Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Is/ought fallacy?

It might be true that it's likely that directors of USPTO are "pro-patent", but OP's point was that the USPTO ought to be less "pro-patent".

Put another way, some government offices are charged with making more of an intrinsically good thing. "Justice", "Education". I expect the leaders of those departments to be pro-justice/education/whatever, just as I expect everyone else to be in favor of these intrinsic goods, insofar as we can agree on their goodness.

OTOH patents are not an intrinsically good thing. There is such a thing as too many patents, or patents issued too freely, or whatever.



Section 8, Clause 8:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Not much latitude there.


The latitude to decide what actually promotes the progress of science and the useful arts seems pretty broad to me.


I think you've misunderstood. Do you think the federal government is actually competent to decide which inventions will actually promote the progress of science and the useful arts?


The issuing of patents is contingent on Congress's belief that doing so promotes science and the useful arts. If hypothetically Congress did not believe that any longer, they would be free to stop the activities of the patents and copyrights offices.


In practice I don't expect Congress will cease to borrow money on the credit of the United States, though I suppose in theory they could.


you could have taught george washington a few things about picking cherries




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: