| |||||||||||||
No, every legal system is like thatNo, every legal system is like thatPosted May 24, 2012 18:32 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: No, every legal system is like that by felixfix Parent article: Google wins patent case against Oracle
> If it were a system of rule by king, it would be luck of the draw how the king felt that morning, how his advisers felt, etc.
So it would be pretty much the same.
What would be ideal is 'rule by nobody'. Just voluntary contractual agreements. There really is no factual basis for any of this IP law crap.
The only defense that people can bring up for IP is either a argument economic practicality (we need copyright/patents to create markets to foster ideas), which has no factual basis (this is something that should can be demonstrably true if it a correct notion). Or a argument supporting some vague notion of 'rights' and 'fairness' over the ownership of ideas.. which is something impossible since ideas have no physical presence.
(Log in to post comments)
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 24, 2012 18:46 UTC (Thu) by krakensden (subscriber, #72039) [Link]
> What would be ideal is 'rule by nobody'. Just voluntary contractual agreements. There really is no factual basis for any of this IP law crap.
And when people disagreed on the meaning of those contracts, they would...
Oh right, avail themselves of a neutral third party to arbitrate. Who would have to be able to enforce that arbitration.
It doesn't matter what you do, you're going to wind up with judges.
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 24, 2012 18:46 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
You seem to be arguing several things at once: the evils of IP, the evils of government, and the evils of third party judgements.
I will address third party judgements.
You suggest completely voluntary contractual agreements. What if the parties disagree?
*Someone* has to be an independent judge, even if it is just those who consider doing business with any of the parties to a disagreement, and people will differ, which is fine. But in practice, few individuals would want to investigate and fully inform themselves of all disagreements by all parties with whom they might consider doing business; they will instead rely on third parties, whether that be a coercive central government or a voluntary distributed system of judgement (whether friends or service bureaus), and then you are right back to people making judgement calls.
And this is all pretty off-topic, but I suppose that too is a judgement call.
|
|||||||||||||