Microsoft takes on the free world reports: “Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents. It wants royalties from distributors and users.” None of this is surprising; this is the predictable outcome of having state-granted monopolies on information (patents and copyrights). The opponents include “free software” advocates like Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen, both involved with the Free Software Foundation. As far as I know, neither Stallman nor Moglen oppose patent and copyright law as such (if this is untrue, I’d like to know)–but rather want to limit patent and copyright “abuse”. In fact as far as I understand it, the GNU license advocated by the FSF relies on copyright, since a license is just permission granted under a copyright. As long as there is either copyright or patent law, we can expect problems such as that reported above to plague the free flow of ideas and information. I’m glad Stallman and Moglen are pushing in the right direction, but until they oppose both patent and copyright law root and branch, they are failing to get at the cause of the problem.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/6625/microsoft-patents-and-open-source-software/
Microsoft, Patents, and Open Source Software
Previous post: This Bud’s For You
Next post: Another Rothbard Classic
{ 61 comments }
← Previous Comments
rtr – So you concede that ownership can be non-concrete and also dependent on the non-concrete “rules”!
re: Multiple people can make withdrawlas from your bank account without ever diminshing the balance? Well, sign us up with the account info!
JIMB: “You did mess up, didn’t you? The theory is so laughable as to invite a good argument even by accident!”
What theory are you referring to?
JIMB: ‘Ownership of course does NOT mean to “touch it, circumscribe it, uniquely possess it, or control it”‘
When did I say that? Is this a misdirected comment?
JIMB: “Seriously, go back to the drawing board.”
I think you’ve responded on the wrong thread. Your comment is erratic.
Kevin – Forgot to prefix the 2nd line with rtr … Sorry about that.
Your ‘argument’ I thought funny because it ended up supporting the ‘IP exists’ position and it appeared to have surprised you that it did. But either way, I think we can agree that violating other people for (say) co-production of an idea is wrong. For the rest: In my view the anarcho theory of IP needs to be reworked.
JIMB: “[Blank books = $? Harry Potter = in the *billions*?]”
Yes, IP creates artificial scarcity of the manifestation of ideas. This means IP causes shortages, causes net societal wealth to be less than it otherwise would be.
Books are not the only valuable use of paper however, nor are books even required for the transmission of ideas.
JIMB: [We are not talking whether you can exclude others from their own IP - as we agree on that point, we are talking whether the *market* considers ideas scarce.]
Of course, it impossible to exclude anyone, originators or non-originators, from ideas if they think them or shape their property with them. The only way to do so is by violent offensive murder. The, rest, prohibitions on people shaping their owned physical property with non-owned immaterial ideas, is just a lesser form of offensive violence than murder, that still does not succeed in granting sole ownership/possession of ideas to their originators. Ideas are like air. People breath. People think. You can’t force somebody from thinking your idea once you share it, wehter you share it for “money”, or share it for “free”. Once shared, for whatever reasons, you *never* uniquely “own” that idea again. Therefore, it is not property.
JIMB: “In the cases of books, yes you can exclude others because there is effectively zero chance of developing a work the same as everyone elses : and that has a time limit as well.”
You’ve never heard of the “printing press” or “copy machines” or the “internet”? So you are going to violently tell owners of printing presses, copy machines, and internet portals what they can or can not do with their property, even when that use causes no harm to anyone else? You still have your “book(s)” right where you left them in exactly the same condition you left them in.
JIMB: “[This is an example of an economic good ("going to the bathroom")?]”
Yes, if you “water the flowers”. It’s as much an economic good as any other subjectively valued thing. It’s still a choice action of when and where you go too. You still didn’t answer whom you get permission from? Actually, there’s a growing list of examples you haven’t answered.
JIMB: “[I have made the claim that there *is* IP without saying what we should do about it.]”
If you share an idea, you can never get sole possession of it back. You’re literally trying to get from a stone, literally declaring the emperor is wearing new clothes.
JIMB: “[And the deed to your house doesn't exist except as having value of ink and paper.]”
A deed is a physical material object. An idea is not a physical material object. A house is a material physical object. The idea of a house is not a material physical object. You don’t agree that it would be absurd for someone to patent the idea of a “house” such that all others would be prohibited from building houses?
JIMB: “rtr – So you concede that ownership can be non-concrete and also dependent on the non-concrete “rules”!
re: Multiple people can make withdrawlas from your bank account without ever diminshing the balance? Well, sign us up with the account info!”
You lost me. If multiple people make withdrawlas from your bank account, your bank account balance will diminish by the amount of the withdrawlas. It is impossible to guarantee or even enforce unique ownership of anything abstract, unlike unique ownership of person and physical material property. And you will never find a single example of someone claiming ownership by origination of a new idea without by definition hypocritically violating their own “claimed” standards, by definition of language.
Kevin – The argument : “Ideas are property in that they are contained within property – nothing more. What is actually occurring? Those with “ideas” are transferring / transmitting their property onto yours, altering your property, without your permission. (A’s Brain->Body->Matter->Energy->B’s Matter->Body->Brain) They then claim ownership to your altered property. Apparently your body and mind are aren’t safe against squatters.”
Clearly we’ve left the realm of rationality if this is what it takes to show your case. Transmission of IP is not a passive act, it is a chosen act by the giver (such as on this blog). This straw man argument shows just how weak any other view is…. Come on. Read a little Spooner (Lysander, that is).
JIMB,
My argument isn’t that IP exists in a special way, but that it exists in physical property. In other words, an idea is merely a specific sequence of brain cells. I own my brain cells; that is the logical limit of intellectual property.
A person owns their brain cells. Therefore to claim partial ownership of anothers brain / body by forceful alteration is a violation of their property rights.
Copying without permission is not, absent agreement, a violation of property rights. Forceful prevention of copying is, absent agreement, a violation of property rights.
JIMB: “Transmission of IP is not a passive act, it is a chosen act by the giver (such as on this blog).”
Absolutely! It is the transmitter of IP that is actively altering the receiver’s property in an irrevocable way. When I alter your property without your prior agreement in such a way that your property cannot be undone, I do not have a claim of ownership to the changes. If I remodel your house without your agreement and cannot undo the changes, then I cannot say that you mustn’t use that portion of the house. In that case, my actions must be written off as a gift.
rtr – You cannot surmount the fact that books sell for their ideas, not for their paper, and there is certainly no *artificial* shortage of supply created by ‘monopoly’ as tens, hundreds, tens of hundreds of thousands of authors have tried (supply!) and failed to do what JK Rowling did. There is a *natural* shortage of supply, and apparently great scarcity as well.
….
“…Ideas are like air. People breath. People think. You can’t force somebody from thinking your idea once you share it, wehter you share it for “money”, or share it for “free”.”
You can sell ideas under conditions that the buyer not disclose the information if the buyer agrees. CEOs have those agreements all the time. that *is* IP ownership. It does factually exist.
Basically my problem with this whole line of thinking is it’s complete non-factual fantasy basis.
………
“So you are going to violently tell owners of printing presses, copy machines, and internet portals what they can or can not do with their property, even when that use causes no harm to anyone else?”
Copying a work without permission is an infringement on the rights of the creator if you were to obtain this information without the consent of the creator. Sorry you don’t agree, but of course you would be stealing the labor and work (and thus life) of another person. Hardly a winner for freedom.
…….
JIMB: “[This is an example of an economic good ("going to the bathroom")?]”
Yes, if you “water the flowers”.
The generalized version ‘going to the bathroom’ is clearly not an economic good because the idea is not sellable so it cannot qualify for IP.
……
JIMB: “[I have made the claim that there *is* IP without saying what we should do about it.]”
I should correct myself – Book copyrights are IP and can and should be enforced.
……..
“If you share an idea, you can never get sole possession of it back…”
WARNING: KEY WORD: (are you ready?) “share”. Yes if you *** share *** an idea, that is right; you’ve given it away. But you can set the terms of sale and trade ideas if there are any takers.
……….
“A deed is a physical material object. An idea is not a physical material object….”
A deed is a material object that has no value in and of itself, but by convention *can be sold* as if one were selling a house, once again showing that the value rests in the *rights of action* which are non-concrete.
No one, of course, is saying that “house building” is IP because the act of building a house discloses the idea.
………
bank acct:
“You lost me. If multiple people make withdrawlas from your bank account, your bank account balance will diminish by the amount of the withdrawlas. It is impossible to guarantee or even enforce unique ownership of anything abstract, unlike unique ownership of person and physical material property…”
Look at what you are doing. You are conflating physical control with ownership. Clearly they are distinct and many examples are evidence of this (such as rent, etc.). Not only that, bank accounts are abstract conventions agreed to ahead of time. The physical ‘electrons’ are simply evidence of the agreement.
I’ve got to let this be my last oost. Thanks for the debate. Good luck and you have the last word.
JIMB: “rtr – You cannot surmount the fact that books sell for their ideas, not for their paper, and there is certainly no *artificial* shortage of supply created by ‘monopoly’ as tens, hundreds, tens of hundreds of thousands of authors have tried (supply!) and failed to do what JK Rowling did. There is a *natural* shortage of supply, and apparently great scarcity as well.”
It does not matter *why* books sell, all that matters is by definition they have subjective value, for whatever reason(s). There is most certainly an *artificial* shortage of supply created by ‘monopoly’ as by definition violent action is used to prevent the production of subjectively valued things, such as books with ideas in them. It would be exactly akin to declaring you own all other planets and stars except the earth and the sun, and nobody is allowed to colonize them. By definition you are causing subjective wealth material poverty. As observe, ideas which are ‘popular’, i.e. more subjectively valued by more people, are especially prohibited from multiplication. And of course all wealth which is extracted by monopoly coercion is wealth which can be used to satisfy other subjective wealth increasing means, by definition poverty.
JIMB: “You can sell ideas under conditions that the buyer not disclose the information if the buyer agrees. CEOs have those agreements all the time. that *is* IP ownership. It does factually exist.”
It is a praxelogical impossibility to sell what you do not own. By definition of it being impossible to uniquely own ideas which are shared, either with or without agreement, even prior agreement can be broken at any time with no material damages to any party whatsoever. You cannot agree to enslave yourself except by willful continuing voluntary agreement. You no longer own “information” once you voluntarily trade it away, as Kevin B. said “as a gift”, by definition of it being impossible to reclaim that information such that you were to uniquely own that information once again.
JIMB: “Basically my problem with this whole line of thinking is it’s complete non-factual fantasy basis.”
Take a break, step back, and re-analyze the exchanges which have just occurred in this thread then. You will see the only fantasy is the claim of “IP”.
JIMB: “Copying a work without permission is an infringement on the rights of the creator if you were to obtain this information without the consent of the creator. Sorry you don’t agree, but of course you would be stealing the labor and work (and thus life) of another person. Hardly a winner for freedom.”
No, a creator of an idea does not have a “right” (always allegedly and vaguely as possible couched in a non-specific enumeration) to control the actions of others on their own persons and on their own property. It’s not a matter of agreement, it’s a matter of proof. No labor or work is stolen. That’s the point! All labor and work, absolutely everyone’s labor and work, is exactly where it always is. If your book is where you left it, you have no claim of theft whatsoever. Your claim of “IP” is a theft on the freedom of others to shape their persons and property in any non-violent manner they so choose.
JIMB: “The generalized version ‘going to the bathroom’ is clearly not an economic good because the idea is not sellable so it cannot qualify for IP.”
Animal waste is already sold as fertilizer.
JIMB: “WARNING: KEY WORD: (are you ready?) “share”. Yes if you *** share *** an idea, that is right; you’ve given it away. But you can set the terms of sale and trade ideas if there are any takers.”
The means of transmission of an idea are immaterial, literally and figuratively. It doesn’t matter if you “share”, if you “sell”, if you “rent”, if you “lend”, once you actively or passively leak an idea, no matter by what means, it is a praxelogical impossibility to uniquely get possession of that idea back. Therefore, intellectual “property” is a praxelogical impossibility. It does not exist.
JIMB: “A deed is a material object that has no value in and of itself,”
No material object whatsoever has value in and of itself. All value whatsoever is *extrinsic*. Economics 101.
JIMB: “No one, of course, is saying that “house building” is IP because the act of building a house discloses the idea.”
As does the act of creating anything whatsoever which can be observed or is traded, disclose the idea.
JIMB: “Look at what you are doing. You are conflating physical control with ownership. Clearly they are distinct and many examples are evidence of this (such as rent, etc.). Not only that, bank accounts are abstract conventions agreed to ahead of time. The physical ‘electrons’ are simply evidence of the agreement.”
So do you have a million bazillion trilgillion dollars in your bank account? Or have you abstractly sold yourself short?
Ownership is by definition physical control. Mere possession is by definition physical control. You don’t own other people. Therefore you cannot control what they do with themselves or with their physical material property.
JIMB: “I’ve got to let this be my last oost. Thanks for the debate. Good luck and you have the last word.”
You too. Hope you had fun. But I know you increased your subjective valuation by defiintion of the act of your posting.
It is obvious clear from rtr & others that in Libertopia I.P doesn’t exist and you take your chances of selling your creative works and inventions solely on the good faith of others. In other words if you write a book you hope a person will buy your book, read it, tell a friend about how good it was and they too will buy a copy. You can only hope they the first buyer doesn’t scan it in and make it available online for free. It’d be a shame but tough luck. Similarly a Star Wars fan could make their own spin-off movie but it’d be really nice if other fans reject it because it doesn’t have the same ‘it’ factor. Or if you’re really cluey you have a technological advantage in which you have your own in-house inventions for mass production and since most others assemble by hand you have a brief advantage until others invent their own mass production machines too. Or perhaps in the case of building CPUs the facilities required to create something as complicated and intricate as a CPU is such that most folk wouldn’t bother trying to compete but prefer to do their own thing.
Oh and by the way, is this also where people aren’t allowed to have trade secrets for things such as KFC and Coca Cola in a way that everyone should be able to access such recipes and make their own instead being charged higher prices than for other food and drink?
TLWP Sam: “Oh and by the way, is this also where people aren’t allowed to have trade secrets for things such as KFC and Coca Cola in a way that everyone should be able to access such recipes and make their own instead being charged higher prices than for other food and drink?”
Forcing others to reveal information is a violation of their rights. Your question sounds as if you have grossly misinterpreted the nature of the disagreement over IP. We endeavor to strengthen private property rights, not declare public ownership of any property.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.