Intellectual Property and Tangible Property

On August 22, 1995, the U.S. government granted some person authority over the usage of all laser pointers throughout the country.  I don't know the name of the person, but I do know that this decision was neither reviewed by Congress, nor the President.  Likewise, the person granted this authority was neither elected by the people of the U.S., nor by any representative subset of the people of the U.S.  The authority was arbitrarily granted by previously approved U.S. law.

The specific authority granted to this person was the authority to grant or withhold permission for people in the U.S. to use their laser pointers to entertain and exercise cats.  Since this date, it has been illegal for any person residing within the United States of America to use a laser pointer to cause a cat to exercise, without the express permission of this person.  The U.S. laws that grant this person the right to control how other people use their personal property are none other than the patent laws.

I am guilty of patent infringement.  I got my first laser pointer in 1999.  The first thing I did with it when I got home was to torment our cat with it, infringing on patent number 5,443,036.  Of course, I was not aware that anyone had patented this practice, but according to the law, I am still guilty of patent infringement.  Since then, I have infringed on this patent many more times.  I learned of my infractions only a year ago, and while I have not had time to commit any more, I would happily do so if I had the time.

I do not intend on ever requesting permission to use the so called intellectual property of the person who has this patent.  This example makes it clear that patent law infringes on the right to ownership of tangible property.  Besides that, I would submit that patent law infringes on another of the fundamental rights that our nation was founded upon.  Patent law infringes on the right to fair representation in government.  The authority granted to the above mentioned person was approved by a patent clerk, not by any elected representative.  Right, ultimately the law that granted the clerk the authority to make the judgment can be traced through representatives of the people, but I do not think it is just to allow any person to seize authority over the physical property of others merely by inventing something that can be made with that property, or by inventing a process that requires the use of that property.  The process of granting such extensive power over the personal property of others should require at least the direct vote of elected representatives, if not the direct vote of the people themselves, on a per case basis.  Any government that grants such arbitrary power over the property of others without the explicit consent of those governed can reasonably be considered an oppressive government.  Admittedly, the U.S. government is still one of the most free and least oppressive on Earth, but when it comes to ownership rights of physical property, it is doing a very poor job of effectively protecting them.

Lord Rybec