Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I'm asking this question because I don't know the answer - when did the Justice Department get in the business of enforcing patents for corporations? Isn't that the responsibility of the patent owner?
I get the feeling that this is just harrassment, and I can't see where "protecting the economy" extends to protecting us from knock-off games that aren't going to do us physical harm. If it is harrassment, why are they focusing on this store owner? Does this mean that Homeland Security is going to start rounding up the guys in Chicago and NYC that sell fake designer clothes on the street corners?
I'd love to hear any answers that anyone has, because this is all too confusing for me.
|
The Constitution gives the right of giving patents to the Congress.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Constitution - Art I, Sec 8
The Congress shall have Power 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.
|
Also included in that article are provisions about establishing a post office and coining money. Criminal offenses related to mail fraud and counterfeiting are referred to the Secret Service for investigation. I am assuming, but I don't know for a fact, that some federal agency (FBI or Secret Service, probably) is charged with enforcing patent rights. Since patent laws are national, it would not be possible to use conventional state or local police to enforce the laws: the FBI would have to be called in.
How this is a condemnation of the USA PATRIOT Act is beyond me, as this is merely a question of jurisdiction.
More generally, I am curious as to why it is a bad thing that the Act makes it easier for the government to prosecute non-terrorist criminals. I personally don't have any problem with arresting shoplifters under purported "anti-terror" laws, let alone serious offenders. The fact that the Act is often labeled as "anti-terrorist" legislation does not imply to me that it
cannot apply to non-terrorist criminal activity.
dksuddeth, could you explain why you think that the USA PATRIOT Act should not be used to punish criminals that are engaged in non-terrorist crimes? Are their other reasons beyond your claim that "we had our arguments countered by people that said the exact same thing, that it would only be used for terrorism"? Setting aside what "people" might have said about the Act, what harm is there in arresting [murderers/scam artists/counterfeiters/whatever] by using law enforcement provisions designed to fight terrorists?