Patents allow large companies to stifle the opportunity of others in the free market from producing the same exact product as they do. This in turn causes a monopoly where the patent owner controls every aspect of the product, the price, the quality, and the available supply, basically they control the market. The products cannot be made better or more efficiently due to competition in the marketplace. If an individual overcomes the obstacles involved in patenting their own idea then they face the lawyers of the big companies who will in most cases win due to the fact that their pockets are deeper and they can last longer in legal battle than the small fry. Patents are a detrimental to us as consumers because some companies will withhold beneficial ideas from the public for their own interests.


Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are evil

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, July 23, 2004

(revised) May 29, 2007

to see original article go to silverstockreport#43


I want to tell you a story that illustrates the nature of precious metals, and how they reflect the truth about economic laws.

The reason why I want to focus on such economic fundamentals is that many of you are in business, or one day, you may start up a business, and the better you understand the fundamentals of how things are and should be, the more successful your business can be.  Furthermore, I believe that those of us who invest in precious metals today will be in a position to re-write the laws of tomorrow.  After all, he who has the gold, makes the rules.  What rules do you plan to make?  Have you thought about it?  I have.

I'll tell you the moral of this story up front.  There is no such thing as "intellectual property."  The only real property is something tangible, or something you can protect.  (The only kind of intellectual property you can really protect is proprietary information that you can hide, such as a secret recipe or process of production.)  Therefore, the laws are wrong that try to protect "intellectual property," that create artificial monopolies.  There should be no such thing as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and that's my well-researched opinion, as I will show.

Before I get to the story, let me digress.  The first time I really thought hard about this notion of whether there should be such a thing as copyright, was way back in about 1985 or so, when I was about 15, because of computers.  Computers make copies very easily.  Every time you download anything off the internet, you are taking a free copy for yourself. 

One man expressed it this way, "All digital information is just a string of ones and zeros.  Why can another person tell me I can't string together a certain series of ones and zeros in a certain way, and store them however I want?"  This was his justification for copying software, or documents, or pictures, for himself.  But making copies of software was "illegal," and so I wondered why doing so should be wrong, or whether it really was wrong.

Today, the topic of "copyright infringement" is heating up, and is often in the news, mostly, again, due to computers.  We have Microsoft in the courts, what with their monopoly on software...  We have seen Napster and other music sharing software being challenged by the music industry.  Now, with the ability to copy DVD's, the motion picture industry has a battle on their hands, too.  It is a battle of "image making," and who has the rights to make certain images. 

My point is that I've thought about this issue for over 19 years, and that this is a topic that the world is currently struggling with, especially with the advent of free trade.

Did you know that China typically does not respect our copyright, trademark, and patent laws?  And neither do many other nations.  After all, a legal system can only act within a nation's boarders.  This presents a problem for many in industry.  They would like to do business in China, but often, they are afraid that their ideas will be "stolen". 

They are afraid of the competition.

But did you realize that the free market is supposed to encourage competition?  That's one of the essential benefits of the free market: competition.  I know about competition, because I was a ski racer.  Competition forces you to get better, or you lose.  Competition in business is great, because those who produce the most, the cheapest, win.  And those who don't, go out of business.  Free market capitalism (an ideal that has never existed) is the most efficient and beneficial economic system known to mankind, and it's why patents, copyright, and trademarks are ultimately incompatible with capitalism.  With competition, (and free trade), customers and society wins, and inefficiency dies out.

However, existing businesses, like people, have a desire to not die out.  And thus, they pressure government into passing laws designed to protect their own interests, which has the awful outcome of preventing the destruction of less efficient businesses. 

Patent laws generally don't protect the little guy, it hurts him, and stifles innovation.  If a man has an invention, he will likely want to patent it.  But patent lawyers cost money.  So, most often, the idea is never used, because of the intimidating and costly patent process.  Big businesses have more money to spend on patent litigation, while start ups have little.  Big businesses can often easily steal a patent by making a minor change, and submitting a new patent application.  And if there is litigation, the side with the deepest pockets often wins.  So, patents really don't offer significant protection at all anyway!

It is said that patents are necessary, to foster innovation.  The idea is that by allowing the creator to have a monopoly on his idea, he will be more likely to make use of it, and be more likely to try to create new ideas--to get the monopoly.

But patents do not foster innovation, they stifle it.  Patents prevent people from building on and using previously patented work, and nearly all innovations are modifications of existing ideas!  If you can't build upon existing ideas because they are patented or copyrighted, what can you build on?

Patents and copyrights are a form of communism.  In essence, if one man gets a patent on how to build a "better mousetrap" with his wood and springs, why should he get to say that all other people with wood and springs cannot use them in a certain way?  When and how did that one man get the control and ownership over my and wood and my springs, and your wood and your springs?  Communism is when the state owns all property, and means of production.  If our government is enforcing patents and copyrights, it is literally saying they own my property and your property, and they are saying that neither I, nor you, can use our property in certain ways.  It is the exact opposite of freedom.

In fact, patents have caused untold human misery in "modern" medicine because drugs can be patented.  The pharmaceutical industry and medical complex have worked hard to restrict and prevent the use of God-given, natural herbs that can’t be patented as medicine.  Due to the Byzantine and medieval laws of today, you cannot say that any herb "cures" anything!  And you cannot use herbs to "practice" medicine!  And why are herbs so hated?  Because they cannot be patented!  How can you patent a plant, and prevent others from using it?  Impossible! 

Now I know, from personal experience, that in many cases, herbs work better than anything modern medicine has to offer.  I occasionally suffer from nose bleeds, and I have trouble with blood clotting.  But I have found an herb, and combination of foods, that stop my nose bleeds, and prevent excessive bruising.  It's cayenne pepper, green vegetables, and Vitamin C.  See one of the first web pages I ever created here for my full story on nosebleeds. 

http://www.bibleprophesy.org/nosebleed.htm

One time, I went to go and get surgery done.  Before surgery, they wanted to run a bleeding test.  I failed!  They would not operate, since my bleed time was in excess of 15 minutes!  So, I told them to let me take some cayenne pepper and some Vitamin C.  Sure enough, it reduced my bleed time to under 4 minutes.  Amazed, they decided to go ahead and operate.  Later, three hematologists, blood doctors, came by to see me and to ask about cayenne pepper.  They said they knew of no drug that could possibly reduce bleeding times so fast--and these are modern day blood doctors!  Their ignorance should horrify all readers with a conscience!  Their ignorance should be next to criminal, because think of how many people bleed to death each year through gun shot wounds or car accidents, and all because doctors cannot stop bleeding fast enough--and because these doctors have monopolized modern medicine!

My point is that patents kill people, because the rejection of herbal remedies that cannot be patented, kills people.  To prevent people from speaking the truth about what herbs can do is evil.  And why do they do this?  They do it to defend the pharmaceutical industry that requires patents, and all the extra "no herb" legislation, to survive.

I'm not fully against modern medicine.  But it should not be afraid of the competition of anything that may be better.  Many of the laws against herbs were created because of the bad idea to protect people from what they called "snake oil" or from what they assumed were useless items.  But to say that all herbs must be useless (which is what anti-herb litigation must assume, and is what many medical doctors will say) is a false allegation, which is evil.

Thankfully, people are now able to learn much more about what all herbs can do because of the internet and search engines.  Computers are changing everything, as the free access to information is revealing a lot of truth.

My father is a staunch defender of copyright.  His business was in advertising.  He copyrighted everything.  Naturally, he does not like to discuss this topic with me.  He says, "You must copyright, otherwise, people will steal your ideas".  I say, but what if I want my ideas to be stolen, used, transferred, accepted, and implemented by society?  He counters, "But if you don't copyright your stuff, others may steal them, and then copyright them in their name, and then prevent you from putting your name on it."  I laugh at the thought.  Can you imagine someone reading this article, and trying to publish it in their name, copyrighting it, and then trying to sue me to say I can't publish it?  Who would do that?  Regarding my religious writings, I feel the same way.  I just could not imagine any preacher that would ever do that!

However, my father has an important point about how things work within this corrupt system.  Companies can buy up an existing patent, and then put the idea on the shelf, and prevent the idea from ever being used by the market!  This retards societal progress, and is simply evil! 

There are stories of a "pogue carburetor".  Supposedly, it allows cars to get outstanding gas mileage, like in excess of 100 miles to the gallon!  See: http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/4145/event=view 

The story is that a large energy company bought the patent, and prevents its use by the car industry.  Because if the U.S. really started using significantly less oil, it would mean the oil companies have "over invested" in capacity, and it would nearly destroy the oil businesses, for demand for their product would plummet, and thus, so would prices, and so would their profits. 

When patents are put on the shelf, it does not help society, but hurts us all.  This goes to show one very important reason why such laws are evil.

One programmer expressed his disdain for copyright as follows.  If you need a program to do a certain common thing, and if the type of code is already written for that, and if that code is copyrighted, that means you cannot use that string of code to do the thing you want.  You are literally forced to re-design the wheel every time you want to get something done.  Certain kinds of software code is like a wrench, it helps you do a certain thing like turn a nut.  It's like saying you cannot use a wrench to turn a nut, instead, you have to create an entirely different tool to do the job!  This creates an enormous series of inefficiencies when trying to write software.

I firmly believe that patent and copyright restrictions are creating an "economic dark age" today, compared to what would happen if there were no such things.

Interestingly, Microsoft has increasing competition from an "open source" operating system that is not copyrighted.  You may have heard of Unix, or Linux.  Many programmers say that these other operating systems are far superior products.  They are created by programmers throughout the world, who add bits of code to the system, and they do it for free, or for the recognition.

Thus, copyright protection is not even helping to produce a better product for the computer industry!

Some people say that without copyright, the entertainment industry as we know it, and Hollywood, would cease to exist!  Given what the entertainment industry produces, perhaps this would be a good thing!  The business of Hollywood is to tell stories, mostly fiction. 

Well, now I will get to my story, a true story.  In the silver bullion business, at one time, the main producer of one-ounce silver rounds was Johnson Matthey.  They sold the rounds to coin dealers for 55 cents over the spot price of silver, to cover their production costs.  This was well under the price for U.S. Silver Eagles, and so there was a good market for the rounds by silver bullion investors who would seek to buy small quantities of .999 fine silver at the lowest possible price. 

Well, soon enough, a company started selling silver rounds for 40 cents over the spot price.  How did they do it when the price of production was 55 cents over spot?  It was certainly uneconomical.  But they did it to gain "market share," and to "build up a name for themselves," which was an attempt at branding, similar to gaining a trademark name like McDonalds, or "Johnson Matthey".  It was an attempt to corner the market, and to become the largest dealer.  It took away the customers of other businesses that had to sell the one-ounce rounds at 95 cents over the spot price in order to cover normal business expenses and shipping costs.

In the end, this company went bankrupt, and ended up defaulting on $400 million worth of customer orders and obligations.  The bankruptcy court ended up liquidating this company. 

As I see it, the bankrupt company followed the same strategy of many of the bankrupt dot com companies who had horrible business models, such as Pets.com, who would pay advertising costs of up to $10 per customer, but only make $1 per customer order.  That's simply not economical, and the difference can't be made up on volume!

Here is a lesson I see from this story.  Silver and gold strongly tend to resist branding, or copyright, or trademarks.  Bullion investors instinctively buy the lowest cost bullion.  They are generally not attracted to higher cost bullion with a "name". 

Bullion dealers have a very difficult time building up a name for themselves, and the nature of the business strongly tends to resist franchising.  Nearly all bullion shops are in one location, and are completely independent, and the owner nearly always runs the shop himself, with perhaps a little help. 

The nature of bullion dealing also resists advertising!  For if you advertise, and if you convince your customer to buy bullion, (and bullion is defined as the "lowest cost" form of physical metal), the customer will likely shop around to find that "lowest cost".  And the dealers with the "lowest cost," will, by business necessity, most likely be those who do not waste money on excessive advertising!

Thus, the nature of silver and gold bullion actually teaches the world that copyrights, trademarks, and brandings do not work!

Knowing this helps to encourage me to write to advocate buying bullion.  I know that the nature of bullion dealing tends to prevent bullion dealers from advertising well.  Fortunately, the internet is changing that.  Bullion dealers can now write all they wish (if they have time to do so) to educate their customers about the benefits of owning bullion.  And the internet gives anyone the ability to create free advertising.  Anyone can put up a web site with articles at nearly zero cost.  The difficult part is getting people to the web site.

There are a few more arguments I will present against copyright.  Preachers and those who write bible commentaries (as I have done) often stand accused of two things; some even at the same time.  First, we are accused of stealing another man's ideas regarding interpretation.  Other ways to describe this so-called "theft" is plagiarism, or sometimes it is derisively called "putting tradition above scripture".  The other false accusation is that our interpretation is "new" or "novel" or "imaginative" or "fanciful" or a "personal interpretation".  Well, I hate to break it to these fools, especially those fools who accuse both at the same time, but everything under the sun is either old, or new.  Any idiot can see that.  And neither kind of interpretation is sinful!  

The Bible cannot be copyrighted.  (Well, certain versions can, but not the old copies or translations!)  You cannot copyright truth!  And you cannot copyright true and accurate explanations of fundamental truths!  The whole point of Christianity is to spread the gospel, and to continue to re-tell those truths.  The goal of Christianity is to encourage fundamental truths to be widely known, widely taught, and widely believed.  Copyright only hinders that process.

Therefore, the ultimate expression of the greatest good, printed on paper, is the Bible, and it supports the concept that "no copyright" is best.

And what is the ultimate expression of the greatest evil, printed on paper?  I would say it would be the paper dollar.  Paper dollars are an unjust weight and measure, and are an abomination!  Dollars are not supposed to be copied, they call it "counterfeiting".  Supposedly, only one entity has the legal right to make paper dollars.  Thus, the unjust dollar system is supported by copyright laws!  Interestingly, cheap computers make counterfeiting paper money more easy than ever.

Perhaps people will begin to recognize these truths as those things that need to be supported by copyrights and patents die off, and those things that cannot be copyrighted flourish.

But in the meantime, those people who recognize these truths first, will flourish the most.  And those who reject the truths represented by precious metals, may end up having to go back to work.