But the best way to better society is to protect the individual and not the collective. Nobody is advocating patents exist indefinitely, but they do need to exist for a long enough period that a productive inventor can benefit. 20 years seems fine to me.

I don’t understand why I can’t download a copy of The True Believer, published 1951, by Eric Hoffer, because there is still a copyright on it, 25 years after his death. Ownership of intellectual property should end when the inventor dies if that property has been held for at least 20 years. Otherwise it should be passed on to the family, but nobody should be able to maintain control over a work of the mind indefinitely.

Patents exist for society, not the inventor. If the inventor is not protected then he won’t invent stuff and society loses out. Without patents most of at least many modern medication would not exist.

But it is a balancing act. A rifle should not be protected for 50 years. It would hold back innovation and society would lose out. Heck, if rifles were patented for 50+ years, the AK-47 would probably never have been invented.

A patent IS an artificial monopoly that PROTECTS THE INVENTOR from unfair competition. What is unfair competition? How about if you invent a new kind of internal combustion engine that runs on air by buring the oxygen. You don’t have access to Forges, CNC Milling Machines, squads of experience machinists, Engineers, Marketing, or anything else necessary to produce a major product like an engine. You pitch your idea to a wealthy industrialist, who unbeknowst to you, owns a major percentage of Ford Motor Company. He decides not to invest in your idea, but hands it to his friends at Ford, and they have a working model in production before you have enough investors to buy your first CNC machine AND they owe you NOTHING.

So you protest, but nothing comes of it, because you have no legal claim to your idea. But eventually, you actually get the finances to build a nearly identical, but slightly superior version of that engine. You have no vehicles to put it in, and Ford begins a multi-million dollar advertising campaign claiming theirs is the original, and that the proof is that they’ve been producing this design for YEARS. Next year, they incorporate all of your improved features into their design, and because of economies of scale, they are able to produce more engines faster, cheaper, and in larger quantities. Know what happens then? You die in poverty trying to keep the doors of your company from closing, or you sell your business to Ford to keep from starving. THAT’S unfair competition.

Oh, but you will have to hire a lawyer to protect your patent, but the best lawyers on Earth and hundereds of them cannot protect your property if you do not have proof of ownership, and that proof of ownership is called a PATENT. Lawyers cost money? So does theft. It takes money to make money, but you can’t make money if you don’t have something to offer. A product, a service, an idea. A product you can display, a service you can perform, but an idea requires PROOF.

There is no such thing as a “Natural Monopoly” on physical property. You have ownership over that which you can prove by law, and that which you can maintain by force from those who do not accept the law. There is no way to maintain complete and total ownership over a physical entity. Monopolies can only exist in theory. The Communists attempted a monopoly on all physical property, didn’t work out, did it?

Competition DOES produce better products, but only because patents do not allow a blatant copy to be made for at least 20 years. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be any kind of competition at all. You’d either be an already establish firm, let’s call them “The Winner”, or you’d be a nobody with a really good idea, let’s call them “The Loser”. The purpose of government is to provide a level playing field for competitor, and sometimes that requires force. The best product will never get built if companies with long histories of corruption, inefficiency, poor quality, and high prices like GM are allowed to simply steal the best ideas and best designs from individuals and start producing it. “Coming soon from Government Motors: The Aptera! The vehicle which will change the way we move.”

By advocating the dissolution of patents and intellectual property rights, you’re advocating for the same thing the Soviets did, the dissolution of private property in all its forms in order to produce the best products for “the people”. Not for profit, but for “the greater good”. Free Market competition cannot exist without the rule of law. Without the rule of law, there are no rules, and the Free Market dissolves into anarchy and turf wars without that level playing field.

How can an inventor succed without patents? How about just doing it? Just manufacture and sell your product without asking for favors from the government. Given the fact that you are the inventor you will always be a step ahead of the competition. They might produce copies, but with the deep knowledge of the fundamentals of the product the inventor will always produce the superior product and always be the first with improvements.

And what if the competition should manage to produce a better product? Well, if they do, why shouldn’t they be allowed? Why should the government use force against he who makes the best product? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Last one I bought was closing in on $400 and was a cheap Romanian SAR1

It’s highly probable that if Kalashnikov had been living in the occident when he designed his rifle, which is really just a copy of a Garand when you get down to it, he probably wouldn’t have been able to sell it, much less get a major military power to adopt it. The thing that drove western arms innovation was superior range and power, and the thing that drove Soviet arms innovation was economy and firepower. Most western military officials scoffed at the AK when they first encountered it, and continued to deride it for a long time. It’s reputation has been built up over decades and decades worth of encounters with it, all over the world. Even if it had been adopted in the west, it would have been abandoned as obsolete decades ago. Witness the Galil/R5, the Valmet 76, etc.

People who spent the better part of their youths trying to destroy private property in all its forms have some nerve complaining that their intellectual property rights aren’t being respected. Kalashnikov should continue to try to make a buck off of his name, and not his design. That ship has sailed, been attacked by pirates, and sank.

@ Carl:
You’re completely wrong about patents. Why would someone try to start a business based on an inventive idea if larger, better financed companies could simply take that idea and flood the market with it before the inventor got a chance to produce it or make a profit? Patents protect inventors, but only for a certain amount of time. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a free market, because there’d be no property rights for individuals, just large corporations who would never be challenged by small businesses and new innovations. That’s why the Soviets fell behind, a lack of innovation through competition. Patents protect innovation and invention and create competition. A lack of competition leads to the the death of free markets, not their growth. Read “Atlas Shrugged”.

I’m not even gonna try to explain why free market monopolies are a good thing. That’s advanced economics. Only state-sponsored monopolies are bad, like the Post Office.

That’s a good point but I have a more recent one. Has anyone seen the Russian reusable spacecraft? It’s a clone of the Space shuttle in every way. If they had the money it would still be flying. They steal a lot and now want everyone to stop making a 50+ year old rifle. Yeah right!

So yes, this is a ridiculous claim. And so are all other patent claims.

Personally I don’t know which I would prefer.

Since the reintroduction of capitalism he has started cashing in on his name, even lending it to an AK clone! ( http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/10/16/gsg-22-kalashnikov-ak/ scroll down for a photo of him)

If they want to go back 50 years, why not 75, 100 or 150

Turkey can give the Russian the finger and buy the American version. The Russian will learn really fast what free market economy is all about.

Now that’s funny.

If the Russian somehow is successful. You can bet that the marketshare of the AK will shrink down further.

The Russian economy is gone. Destroyed. Their hatred for the USA and freedom in general undermined their own prosperity. You reap what you sow.