"Not knowing about the existence of a patent should be a valid defense against a patent infringement suit, and it should be the patent holder's responsibility to make sure that most other people in the industry know about the patent and how the invention works."
The problem with allowing this is that it becomes (as it has) de facto procedure to never read patents because you might infringe. So, this fails to uphold the idea that patents should teach society how to do a thing.
Better to just remove them entirely.
"The justification for copyright is to increase the value of creating creative works, so that society has a richer culture."
So, there's your issue right there: creative works have no value beyond that which people assign to them. The utility I get from the Mona Lisa is greater than that I get for Piss Christ--and that is a personal preference, at this point in time.
Creators should not be shielded from the free market: they either need to pander to the public (if they want money), or they need to accept that what they do is not motivated by money (and in so doing free themselves of their audience's expectations). Copyright introduces scarcity and inflates value for things that, quite frankly, don't deserve it.
Creators should not be shielded from the free market: they either need to pander to the public (if they want money), or they need to accept that what they do is not motivated by money (and in so doing free themselves of their audience's expectations). Copyright introduces scarcity and inflates value for things that, quite frankly, don't deserve it.
Note that I'm proposing to reduce scarcity by getting rid of traditional copyright. If you want a copy of something, obtain it in any way you can and pay for a license; you're guaranteed that the license is available and isn't outrageously expensive. If you don't value the copy at the offered rate, don't get a copy and don't pay for it.
As the marginal cost of a copy approaches zero, you need some kind of (group or individual) patronage system for any production to be cost-effective. That could be a viable way to go, but I'd like to see some more detail about how it would work before I jump onboard with it.
The problem with allowing this is that it becomes (as it has) de facto procedure to never read patents because you might infringe. So, this fails to uphold the idea that patents should teach society how to do a thing.
I'm not proposing that the patent should teach society, but the patent holder, as a condition of maintaining the patent. In any profession, there are trade journals or conferences that you have to pay attention to if you want to remain competitive. If your invention isn't interesting enough to get you into these venues as a contributor, then it should be, by definition, not novel enough to justify patent protection. If you do get in, there are enough eyes on the patent to identify prior art and challenge the patent before it has a chance to do much damage.
The problem with allowing this is that it becomes (as it has) de facto procedure to never read patents because you might infringe. So, this fails to uphold the idea that patents should teach society how to do a thing.
Better to just remove them entirely.
"The justification for copyright is to increase the value of creating creative works, so that society has a richer culture."
So, there's your issue right there: creative works have no value beyond that which people assign to them. The utility I get from the Mona Lisa is greater than that I get for Piss Christ--and that is a personal preference, at this point in time.
Creators should not be shielded from the free market: they either need to pander to the public (if they want money), or they need to accept that what they do is not motivated by money (and in so doing free themselves of their audience's expectations). Copyright introduces scarcity and inflates value for things that, quite frankly, don't deserve it.