Category:Excellence

All pages which mention Patents @ Noisebrige.

1. Are monopolized government courts violent against peacful anarchist running code?

## Legal Structure Framing
 ### Civil- vs Common- Law Coercion Summary:
  While civil law systems rely on codified statutes and regulations to guide judicial decisions, common law systems place greater emphasis on judicial precedent and the discretionary power of judges to interpret and apply the law. In contrast to the more rigid and predictable nature of civil law, common law is often characterized by its flexibility and adaptability, allowing judges to respond to novel cases and unforeseen circumstances. A compelling argument can be made that common law represents a form of violent coercion executed by the judge, as the very fact that judicial decisions are backed by the threat of state-sanctioned punishment and enforcement means that individuals are compelled to comply with the judge's interpretation of the law, regardless of whether they agree with it or not, thus imposing a particular vision of justice and morality on society through the coercive power of the state. On the other hand, a strong counterargument is that common law is not violent coercion executed by the judge, because the adversarial process and the opportunity for appeal provide checks on judicial discretion, ensuring that decisions are subject to scrutiny and revision, while the fact that judges are bound by precedent and expected to provide reasoned justifications for their decisions means that the exercise of judicial power is constrained by a web of norms, principles, and rules that limit the potential for arbitrary or coercive decision-making.

## Is The Law Violence?
 ### Prior Philisophical Art
  [C4SS](https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/intellectual-property-a-libertarian-critique.pdf)
  Among the Austrians, Ludwig von Mises, no market anarchist, took a largely agnostic attitude toward the legitimacy of patents. As a purely utilitarian assessment of their effect, he argued that they enabled sellers to charge a monopoly price for goods that might not have been offered at all without the use of patents to recoup the cost of development. [8 Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Chicago: Regnery, 1949, 1963, 1966), pp. 385-386, 680-681.]

  Murray Rothbard, on the other hand, was not shy in his denunciation of patents as a fundamental violation of free market principles:

    Patents prevent a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the State and are invasive of property rights on the market. [Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1962, 1970, 1993), p. 655.]

  Rothbard dismissed utilitarian arguments for patents, based on claims that they are socially necessary to promote innovation, with the contempt they deserved:

    The most popular argument for patents among economists is the utilitarian one that a patent for a certain number of years is necessary to encourage a sufficient amount of research expenditure for inventions and innovations in processes and products

  [The civil law tradition; an introduction to the legal systems of Western Europe and Latin America](https://archive.org/details/civillawtraditio00merr)
  [The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins by Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer*](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/consequences_jel_final.pdf)
    >Merryman (1969) explains the logic of codification: “If the legislature alone could make laws and the judiciary could only apply them (or, at a later time, interpret and apply them), such legislation had to be complete, coherent, and clear. If a judge were required to decide a case for which there was no legislative provision, he would in effect make law and thus violate the principle of rigid separation of powers. Hence it was necessary that the legislature draft a code without gaps. Similarly, if there were conflicting provisions in the code, the judge would make law by choosing one rather than another as more applicable to the situation. Hence there could be no conflicting provisions. Finally, if a judge were allowed to decide what meaning to give to an ambiguous provision or an obscure statement, he would again be making law. Hence the code had to be clear” (p. 30).

 ### Could Enforcement of a Business-Process Patent Lead Produce State Violence?
  The notion that US business process patents constitute a form of censorship may seem aberrant at first glance, but upon closer examination, it reveals a profound and insidious mechanism of control. The core argument hinges on the concept that when an individual possesses a set of instructions that inadvertently or intentionally mirrors a patented business process, they become liable to judicial intervention. This intervention, under the auspices of enforcing patent law, can escalate to the point where the individual faces coercion by the court system.

  The legal framework surrounding patents is designed to protect intellectual property rights, ensuring that inventors and innovators can reap the benefits of their creations without fear of unauthorized replication. However, this protection comes at a cost. When an individual's set of instructions aligns with a patented process, even if such alignment is coincidental or arises from independent development, they are compelled to cease and desist from utilizing these instructions. Failure to comply can lead to legal repercussions, including but not limited to, fines, injunctions, and in extreme cases, criminal charges.

  The enforcement of patent rights through the judicial system effectively translates into a form of censorship because it dictates what ideas or methods an individual can implement or even think about. The presence of a patent creates a de facto limitation on the freedom of thought and expression, as individuals must either abandon their ideas if they resemble patented processes or face the legal consequences.

  Furthermore, this mechanism of control extends beyond the realm of tangible actions into the intangible domain of thoughts and concepts. An individual who becomes aware that their set of instructions infringes upon a patent may be forced to "censor" these ideas from their mind, either by avoiding any implementation of them or by altering them significantly enough to circumvent infringement claims. This internal censorship represents a profound intrusion into the cognitive liberties of individuals, constraining their ability to think freely and creatively without fear of legal retribution.

  In extreme scenarios, the judicial enforcement of patent rights can lead to outcomes that are tantamount to excommunication, where an individual's refusal or inability to comply with court orders results in severe penalties, including imprisonment. This ultimate form of coercion effectively silences the individual, preventing them from engaging in any activity related to the patented process, thereby censoring their participation in economic and social activities.

  In conclusion, while business process patents are instituted to safeguard innovation and entrepreneurship, they also embody a paradoxical form of censorship. By regulating the implementation of certain ideas and processes, these patents exert control over not just actions, but potentially over thoughts and expressions as well. This dichotomy underscores the complex interplay between intellectual property rights, individual freedoms, and the coercive power of the legal system, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of how such rights are enforced and their implications on cognitive and expressive liberties.

 ### Should Anarchist Hacker Spaces Welcome Unrepentant Patent Lawyers in our FOSS Stekia?
  Given that:
  1) Capitalist markets cater to giving undue profits to US Capitalists and their lackeys (which includes patent lawyers)
  2) The emotional labor of ensuring an individual is not offended by your actions is costly
  3) That this onerous, psychological burden would be borne by FOSS anarchists
  4) and these FOSS anarchists who have to eschew these Capitalist spaces their entire lives to avoid being attacked by said lackeys

 ### Implications For Anarchists Running Code That Corporate Censors Will Attack

  Further reading:
  [“Intellectual Property” and the Structure of the American Domestic Economy: Patents promoted the stable control of markets by oligopoly firms through the control, exchange and pooling of patents.](https://c4ss.org/content/23729)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism

 ### Conclusion
  - Rebuttal arguments are very welcomed!
  - The solution to noxious or production-reducing code is not "patent" i.e. burning books and censorship ! The solution to censorship is MORE SPEECH!

  - UP DA PUNX