Ben Franklin’s Greatest Invention

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 9 Nov., 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Atlas Sneezed]

I have trouble letting a million people die because of patents.

---

When you consider the, say, 10 million who are saved because of the motivational effect of patents on medical advances, I'd call the patent system a real life saver.

And if the Iranians want to advance medicine, and sell their results for what the market will bear, it would be a far better world. Let the free market bring freedom to the rest of the world.

[Congressman Billybob]

Invent whatever you choose. Give it to anyone you choose, on any terms you decide. In the meantime, reflect on the fact that roughly 90% of drugs that have lengthened the lives of millions of people around the world have been developed under our present, Franklin-inspired patents system.

Or, would you rather have those millions of lives depend on the cutting edge drugs that have been developed in the socialist and communist nations of the world? I hear they have developed penicillin just about now.

The best health is in the West, which has organized medical research on American lines. The worst health is in the rest of the world, where the research is organized on the lines you apparently prefer. Although you claim to be in favor of good health and long life, the geopolitical reality is that you favor the opposite, ill health and short life.

John / Billybob

[supercat]

Look for the one who wrote the book you want to copy.

Depending upon the profile of the work in question, that may be difficult or impossible. If the work in question was famous and gets mentioned in the author's obituary, things will be simple. But if it's a small vanity-published item that never achieved much notice, there may be no trace of it anywhere.

BTW, another thing I was curious about: suppose someone buys some positive reversal movie film (camera original) at an estate sale. Would the purchase of the film constitute purchase of the full rights thereunto? What about manuscripts, photographs, computer media, or other such materials? (I mentioned movie film first, btw, because it is the type of media most likely to be a one-of-a-kind item).

[gitmo]

Congressman, I have to confess my ignorance up until now on this subject. Thanks for the fascinating post!

[Atlas Sneezed]

BTW, another thing I was curious about: suppose someone buys some positive reversal movie film (camera original) at an estate sale. Would the purchase of the film constitute purchase of the full rights thereunto? What about manuscripts, photographs, computer media, or other such materials? (I mentioned movie film first, btw, because it is the type of media most likely to be a one-of-a-kind item).

---

Ownership of a copy (positive or negative) grants no right to make copies of it or from it, or to sell anything other than the item. The utility of an item for making copies does not come into play. Even if the item has no other use.

[supercat]

Ownership of a copy (positive or negative) grants no right to make copies of it or from it, or to sell anything other than the item. The utility of an item for making copies does not come into play. Even if the item has no other use.

If I purchase a camera positive home movie, odds are pretty good that film is a one-of-a-kind item. It isn't a copy--it's the original film that was put through the camera. As for copyright, unless there is specific mention of the film in a will, I can't really see how copyright authority would be assigned to any particular heir. Further, it would seem that anyone who sells all existing copies of a work demonstrates a willingness to forfeit any and all future income therefrom.

Especially in cases that span generations (e.g. someone sells a bunch of stuff that they had inherited from an ancestor or relative) it would seem that the concept of 'copyright ownership' can become so vague as to be basically meaningless.

[tet68]

Excellent JOhn, very well done.

[Atlas Sneezed]

>If I purchase a camera positive home movie, odds are pretty good that film is a one-of-a-kind item.

Which is irrelevant to copyright.

>As for copyright, unless there is specific mention of the film in a will, I can't really see how copyright authority would be assigned to any particular heir.

Wills generally have remainder/residue interests.

>...it would seem that the concept of 'copyright ownership' can become so vague as to be basically meaningless.

That is a tempting position for the infringer, of course. Of course, in many instances, there is little to worry or feel bad about copying something in practical terms.

What is it you wish to do?

[Cougar66]

You got it down exactly. He's be outraged I'm sure.

[Glenn]

Although you claim to be in favor of good health and long life, the geopolitical reality is that you favor the opposite, ill health and short life.

The reality is: More than a million people will die in the next year when they needn't.

[RobFromGa]

Maybe we should pass a law requiring all doctors and hospitals to work for minimum wage-- that would make health care much more accessible and save many lives too, wouldn't it? Better yet, make 'em work for nothing.

The doctors would still all be more than willing to spend seven years plus training out of the goodness of their hearts, wouldn't they?

You want to have all the benefits that are created by the current system, at no cost. Typical looter thinking.

[RoadTest]

"Oh you mean that "User-friendly" concept Jobs pirated from Xerox?"

Oh. I didn't realize Xerox made computers. Of course.

[Hot Tabasco]

Ben Franklin’s Greatest Invention

I always thought his greatest invention was the $100 bill. I've never seen one but I hear they're pretty cool.......

[Mad Dawgg]

"Oh. I didn't realize Xerox made computers. Of course."

A development team at XEROX came up with the user friendly/GUI concept and Jobs and his Apple team were brought in to look at it.

And the rest is history.

[Willie Green]

And he also recognized that it must be temporary, “for limited times,” since he was aware of permanent monopolies such as the salt monopoly in the Ottoman empire, which were benefits for preferred supporters of the ruler.

This important concept has been completely eradicated by the legal establishment.

[Fester Chugabrew]

[genew]

I emailed a link to this thread to my stepson, who is studying history in college.

Thanks for posting this.

[Sonny M]

Protecting the writings of David Baldacci is "morality" with a little 'm'. Saving the lives of millions is "morality" with a giant 'M'.

Oddly, when I was in college, this situation came up.

We debated it back and forth.

My opinion was simple, if I am the CEO of a company, and a nation reject or strips my patent for drugs or cancer or what not.

I'll have to chalk it up as a lesson learned, and realize that its foolish to ever do any kind of work in those fields again i.e. freeze all cancer and aids research immediatly and invest in something else.

What was scary, is that my idea isn't original, and alot of executives in pharmacutucal industry are starting to lean towards investment in medical technology.

The question then asked, is how many more millions will now be affected or die as a result of those decisions?

[MilspecRob]

Every thing about Franklin is enterprising and interestiong

[Glenn]

The question then asked, is how many more millions will now be affected or die as a result of those decisions?

It's a valid question. I suggested in my initial post that turning loose a man like Franklin on such a dilemma would be interesting.

To even consider debating the question makes me a socialist, some suggest.