never has had a year with a NET profit - this "zombie" company seems to merely subsist on perpetual government handouts and bank financing. What a waste. We need more competent entrepreneurs - so many today are clueless. And the business schools are not helping. MBA's are educating students to work in investment management and for working in big conservator fortune 500 companies - NOT for entrepreneurship.
Theranos is another start-up company in Silicon Valley, with mysteriously good and persistent VC funding. This company has been in existence for nearly 10 years, and still NO product on the market. I've heard the company is very aggressive with IPR and very litigious. But what has IPR done for them? - nothing as far as I can tell. Where are the products that customers want? Entrepreneurship is in serious trouble and decline in America I believe.
Check out this little nugget of epic cluelessness for Advanced Liquid Logic:
http://www.formamedicaldevicedesign.com/case-studies/advanced-liquid-logic-2/
"The design has generated significant excitement both within the company and among potential investment partners as Advanced Liquid Logic moves forward in its quest to commercialize their technology."
Geesh - what about what the customers think?
Bingo! - I was right (unfortunately):
"Risk-Averse Culture Infects U.S. Workers, Entrepreneurs":
http://stream.wsj.com/story/markets/SS-2-5/SS-2-244504/
(Of course, students of Johns' course know that entrepreneurs really do NOT take risks.)
Here's another take on entrepreneurship (which I don't necessarily agree with):
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/wsj-bemoans-rise-in-rationality-um-alleged-decline-in-risk-taking.html
There are so many misconceptions that people have about self-employment and entrepreneurship.
Post a Comment