US Congress wants to rewrite history

[Psycho Fox]

US congress does not think Bell invented the telephone since some other guy invented it first but didn't get it patented which leaves me with 2 questions. 1 doesn't congress have better things to do and 2 don't they know that the first one to patent is the inventor. If you go actully making it the first inventor then all the history books will have to be rewritten Thomas Edison wouldn't be a world famous inventor anymore since most of his inventions would have to be recreadited. Then there will be no stablity what is stoping someone else saying that there was inventor before that with patents there is atlest solid proof. Why is the US congress making such a mess of history?

[VashTheStampede]

doesn't congress have better things to do
No they really dont.

[DR. BELCH]

This is nothing new. Congress has essentially been trying to rewrite the Constitution for years...reading things into it thataren't there and then, of what is there, saying, "Oh, well, that was written by now-dead racist homophobic slave-owning Indian-killing Bible-thumping white men, so it's invalid."
This is how plagiarism lawsuits start, you know. You can copyright a story, but not an idea. So until the Muses start giving receipts, or we carbon-date this other guy's notes, I think those sorts of laws should be stricken from the books.
I had the idea for a combination toilet-recliner long before "Homer the Inventor"--think I could sue Matt Groening, Congress?

[Christopher N. Denner]

The thing is... 3 different people created the telephone, in the same period of time... but one of the pattents was held on to while the other was allowed to pass. Although I'm not for re-writing history, I would like to see credit given due to all three.

Besides... would it be considered re-writing history to erase the midnight run of Paul Revere, since we know today that it never took place? Everything we THOUGHT we knew and went down in history was formed from Longfellow's poem. It's really just a big fabrication. Even key points like where the moon was, and where the ships were, and the search lights and the time of night are factually inaccurate.

Some may call it re-writing history. Others will call it correcting a history that has been mislead. If for no other reason than simply on the count of tradition. What will YOU call it?

;)

[Karkull]

Originally posted by Christopher N. Denner
Some may call it re-writing history. Others will call it correcting a history that has been mislead. If for no other reason than simply on the count of tradition. What will YOU call it?

I agree. According to The Big Book of Losers, Elisha Gray was the real inventor of the telephone, but Alexander Graham Bell (who had built a similar model) stole an idea from Gray's patent application to complete his device. Then, when Gray tried to sue, Bell ruined him and managed to erase all mention of Gray from the books. Congress is not re-writing history, it is correcting it.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Karkull


I agree. According to The Big Book of Losers, Elisha Gray was the real inventor of the telephone, but Alexander Graham Bell (who had built a similar model) stole an idea from Gray's patent application to complete his device. Then, when Gray tried to sue, Bell ruined him and managed to erase all mention of Gray from the books. Congress is not re-writing history, it is correcting it. But it still doesn't change the fact that Bell invented it becouse he was the first to patent it. If we no longer go by patents to tell who the inventor is, it then gets confusing. Philips didn't invent the Philips screw so do we change its name? Does the patent go to its competitor Robenson that wants to distroy it since it is vastly inferior to its socket screw? Does Bell Canada become Gray Canada? Does Xerox own Mac OS does Amiga own Windows? Does IBM own Windows does AT&T own Windows? see the problem.

[Christopher N. Denner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But it still doesn't change the fact that Bell invented it becouse he was the first to patent it. If we no longer go by patents to tell who the inventor is, it then gets confusing. Philips didn't invent the Philips screw so do we change its name? Does the patent go to its competitor Robenson that wants to distroy it since it is vastly inferior to its socket screw? Does Bell Canada become Gray Canada? Does Xerox own Mac OS does Amiga own Windows? Does IBM own Windows does AT&T own Windows? see the problem.

So basically you are telling me that the old lady who patented the "Happy Birthday" song, also thus created it... even though it was around before she was born?

:p

Patents don't me squat. ANYONE can patent anything, if no one else has gotten around to it. It has nothing to do with who the creator is. It just means that person owns the rights to the designs or words. Besides... patents expire after about 75 years. Does that mean that EVERYONE becomes the creator, since almost always they turn to public domain?

;)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Christopher N. Denner


So basically you are telling me that the old lady who patented the "Happy Birthday" song, also thus created it... even though it was around before she was born?

:p

Patents don't me squat. ANYONE can patent anything, if no one else has gotten around to it. It has nothing to do with who the creator is. It just means that person owns the rights to the designs or words. Besides... patents expire after about 75 years. Does that mean that EVERYONE becomes the creator, since almost always they turn to public domain?

;) But in moderen day we say the inventor is who ever is the first one to patents since it is too much work to investigate who really was the first inventor. If we give the creadit to Gray for the first Phone what if someone invented it even before him? And if the creator your crediting is still living what if they want to have the patent as well. What if becouse of this say IBM wants all rights to Windows or atlest royalties since it is the true father and wrote the code that MS stole during the late 80's. What if Robenson says they want the Philips screw patents for simular reasons so they can kill it.

[Christopher N. Denner]

The Answer to the "What-ifs?" is simple... do the right, honest thing. If something comes along to prove history wrong, then FIX the history! Don't just keep it because it's tradition.

I mean... how long did people think the earth was flat? They were proved wrong, and history was corrected. How long did people think witchcraft was evil and possessed people and so forst. They were proven wrong, and history was corrected. When Richard Jewel was condemned by various media outlets as the Olympic Bomber 6 years ago, and it was revealed that he was NOT infact the bomber, history was corrected ---(he also sued NBC News and settled out of court for quite a largely deserved sum too). Simple, no?

When Marvel Comics patents Spider-Man... does that mean the COMPANY of Marvel created it, or does that mean Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created it? Because according to the patent theory, the company created it. We know that the company OWNS it, but we also know that the company itself had nothing to do with its creation.


So let me ask you...

Would you rather have preserving the real history --Which you ORIGINALLY seemed to want to defend. ?

OR

Would you rather keep Tradition, simply because it's tradition --What you REALLY want to defend. ?

???

You want to keep both of them apparently, and considering that they are complete opposites, that will never be. So which one do you really want to keep? History or Tradition?

:confused:


If people KNOW better, and could DO better... then why don't they? Why let the past mar the good judgement and reasoning that we have today?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Christopher N. Denner
The Answer to the "What-ifs?" is simple... do the right, honest thing. If something comes along to prove history wrong, then FIX the history! Don't just keep it because it's tradition.

I mean... how long did people think the earth was flat? They were proved wrong, and history was corrected. How long did people think witchcraft was evil and possessed people and so forst. They were proven wrong, and history was corrected. When Richard Jewel was condemned by various media outlets as the Olympic Bomber 6 years ago, and it was revealed that he was NOT infact the bomber, history was corrected ---(he also sued NBC News and settled out of court for quite a largely deserved sum too). Simple, no?
Yes but Bell put effort into making use of the patent afterwards so what are you going to put down in history Bell is the patenter while Gray is the inventor? Well no we don't use Gray's design we use Bell's design so technically Bell is the abosolute inventer he created the first standard phone and the first patented phone.


When Marvel Comics patents Spider-Man... does that mean the COMPANY of Marvel created it, or does that mean Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created it? Because according to the patent theory, the company created it. We know that the company OWNS it, but we also know that the company itself had nothing to do with its creation. But lets say someone found out someone drew Spider Man before anyone at Marvel so the person goes to congress and demand they get credit for creating Spider Man and lets say he was never a empoyee of Mavel so now he wants the right to draw Spiderman well if the goverment says they see him as the creator then the letter of the law states he has rights to use it without Marvels permission. Now lets go to MS and Windows. MS contrabuted less then 1% of Windows so what if AT&T, Apple, IBM, Amiga Corp, Berkeley Softworks, Xerox and other demand they get reconized as the creators of Windows and since Microsoft didn't really do anything Microsoft can't say it created Windows. Now you have a dozen companies that want claim to control of it since legally they created it not Microsoft.

[Christopher N. Denner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes but Bell put effort into making use of the patent afterwards so what are you going to put down in history Bell is the patenter while Gray is the inventor? Well no we don't use Gray's design we use Bell's design so technically Bell is the abosolute inventer he created the first standard phone and the first patented phone.

This is a really fun topic, BTW. :)

Well of course Bell put in the effort of making use of the patent... he was the one that got the patent. You can't do that if you don't have one. Again though, what does the patent have to do with the inventor? NOTHING! Another question... does that mean that products and ideas and words that are not patented do not exist? does THIS conversation exist? The text was not patented. And if I do patent this thread... will I have controled your mind? I invented the words you typed, after all.

:p

But lets say someone found out someone drew Spider Man before anyone at Marvel so the person goes to congress and demand they get credit for creating Spider Man and lets say he was never a empoyee of Mavel so now he wants the right to draw Spiderman well if the goverment says they see him as the creator then the letter of the law states he has rights to use it without Marvels permission. Again you are talking about patents. You need to removed PATENTS from your mind. Patents can have NOTHING to do with the inventor/creator.

Would he have the rights to something not patented to him? NO. Does that mean that he didn't create it? NO... it simply mens that he did not file for the rights. Again, patents have absolutely nothing to do with the inventor. ANYONE can patent ANYTHING phrase, design, product, etc... that hasn't been patented yet. It has NOTHING to do with the creator. And any dictionary or encyclopedia that tells you otherwise is wrong and proven wrong. It's simple... if you create something, you are the CREATOR of THAT.

Now lets go to MS and Windows. MS contrabuted less then 1% of Windows so what if AT&T, Apple, IBM, Amiga Corp, Berkeley Softworks, Xerox and other demand they get reconized as the creators of Windows and since Microsoft didn't really do anything Microsoft can't say it created Windows. Now you have a dozen companies that want claim to control of it since legally they created it not Microsoft. Yes... correct. And the problem here would be what again? Again, if they created it, they SHOULD get credit for it... or at least the blueprints and prototype. I think, personally, that's a very simple idea to follow. Are you saying that you would spite history and the creators just because someone else owns the rights to it? And again, I ask... what does who owns the rights have to do with the creator?

Take a movie like... oh... Killer Klowns from Outer Space. The movie was created by a small company that was bought by another small company, which was bought by Orion... which closed down and was out of circulation for years. Recently, MGM picked up the rights to it, and released it on DVD. Your logic would dictate that the creator was the small company, and then the creator was the other small company, and then the creator was Orion and MGM is NOW the creator of the movie.

It just does not make sense. You need to seperate the CREATOR and the PATENT. They are two very different things. As a test... if you follow-up to this thread, see if you can do it without the word "patent" or a variation thereof.

;)

Anyway... I'm tired... so I'm gonna sneak away for a while and let someone else respond, if they want to.

:p

[Psycho Fox]

But we still say Phillips invented the Phillips screw even though he didn't why becouse he patented it. Guys that just give suggestions to artist during the creation of copyrighted materals and those suggestions get used go to court and some win to share the copyright. Having the goverment offically make you the creator gives you ammo in court to gain control since the point of such things as copyrights is to protect the creator. It is possible if the whole industry gets offical credited for the creation of windows they have leverage to try and get part of the copyright. Now with your example of the movie Killer Klowns the creators gave the copyright to the company due to standard contracts such companies have with their employees and every company the bought them up also bought the rights so there is nothing there the creators gave up their rights for empoyement but if someone else was the creator outside that agrement that could be grounds for a hearing.