[RD] Should Future Government Grants of Copyright/Patents be Irrevocable?

[Zelig]

See poll.

Some points that couldn't fit into poll answers:
* Criminality refers specifically to serious crimes that are unrelated to the intellectual property (IP) in question.
* The parts in the poll answers after Yes/No are OR statements. So if you think, for example, that IP should be revocable in the case of overwhelming public good, but never for any crime unrelated to the IP in question, you would vote for "No".

Original thread with discussion: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...de-by-people-who-have-done-bad-things.642733/

I've tried to keep the verbage neutral, but if there are additional clarifying points needed, I'll edit them into the OP.

 

[Camikaze]

Are you distinguishing between revocation and expiration?

 

[Zelig]

Are you distinguishing between revocation and expiration?

In what way? Revocation is equivalent to an accelerated expiration, doing nothing results in expiration on the regular schedule.

 

[Camikaze]

I just wasn't sure whether you're counting expiration as a form of revocation, or whether you're specifically asking about discretionary revocation prior to the end of the usual period.

 

[Hygro]

As long as we're assigning people IP I don't think criminality is sufficient for its removal.

 

[Zelig]

I just wasn't sure whether you're counting expiration as a form of revocation, or whether you're specifically asking about discretionary revocation prior to the end of the usual period.

Not counting expiration as a form of revocation for the purposes of this poll.

As long as we're assigning people IP I don't think criminality is sufficient for its removal.

The question isn't whether criminality is sufficient for its removal, it's whether anything other than time is sufficient. (I listed criminality as a specific example and compelling public good which should cover any relevant scenario.)

 

[EnglishEdward]

I voted No.

If one is convicted of a serious crime, one may be sent to gaol and lose one's liberty.

There is no reason why ownership of IPR should be regarded as more important than personal liberty.

 

[Camikaze]

It would be strange for IP not to be revocable, when starting from the base position that even absolute beneficial ownership of real property (even with allodial title) is subject to radical title - why shouldn't personalty be the same? They're both ultimately held by right of the Crown. Choses in action, in particular, are defined by their enforceability under some system of law, ultimately resting upon some sovereign power which gives that law its force (does intellectual property actually exist as separate property to a chose in action enforcing the intellectual property?). The question then isn't really whether revocation should be an option, but whether it need be for (just) value.

 

[JollyRoger]

Revocation? Please. The government Mickey Mouses around enough on avoiding expiration.

 

[Takhisis]

The government Mickey Mouses around enough on avoiding expiration.

You are referring to IP law, aren't you?