Am I unlibertarian for hoping this guy wins? I mean, live by the sword, die by the sword, right? These companies clearly actively pursue, support, and employ government monopolies (patents) and use them to squelch competition. If this happens to violate federal anti-trust law, is this a tragedy?
Man files antitrust lawsuit over printer ink
Posted Dec 18th 2007 9:52PM by Joshua Topolsky
Filed under: Peripherals
One brave, intelligent, and super-cool Boston man has taken the law into his own hands — vis-Ã -vis a bunch of attorneys — and is taking HP and Staples to task for an alleged antitrust scheme. According to Ranjit Bedi, the two companies have been in cahoots in an attempt to stop the sale of inexpensive, third-party printer ink at Staples stores. In the suit, it’s suggested that HP paid Staples $100 million to refrain from sale of the cartridges. The story might be harder to believe if it weren’t for the nature of the printer ink business, which seems to be rife with companies engaging in questionable business practices (like selling cartridges which give you an inaccurate read on ink remaining, barring the use of third-party cartridges, and wildly overcharging for branded ink). If you’ve ever owned an ink-jet printer, we’re pretty sure you know exactly what we’re talking about. People — it’s time to fight back.
{ 76 comments }
← Previous Comments
Kevin: “Me: “Can you homestead a frequency? No…When you shoot them through another’s property without permission, you are, in fact, trespassing. The way you explain it sounds as if you argue that if you are the first to begin broadcasting through an area, you then own the right to broadcast through that area. That sounds illogical.”
Stephan Kinsella: “You lost me. That is in fact the idea behind homesteading of airwaves.”
Okay, without having read too much on the idea, I’m willing to put some thought into it.
The first problem I have, though, is that those radio waves may be affecting others’ property.
For instance: Say, I am the first to build a transmitter and begin transmitting. The radio waves I transmit pass through (and interact with) my neighbor’s house, appliances, dog, etc.
Now, how can I have the right to transmit energy through my neighbor’s property without his permission?”
This is where the cocncpets of trespass, scarcity/rivalrousness, “use,” “nuisance,” and “relevant technological unit” come into play (see Rothbad on this). I think these concepts have to come into play in defining praxeoloigcally what property is. In fact, merey by existing, and moving around, you cause various perturbations of the EM field and gravitational field, causing those waves to pass through everyone else’s property, no? But this is not a “use” of their property b/c it does not practically affect their own use of their property. If it does not prevent their use of their property, then it’s not a conflict, so not a trespass. Etc.
“Second, the idea of owning a “path” seems illogical to me, since a path is no more than a description of physical property.”
I could see an argument for a property rigth in a path–an easement or right of way; this has implications for shipping lanes and airways (where planes fly).
We must remember property is not purely physical but has a praxeological aspect.
“And when you say you own the path of the waves, you’re really saying that you own the materials it travels through, or, if it travels through empty space, simply the wave itself.”
I view it as the EM spectrum itself (in a certain geographic reagin, and with other defining characteristics pertaining to the nature of the use being made of it, namely as an information-carrying medium, thus characterized by a certain center frequency and bandwidth etc.) as a rivalrous resource b/c use of it by one person excludes the use of it by others. If two people attempt to drive a car at the same time, they will both be frustrated. Likewise, if two people broadcast at the same frequency too close too each other, neither will be able to use the spectrum.
Thus, once we identify the specrum as a scarce resource, the qeustion is who gets to control it. This is where the first-use principle kicks in.
Though I admit I’m uncomfortable going too far in this area, from my armchair.
“So, if you transmit radiation through an object, would you say that you then come into ownership of it?”
No, becuase it’s not a use of it. Again, see Rothbard’s relevant technological unit discussion.
” I dare say that merely pointing a walkie-talkie at something seems hardly substantial enough to claim ownership of it.”
Agreed. But to claim airwave ownership one is not claiming the physical objects that are incidentially and trivally affected on some unobservable level; one is claiming that which *is* affected, which is the spectrum one is perturbating.
Stephan_Kinsella: You are still grasping for differences between radio wave ownership and IP, but not finding any.
“No. Here is where you go off track. You don’t “use” ideas in this sense. “Use” for the purpose of homesteading means to put some previously unowned *scarce resource* to use so that it is embordered.”
And how are radio waves embordered? And when you homestead a frequency, how did you use all transmitters in the area?
“No, but you *are* using all of a given spectral portion of the airwaves in a given area.”
No, I’m not “using all of it”. OTHER PEOPLE CAN STILL TRANSMIT! They can still set up their own transmitters and make their own waves. The fact that they are picky about information transfer capability should be irrelevant. What if people liked making radio waves for the hell of it? (e.g. as dictated by their religion) Would there then be property rights in the frequencies?
“First, I have no quite decided on this airwave homesteading thing. I think this one needs more work. But your criticisms are non-serious.”
Oh yes, and here we get to the crux of it all. You understand that your position isn’t *quite* all worked out. Yeah, there are some kinks that need straightening out. But only YOU get to dictate what is a valid criticism. And of course, anything that has any hope of revealing fundamental inconsistencies, well — that’s just non-serious.
“The same thing is the case with airwaves. If I am using the airwave then now my use of it is not possible if others broadcast on it. The airwaves are most definitely rivalrous resources.”
Again, the difference is that you can broadcast it. Why are you “not using” a frequency unless you are transmitting information? Why does your desire to transmit *in addition to broadcasting* entitle you to tell others what to do with their transmitters?
It is identical to someone saying “Yeah, I know you and I can both distribute my book … but I’m not really using the book-distributing rights unless i’m the only one doing it.”
“Yeah, I know you can I can both send radio waves along this frequency. But I’m not really using it unless that transmission can contain noise-free information.”
Your refual to serious study the sense in which goods are rivalrous blinds you to the distinctions you’re carelessly blurring over.
Silas: “And how are radio waves embordered? And when you homestead a frequency, how did you use all transmitters in the area?”
Embordering means to establish borders–setting up intersubjectively ascertainable limits–. When use of a given airwave is pervasive enough then others can determine (a) that it is being used, and (b) how to avoid invading those borders. That is all.
If I broadcast I am *not* cliaming a property right in other transmitters. Only in the airwaves. But if I homestead land, say, or own my body, or a car, it means you may not violate the borders of those thigns without my consent. This does not mean I “own” your gun, say–it’s simply the case that my ownership of a thing means simply that you may not employ *any* means to trespass. It does mean I own your means. It means you can’t use your means to commit crime/trespass.
“”No, but you *are* using all of a given spectral portion of the airwaves in a given area.”
No, I’m not “using all of it”. OTHER PEOPLE CAN STILL TRANSMIT! They can still set up their own transmitters and make their own waves.”
Yes, and two people can tug at the wheel of a car at the same time. But neither will be able to use the car for its relevant purpose, which is driving, while this is occurring.
“The fact that they are picky about information transfer capability should be irrelevant.”
No; because there is a praxeological aspect to what property is. It’s not merely physical.
“”First, I have no quite decided on this airwave homesteading thing. I think this one needs more work. But your criticisms are non-serious.”
“Oh yes, and here we get to the crux of it all. You understand that your position isn’t *quite* all worked out.”
My position is worked out just fine. I’m just not sure how a real society would apply the basic principles of homesteading to every conceivable resource. The details don’t interest me overmuch.
But it’s obvious your criticisms are illogical.
“Yeah, there are some kinks that need straightening out. But only YOU get to dictate what is a valid criticism. And of course, anything that has any hope of revealing fundamental inconsistencies, well — that’s just non-serious.”
I’m glad you see things my way now, Silas.
“”The same thing is the case with airwaves. If I am using the airwave then now my use of it is not possible if others broadcast on it. The airwaves are most definitely rivalrous resources.”
“Again, the difference is that you can broadcast it. Why are you “not using” a frequency unless you are transmitting information?”
Read rothbard on the relevant technological unit. This is boring.
“Your refual to serious study the sense in which goods are rivalrous blinds you to the distinctions you’re carelessly blurring over.’”
Said the joker to the thief. There’s too much confusion. I can’t get no relief.
Stephan_Kinsella: Aha! And here we get to the root of our disagreement:
“But neither will be able to use the car for its relevant purpose, which is driving,”
Why is the relevant purpose of an intellectual work not “exclusive publishing”?
Think about it.
Me: “Now, how can I have the right to transmit energy through my neighbor’s property without his permission?”
Stephan: “If it does not prevent their use of their property, then it’s not a conflict, so not a trespass.”
Well, we have a problem here, because your transmission of radio waves certainly makes use of my property. I know because if you are transmitting through my property before I am, then I cannot use my property to transmit through on the same frequency, right?
“In fact, merey by existing, and moving around, you cause various perturbations of the EM field and gravitational field, causing those waves to pass through everyone else’s property, no?”
Some people also make loud noises, stink, step on your toes, cough on you, etc., but those are the little trespasses we put up with to get along. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
“I could see an argument for a property rigth in a path–an easement or right of way; this has implications for shipping lanes and airways (where planes fly).
We must remember property is not purely physical but has a praxeological aspect.”
Hmmm, isn’t an easement or right of way a right to use property? I totally agree that you can have a right to use a path of road, and there can even be argument to use a path of water or air, but I just cannot see how one could argue for a right to use a “path” absent physical presence. If there is no physical aspect, then there is only your imagination. Person is right to note the similarities between non-physical paths, the non-physical spectrum, and IP.
“…the EM spectrum itself…namely as an information-carrying medium…”
But there really is no EM spectrum. The spectrum is merely what we call the imagined range of possibile frequencies of EM radiation.
Now, it is true that two people cannot transmit to the same radio using waves of the same frequency and each get the different effects they desire, but (and this is important) who’s radio is it? Compare the situation to two cars competing for a bit of road. The cars are the radio waves, and the road is – not the imaginary “spectrum” – but the receiving antenna.
I’m glad we agree that one cannot claim physical objects in a incidental or trivial manner. Perhaps we may end up agreeing on whether or not one can actually claim ownership of the non-physical. It is my position that if it isn’t physical, then it doesn’t exist except in the imagination. The imagination is composed of physical brain matter, and that brain matter describes to us the physical world around us. When we confuse imagination with reality, it isn’t surprising that we think it justifiable to place claims of ownership of the imaginary.
Person,
I now see why you bring the fight for IP back to radio, for it is Kinsella’s weak spot. (No offence.)
I hope that you are not actually arguing for IP out of some desire to win, but are actually eager for logic and reason to prevail.
I do not side with Kinsella for spectrum rights, because like IP it is purely a non-physical description of the physical. In other words, just as Kinsella criticizes IP for claiming ownership on property already owned, spectrum “rights” do the same (as I noted in my last post to him).
Neither “spectrum rights” nor “IP rights” hold up to the test of physical reality. If we agree that it is illogical to be able to own that which does not exist, then that is where they and all other imagined rights fail.
Kevin,
this is not my “weak spot” since I don’t have definitive views on it. I think this area is underdeveloped. These are simply my evolving thoughts on all this.
“Me: “Now, how can I have the right to transmit energy through my neighbor’s property without his permission?”
“Stephan: “If it does not prevent their use of their property, then it’s not a conflict, so not a trespass.”
“Well, we have a problem here, because your transmission of radio waves certainly makes use of my property. I know because if you are transmitting through my property before I am, then I cannot use my property to transmit through on the same frequency, right?”
I think you are confusing your means with your property. What does transmitting “through” your property have to do with anything? Imagine an EM spectrum that bathed the whole area, except your tract of land (some weird Gaussian box shielded it). Now my EM waves are not going “through” your property at all. BUt you are still unable to use a transmitter (whosever it is; wherever it’s located) to perturb the EM spectrum in the areas where it does exist.
Are you saying that to transmit a radio signal, over a 10 square mile area, I need to get permission of every single tract owner in that area? Then you have a view similar to Walter Block re roads.
“”In fact, merey by existing, and moving around, you cause various perturbations of the EM field and gravitational field, causing those waves to pass through everyone else’s property, no?”
“Some people also make loud noises, stink, step on your toes, cough on you, etc., but those are the little trespasses we put up with to get along. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”"
But they are not trespasses, really.
“”I could see an argument for a property rigth in a path–an easement or right of way; this has implications for shipping lanes and airways (where planes fly).
“We must remember property is not purely physical but has a praxeological aspect.”
“Hmmm, isn’t an easement or right of way a right to use property? I totally agree that you can have a right to use a path of road, and there can even be argument to use a path of water or air, but I just cannot see how one could argue for a right to use a “path” absent physical presence.”
Oh, I see. Well, it seem to me that you use a resource according to its, and the given use’s, nature. You use a field by farming it. A path by walking on it. An EM spectrum by broadcasting over it. Etc.
“If there is no physical aspect, then there is only your imagination. Person is right to note the similarities between non-physical paths, the non-physical spectrum, and IP.”
There is a physical aspect–EM signals are real. Shoot someone in the eye with a laser beam, you’ll see what I mean.
“”…the EM spectrum itself…namely as an information-carrying medium…”
But there really is no EM spectrum. The spectrum is merely what we call the imagined range of possibile frequencies of EM radiation.”
Well, then you can think of it as right to use a given volume of space for a particular limited purpose. To me, this is just a detail. We are beign armchair philosophers a bit too much–going beyond what we can guess the market would decide.
“Now, it is true that two people cannot transmit to the same radio using waves of the same frequency and each get the different effects they desire, but (and this is important) who’s radio is it?”
The owner’s, but he cannot use it to bash you over the head, nor to violate your airwaves.
“I’m glad we agree that one cannot claim physical objects in a incidental or trivial manner. Perhaps we may end up agreeing on whether or not one can actually claim ownership of the non-physical. It is my position that if it isn’t physical, then it doesn’t exist except in the imagination.”
But EM waves are not non-physical. If they were, you could have two people broadcast at the same time with no interference.
“I do not side with Kinsella for spectrum rights, because like IP it is purely a non-physical description of the physical.”
I am open on the airwave issue. I am not so sure about it as I am about IP or normal property.
“I hope that you are not actually arguing for IP out of some desire to win, but are actually eager for logic and reason to prevail.”
Thank you, Kevin_B. This is exactly why I post: because I find the arguments against IP (and many that are for!) to be unsatisfying, and I post to reveal the inconsistencies. I think we understand each other at this point.
You came to the same conclusion as I did: that IP and spectrum rights sink or swim together.
if you believe in physical property, you cannot believe in patents, or copyrites.
patents tell other people what to do with their own physical property. you do not own “your” computer if you cannot do whatever you wish with it, and copying a string of bits does not count as aggression, in and of itself.
you do not own “your” printer if you cannot print whatever you wish, and printing a copy of something does not count as aggression, in and of itself.
while in the past, “ownership” of airwaves was perhaps necessary due to primitive technology, now it is certainly not the case with advanced transmission techniques which allow simultaneous transmission while making other transmissions appear as background noise. the success of the 2.4ghz frequencies is a case in point.
Stephan Kinsella: “Imagine an EM spectrum that bathed the whole area, except your tract of land (some weird Gaussian box shielded it). Now my EM waves are not going “through” your property at all. BUt you are still unable to use a transmitter (whosever it is; wherever it’s located) to perturb the EM spectrum in the areas where it does exist.”
Exactly! I cannot, nor should I be able to, transmit radiation through property that I do not own. I have no right.
“Are you saying that to transmit a radio signal, over a 10 square mile area, I need to get permission of every single tract owner in that area? Then you have a view similar to Walter Block re roads.”
Why should an owner of a path of road or a path of wire have the right to determine who has the may use it, but the owner of a path of radio antenna not?
“Well, it seem to me that you use a resource according to its, and the given use’s, nature. You use a field by farming it. A path by walking on it. An EM spectrum by broadcasting over it. Etc.”
Well, you said that you don’t have definitive views on the subject, and here I point to easy improvement. Yes, you use a field by farming it. Yes, you use a path (of grass, dirt, gravel, cement, etc.) by walking on it. But the EM spectrum…you cannot broadcast over it. It isn’t there – not like the field is there. Let me explain:
A great many things may be farmed on a field, right? Corn, apples, oranges, wheat, etc. Well, think of those possible farmable products as the range of farming, or the farming spectrum. Just as the EM spectrum refers to *possible* EM radiation, so does the farming spectrum refer to *possible* crops to grow. Neither spectrum actually exists as anything more than our imagination. To claim ownership on either spectrum is a conflicting claim with actual physical property, apples, the field, EM radiation, or the antenna. See?
radiation in low doses has been proven to be harmful. if you want to stop transmissions anyways, that is your responsibility. it is not other people’s responsibility to make sure you come under no possibility whatsoever of harm. you have no right to stop other people from transmitting using their own property, unless you can prove that those transmissions are causing you harm.
Person: “IP and spectrum rights sink or swim together.”
Agreed, and as you know I think they both sink.
“This is exactly why I post: because I find the arguments against IP (and many that are for!) to be unsatisfying, and I post to reveal the inconsistencies.”
Well, you haven’t posted a counter-argument to my position that only the physical can be owned, other than radio waves. But now that you understand my position regarding the spectrum and radio waves, what have you to say?
Do you find my position, that everything which exists is physical, that the non-physical is mere description of the physical, that therefore only the physical can be rightfully owned, to be unsatisfying?
Joseph Huang: “you have no right to stop other people from transmitting using their own property, unless you can prove that those transmissions are causing you harm.”
Technically, it is easy to prove that transmissions are causing you harm. Just turn on your radio.
“it is not other people’s responsibility to make sure you come under no possibility whatsoever of harm.”
Sure, it is not their responsibility to make sure you are not harmed from any source, except if it is by them.
Stephan,
When I said, “I cannot, nor should I be able to, transmit radiation through property that I do not own. I have no right,” I mean that I have no right to transmit through property that others own. You probably understood what I meant, but I just want to be clear.
Kevin_B: “But now that you understand my position regarding the spectrum and radio waves, what have you to say? Do you find my position, that everything which exists is physical, that the non-physical is mere description of the physical, that therefore only the physical can be rightfully owned, to be unsatisfying?”
Well, to be honest, I didn’t read everything in your exchange with Stephan_Kinsella, but as I understand it, I do think it’s unsatisfying. People conflict over many things which cannot be expressed as full ownership of a physical object. To specify a framework for resolving ALL disputes, you have to allow for ownership of bundles of rights. Those rights necessarily deal with intangibles: for example, stock ownership, lease agreements, etc.
So, I prefer to think in terms of buying “bundles of rights”. For example, when you rent an apartment, you are buying “temporary usage rights.”
Decisions to assign rights to the “full purpose” of an object seem arbitrary by necessity.
One last thing: about IP/spectrum parity: doesn’t the fact that your position if implemented would mean no useful use of the radio spectrum, suggest to you that you made a mistake somewhere? Because not being able to use radio waves would suck.
static on the radio does not meet my standard of harm, at least. i meant harm in the harm as in causing cancer sense, perhaps i wasn’t clear about that. if you choose to use a transmission method so vulnerable to interference, you should expect that sometimes the transmissions will be blocked. you should have chosen a better method, and it is not other people’s fault for you not choosing such a method.
Person: “…I didn’t read everything in your exchange with Stephan_Kinsella…”
Please do. It wasn’t too lengthy, and it seems that you have enough time on your hands today.
“…doesn’t the fact that your position if implemented would mean no useful use of the radio spectrum, suggest to you that you made a mistake somewhere? Because not being able to use radio waves would suck.”
Not being able to bug out the the funky beats on the radio would indeed suck. However, just as the argument for anarchy of government doesn’t necessarily mean there will be chaos, so would my position not preclude the possibility of contractually meeting the demand for great tunes.
I am not saying that there shouldn’t be radio waves or police. But I think those services should both be offered rather than forced.
“Those rights necessarily deal with intangibles: for example, stock ownership, lease agreements, etc.”
Those intangibles are mere descriptions of tangibles. Any conflict over an intangible (or non-physical) is actually conflict over the tangible.
‘So, I prefer to think in terms of buying “bundles of rights”. For example, when you rent an apartment, you are buying “temporary usage rights.”‘
Apartments are physical. I do not see any conflict with my position.
I figured that you wouldn’t find my position satisfying, but wouldn’t quite have an argument against it. Please try.
Joseph Huang,
I wasn’t speaking of static as being proof of harm, but the groovy tunes that you hear. (Unless you agree to the transmissions, of course.)
the reason why you are able to rent an apartment is because there is a rightful owner of the apartment.
since the state is not the rightful decider of what is and isn’t property, and who the property belongs to, a better analogy would be a mafia coming into your town and deciding to extract rent from all the residents. and giving it to whoever they pleased.
that’s not harm. to harm is to do something that has a negative impact. i am not harmed just because i’m standing next to someone talking on a cell phone. i am not harmed if there is a ronja link across the air above my property. a ronja link uses infrared or red light to transmit information.
As a radio engineer, I sorta hope that posters in this thread who talking about the EM spectrum and its uses will refrain from asserting as much as they do.
Kevin B at December 20, 2007 4:43 PM
The frequency is a description of the physical characteristics, but apart from the wave, there is no frequency.
“120 kHz” itself is non-physical, nothing but mere description. You cannot own description.
The “frequency” is a relevent portion of the description of some real physical phenomena. To make that work, you would have to say that “a house” is non-physical, and that it is mere description. The point is that nothing you say there about the descriptive method distinguishes “a house” as a prospect for property from EM spectrum as a prospect for property.
Stephan Kinsella at December 20, 2007 5:27 PM
No one produces a frequency, any more than they produce a weight when they make a marble statue having a weight. The produce EM signals at a given frequency; they use a given portion of the EM spectrum characterized by its location and wavelength and bandwidth.
Hmmm… I don’t think that is so keen of an analogy, or it is quite imprecise, at best. If you are talking about conservation of mass (when talking about “weight”) then you should in simile be saying that no one produces energy any more than they produce mass. While true, that would miss the point here: energy is being transformed from one form into a very specific form. One descriptive characteristic of the final transformation is of frequency spectral density. And as you know, mass can be transformed too (by mixing labor/energy). The frequency, or energy in a frequency band, is certainly “produced.”
Stephan Kinsella at December 20, 2007 7:04 PM
Arguably, when you use an unowned airwave by broadcasting EM signals through it, you homestead it.
…
You lost me. That is in fact the idea behind homesteading of airwaves. Have you read David Kelley & Roger Donway, Laissez Parler? on this?
On the first sentence, I’d strongly agree that it is certainly arguable.
You’ve mentioned Kelley & Donway & Laissez Parler before, and one time provided a link. However, I saw nothing relevent at that link. Do you have any particular paper, text, or link you can share?
Silas Barta at December 20, 2007 8:01 PM
Say it with me: others can broadcast at your same frequency, BUT YOU DON’T LIKE THAT. See? It’s easy! You recognize that others can broadcast, but you, the broadcast on the same frequency, DON’T LIKE what results. That’s really the ONLY sense in which it’s scarce.
Sure, it is scarce because various users can jam each other. It’s physical. It is scarce. You said “only,” so how many varieties of scarce in real physical things are required to say “scarce is scarce?” {laughs}
Stephan Kinsella at December 21, 2007 7:42 AM
I view it as the EM spectrum itself … as a rivalrous resource b/c use of it by one person excludes the use of it by others. If two people attempt to drive a car at the same time, they will both be frustrated. Likewise, if two people broadcast at the same frequency too close too each other, neither will be able to use the spectrum.
“[U]se of it by one person excludes the use of it by others” is really a technological oversimplification. It isn’t generally true, although it can be true in particular cases. I really have some skepticism in taking a specific situtation and then forming a general rule of conduct from it.
Person at December 21, 2007 9:41 AM
No, I’m not “using all of it”. OTHER PEOPLE CAN STILL TRANSMIT! They can still set up their own transmitters and make their own waves. The fact that they are picky about information transfer capability should be irrelevant. What if people liked making radio waves for the hell of it? (e.g. as dictated by their religion) Would there then be property rights in the frequencies?
Frankly, the whole tone of that is bizarre. Of course “use,” whether “religious” or for “information transfer capability,” is completely relevent. People use a resource because they believe it does something they find satisfying. The end is always relevent. And for the communications folks, “information” is the only thing they care about, and EM wave is part of the real physical means.
The transmitter is only part of the link. The path(s) and the receiver(s) are other parts. You always pick this one part of the system (the transmitter) to talk about. Why I don’t know and I’m pretty sure at this point that you don’t either.
Stephan Kinsella at December 21, 2007 10:07 AM
Embordering means to establish borders–setting up intersubjectively ascertainable limits–. When use of a given airwave is pervasive enough then others can determine (a) that it is being used, and (b) how to avoid invading those borders. That is all.
Stephan Kinsella at December 21, 2007 10:07 AM
My position is worked out just fine. I’m just not sure how a real society would apply the basic principles of homesteading to every conceivable resource. The details don’t interest me overmuch.
I agree with the embordering idea, as a method to establish property rights. It seems to be exactly what happens. However, applying this to EM seems to have a rather fundamental problem: it is extraordinarily hard to describe a sustainable border to EM and keep the border stable. Its basic nature makes that a sketchy proposition. (There are some other problems too.)
The reason embordering has worked so well for large classes of physical objects is that the objects, by their very nature of stable physical mass (real or personal), allow people to agree on the borders for a low transaction cost. I’m not saying this could not be done for EM spectrum, but the fact that it isn’t done, and I have not seen one good analysis or application of it, leads me to think the costs are “too high” in part because producing good descriptions of embordering have a high measure of difficulty. People, like electrons, seek the lowest energy state, and in the EM case, force is perceived (“felt”) as costing less than peaceful agreements on borders, whatever the moral pronouncements or long-thinking logic on that may be.
There seems to be a bad habit among many libertarians, when there is a conflict-of-interest and resources, to simply say “just apply the principles of property rights!” and then the argument is over. I don’t think so. I think there is a strong cause for, and benefit to, applying property rights to as much as possible. After all, when property rights are functioning, there is really nothing better to the end goal of a peaceful and prosperous population. The crux of what I’m trying to get across is that I think in the particular case of EM spectrum, it is decidedly difficult to apply property principles due to the nature of the physical thing. I think this is why it has not been done. It is worth thinking about and developing a good way to apply the property principles. To my knowledge, this has not been done.
For my part, I have a certain faith that users can develop and evolve customs of use on their own, without any grand efforts from a state or outside-looking-in intellectuals. In fact, I’ve seen some of that happen in the unlicensed bands. To the extent workable customs can be developed, and when boundary cases are applied to free courts and arbitrators, a body of customary law could be developed organically. That was not allowed to happen in the USA.
Kevin B at December 21, 2007 1:30 PM
But there really is no EM spectrum. The spectrum is merely what we call the imagined range of possibile frequencies of EM radiation.
This is that same old “what is a description of something real?” Particular EM energy (or photons/particles/mass, if you wanna go all duality on us) is as physically real as some particular house is real. Both are symbols (abstractions) of real things in the sense that it is language. You can point an antenna to space and pick up CMB from the big bang if you want to. It’s there — all the time. But your problem with making language the problem, is that doing so paralyzes talking about pretty much anything. Language is always an abstraction, a model, a way of communicating about something — language is never the thing itself. So your beef includes nothing that distinguishes itself because it applies to any use of language.
Kevin B at December 21, 2007 1:30 PM
Now, it is true that two people cannot transmit to the same radio using waves of the same frequency and each get the different effects they desire, but (and this is important) who’s radio is it?
Again, this (“cannot”) is a strict technological mistake. Signals certainly can be multiplexed onto the same frequency band and directed to a singular receiver. The “same radio” is the receiver. The owner of the receiver(s) may or may not be the same person/entity as the owner(s) of the transmitters. I can’t see the relevence.
Kevin B at December 21, 2007 1:49 PM
I now see why you bring the fight for IP back to radio, for it is Kinsella’s weak spot. (No offence.)
It is more of a red herring that should nonetheless be addressed rather than a weak spot. It is a false analogy.
Person at December 21, 2007 2:03 PM
You came to the same conclusion as I did: that IP and spectrum rights sink or swim together.
No. IP fails because ideas are not physical. EM ownership might fail as far as cost effectively pushing EM-ownership into a property rights paradigm. EM is a real physical thing — but the basic trouble is that its essential physical attributes do not lend it easily to the property rights paradigm. You confate the failures, thinking the mechanism is the same. It is just not so. They might both sink, but they wouldn’t be doing it together.
Well greg,
As a former nuclear power plant operator, allow me to help you understand what I meant:
For the sake of everyone else, let us keep things simplified.
Freuquency
“the number of cycles or completed alternations per unit time of a wave or oscillation
Now greg, when you say ‘The “frequency” is a relevent portion of the description of some real physical phenomena’ you are correct. In fact the wave IS a real physical phenomena. That is my point. The frequency is a description of the number of cycles (blah blah) of the wave. The WAVE is physical..it is real. That was my point. But there is no “frequency” in the same way there is no “EM spectrum.” Is that better?
Me: “But there really is no EM spectrum. The spectrum is merely what we call the imagined range of possibile frequencies of EM radiation.”
greg: ‘This is that same old “what is a description of something real?”‘
No, it should be fairly obvious that the “EM spectrum,” as an physical object in itself, is NOT there. Did you read my “farming spectrum” analogy? Can you own a piece of the farming spectrum? I know you’re right when you say that “ideas are not physical,” but I could nit-pick too and say that you’re asserting too much, since ideas DO exist – physically. They’re in our heads now, aren’t they? But what you MEAN is something completely different, now, isn’t it? You mean there is no “idea” apart from the cells in our heads. I’m saying there is no “frequency” apart from the EM energy. I hope that’s clearer.
Me: “Now, it is true that two people cannot transmit to the same radio using waves of the same frequency and each get the different effects they desire, but (and this is important) who’s radio is it?”
greg: ‘Again, this (“cannot”) is a strict technological mistake. Signals certainly can be multiplexed onto the same frequency band and directed to a singular receiver. The “same radio” is the receiver. The owner of the receiver(s) may or may not be the same person/entity as the owner(s) of the transmitters. I can’t see the relevence.’
Again, you are not even trying. What receiver are you talking about? Not the average home stereo trying to receive a signal fromthe local radio station, brother. Work with us here.
Me: “I now see why you bring the fight for IP back to radio…”
greg: “It is a false analogy.”
Really? And just how, pray tell, does the “EM spectrum” (by my and Kinsella’s usage of the term) physically exist?
And finally:
greg: “IP fails because ideas are not physical. EM ownership might fail as far as cost effectively pushing EM-ownership into a property rights paradigm. EM is a real physical thing…”
Come on. I never said that EM radiation isn’t real. I said the EM spectrum is a description of the possible range of frequencies of electromagnetic energy – and that range cannot itself (apart from the ACTUAL EM radiation) be owned, unless you can see 120 kHz nothings flying around.
Person is saying that just as Kinsella is arguing for the ownership of a piece of the range of possible frequencies within a given geographical area, so can he argue for the ownership of a piece of the range of possible ideas within a geographical area. Correct me if I’m wrong, Person.
Kevin:
That was my point. But there is no “frequency” in the same way there is no “EM spectrum.” Is that better?
No, I still view it as only a undistinguished complaint regarding the application of basic language (to the purpose of describing physical phenomena).
Kevin:
[I]t should be fairly obvious that the “EM spectrum,” as an physical object in itself, is NOT there.
No, a “house,” is a mere archetype for particular instantiations of “house,” just as “EM spectrum” is a mere archetype for particular instantiations of “EM spectrum.” We say we can own “a house,” because we know there a particular instantiations of “house.” We also know full well there are particular instantiations of “EM spectrum.” We simply have more descriptive difficulties with the practical aspects of “EM spectrum” than “house,” thus the transaction costs are way too high. So it is a practical descriptive problem that limits our ability to easily say (agree that) “joe owns instantiation X of ‘EM spectrum.’”
Kevin:
I’m saying there is no “frequency” apart from the EM energy. I hope that’s clearer.
No, it is the same non-distinguishing complaint about basic language as ever. I could likewise say: “I’m saying there is no ‘house’ apart from boards, bricks, plaster, and paint.”
Kevin:
What receiver are you talking about? Not the average home stereo trying to receive a signal from the local radio station, brother. Work with us here.
That is a great example. A “home stereo,” while old technology, is explicitly an example of a multiplexed system. There is no reason — other than regulatory and historical — why a “stereo receiver” cannot use the L and R “channels” to output completely separate and uncorrelated messages. SCA and paging are also often multiplexed onto a (FM) carrier for a receiver to decode. Modern radio systems can have more than one input and more than one output (MIMO). In the most generalized case, there does not have to be correlation between the inputs, and consequently in the outputs. That the inputs and outputs most often are correlated is a basic fact of what people desire in a system, not what is technologically possible.
Kevin:
And just how, pray tell, does the “EM spectrum” (by my and Kinsella’s usage of the term) physically exist?
I could likewise say: “And just how, pray tell, does a ‘house’ [an archetype] … physically exist?”
Kevin:
I said the EM spectrum is a description of the possible range of frequencies of electromagnetic energy – and that range cannot itself (apart from the ACTUAL EM radiation) be owned, unless you can see 120 kHz nothings flying around.
I could likewise say: “I said a house is a description of the possible arrangement of boards, bricks, plaster, and paint — and that description cannot itself (apart from the ACTUAL boards, bricks, plaster, and paint) be owned, unless you can see house nothings flying around.”
There is nothing in your argument that is distinguishing when it comes describing to physical phenomena, whether EM particles|energy or houses.
Maybe your problem is that a photon has zero rest mass. (A photon doesn’t exist at zero velocity.) But if a system emits a photon, then it’s resulting mass is correspondingly lower. And the converse is a system that absorbs a photon — then the mass in that case is increased by the absorbtion. A photon has the wave-particle duality, like everything else. For some reason, you have a problem with a particle that seems to have zero rest mass. The reason EM is difficult from a property rights perspective is because of its “free” (photon) nature, not because “it does not exist” but “a house does exist.” It is simply easier for humans to draw (and agree on) a boundary around a particle (a house for example) with a velocity far lower than the speed of light than to draw a boundary around particles that are traveling at the speed of light.
And maybe you have a problem with the idea that photon particles can be created or not created (or “destroyed”) on time scales far smaller than a house can be created, and then knocked down, or a forest converted to pasture and then grown back into a forest. Who knows? It is the boundary descriptive problems of EM that make it unwieldy and not well lent to property rights, as we currently understand them. It is not that “EM Spectrum” is some weird non-physical archetype fiction unlike the “house” archetype. “House,” as an archetype, is also a non-physical fiction — it is a “product” of human capability for abstraction and symbolic thought.
Is the energy that PG&E (my supplier of electric energy) sends down the transmission line (to my house) PG&E’s property, or can I just take it without paying because it is simply energy (rather than mass), and not an “object” and thus not “property?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
greg,
Thank you. Let us dissolve our misunderstanding of each other.
“I said a house is a description of the possible arrangement of boards, bricks, plaster, and paint — and that description cannot itself (apart from the ACTUAL boards, bricks, plaster, and paint) be owned, unless you can see house nothings flying around.”
That is a fine description of a house. Now, what is a fine description of the EM spectrum? Until now, I thought you saw it the same as I, as the range of *possible* frequencies of EM radiation within a given area, but I was wrong. As I understand you, you define the EM spectrum as EM radiation and the medium it passes through. I am correct, aren’t I? After all, my house certainly isn’t hypothetical. So for you to compare my house to part of the EM spectrum, you must be referring to the actual and not the hypothetical.
So, if you are indeed suggesting that EM radiation exists, then I agree. If you are also saying that a physical medium exists, then I agree. If you say there is really no more to it than what is physically there, then I agree.
Here is my difficulty:
- EM radiation is owned by the transmitter.
- The medium is owned by the owner of the medium.
By my understanding of property rights, spectrum rights could not include the right to transmit EM radiation through a medium owned by another, since that would conflict with their property right to the medium. So what exactly do you mean by spectrum rights?
greg,
Having discussed this with another, I believe that by spectrum right you are referring to an easement through the medium. That makes sense.
As long as it was agreed to beforehand, I say fine. An EM spectrum right sounds like a passage right with or without permission of the medium owner, though.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.