Comments (11)

• newson

  i'm not listening unless ktibuk rings in. or maybe person...

  Published: January 29, 2009 12:23 AM

• Chris J

  We can all agree that Hank Rearden should not have exclusive rights to Rearden Metal.

  Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution grants exclusive rights to authors and inventors and but just because those authors sold their goods to the highest bidder doesn't mean we should honor those contracts! Those are just ideas!

  Published: January 29, 2009 8:46 AM

• Marcelo

  Randians always have the toughest time to abandon the notion of IP.

  Published: January 29, 2009 11:54 AM

• Deefburger

  The problem of IP is a doosey!

  Intelectual Property has as it's first problem the fact that the property in question is non-physical.

  This fact leads directly to the problem of proof of ownership. It was the solution to this problem that established the Patent Office in the first place.

  The next problem is one of exclusivity of thought. The independent creation of two similar ideas is always possible. And so the existence of Rights becomes muddied by the race to Patent.

  The next problem is one of utility. An idea may or may not be useful, now, but in the future, some other idea may come along that makes the first one useful, or even possible.

  Next is the problem of prior art. An idea may, indeed probably does, incorporate prior art, and therefore is not entirely unique, or new.

  The last problem is one of action. A good idea may sit languishing because the inventor has no means to produce it, or is unwilling to have it produced except under his complete control.

  Copyright is just that...Copy Right. The problems it faces are similar to that of Patent.

  Again, the idea is composed of language that is universally shared and non-physical.

  The problem of ownership is solved by the postal service. One can establish ownership simply by mailing a master copy of ones work to ones self and keeping it unopened. Much better than the patent system in my humble opinion.

  But the prior art issue still looms large. One cannot properly use the language to create a new work, without having read other works, prior. And having read other works prior, one cannot say with any certainty, at any time, that what one has produced is entirely of their own design. That said, it is also conceivable that work is unique in it's emplyment of the language and the presentation of the ideas.

  We have citation as an example of a solution to the problem of prior art in copyright, as well as the request for permission to use. But only citation is workable for instances of rebuttal, where permission is not likely to be granted.

  What of the motivations for supporting the existence of rights of patent and copyright? It's simple. We want to be the benefactor of our work, physical work, and inellectual work.

  What we need is an Idea Forum. A common place, easily accessible to all, where the idea can be presented, the time and date of presentation can be posted, the merits of the idea can be debated openly by all, and contact be made with the originator(s) of the ideas in order to facilitate licensing for publication and/or production.

  Should an individual or company reserve (keep secret) their idea in order to protect their entry into the market or protect their investment in research, then they lose the protection of the forum but gain the advantage of first to market.

  Ideas that enter the public view via the market, rather than the forum are cite able in the forum but not protected.

  The Forum then becomes both copyright and patent office in one. Publicly available to all, and legal evidence in court. The ideas, and the originating entities, and the citations of prior art, all become public knowledge at the same time, and in the same place.

  The Wikipedia is one possible model that The Forum might take. Open, public, editable, and maintained historical archive. All needed for just such an endeavor.

  Ideas need to be known by others to be of any use to anybody, including the originator. And due credit should be given to those who make the effort to think. This is the best solution I can think of to solve both sides of the problem of IP. It is incomplete, and indeed needs further consideration, but here we are, in a forum, now. Hammer away!

  Published: January 29, 2009 12:23 PM

• Chris J

  Wow. Randian? You sound offended that I used an obvious example.

  You may argue that my incentive to think should be my desire to gather resources more efficiently...ultimately attempting to defeat scarcity altogether. That's cool. But why should I share my abundance with you? What's in it for me? I think that's why our non-Randian capitalist forefathers put it in the Constitution. I may support reform but not abolition at this time.

  Feel free to change my mind. I've been wrong lots of times.

  Published: January 29, 2009 1:35 PM

• Marcelo

  Wow. You took great offense when I called you a Randian. Maybe it's because you're using an example from a fiction novel.

  read up on IP, buddy

  Published: January 29, 2009 1:40 PM

• Chris J

  Marcelo,
  I read the words in Tucker's article, "Companies live and breathe by innovation. Innovation and monopoly are not compatible."

  I see the words on the page. I read the examples given. But I can't understand why I would pour out my own scarce resources to find an efficient solution then give it to competitors. Please tell me what I am missing.

  Published: January 29, 2009 2:54 PM

• Chris J

  Marcelo,
  The first sentence of my posting at 1:35 is disrespectful. That was not my intention. I'm sorry.

  Published: January 29, 2009 2:57 PM

• Chris J

  OK. I bet I read this 10 times before I got it. Sorry I took so long.

  "The same reason all entrepreneurs do what they do: to be the first to market. Meanwhile, anyone on the planet could publish it a day later. Still, Norton turned a massive profit."

  Just go and keep going. Don't stop. As a consequence of doing, your R&D department gets better at their job. You turn a profit faster and move on to the next thing.

  Published: January 29, 2009 3:41 PM

• RWW

  Randians always have the toughest time to abandon the notion of IP.

  I prefer "Randists." It has more of a religious ring to it, which is appropriate.

  Published: January 29, 2009 9:45 PM

• David Bratton

  "Intelectual Property has as it's first problem the fact that the property in question is non-physical."
  "This fact leads directly to the problem of proof of ownership."

  I think the first problem is the difficulty in accepting that Intellectual Property is not even a thing at all - let alone property. What we call "Intellectual Property" is in reality an action masquerading as a thing. An IP "right" is a well defined set of infringements and threats directed against the owners of actual property restricting how they can use their property. IP is just a label applied to an action for the purpose of claiming the rights and privileges of property ownership.
  

  Published: January 30, 2009 12:51 AM