Supreme Skepticism Toward Method Patents
As I mentioned in Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way, in in In re Bilski, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) modified previous holdings regarding the patentability of software or business-method patents in upholding the rejection of patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and oral arguments were heard earlier this month. This entire area of patent law is very arcane, but the main issues and the oral arguments are explained very well by the heroic IP-abuse reporter Joe Mullin in Bilski v. Kappos Oral Arguments: Supreme Skepticism Toward Method Patents.
Take a look at Mullins' discussion of the oral arguments--it's fascinating seeing the Justices grapple with the absurdity of patent law. A few choice excerpts below.
I suspect the Court will choke back a bit on software and business method patents--but not too much, as I argued in Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way. One reason is that although the law is, as the Justices seem to be realizing, completely unjust and absurd, it is the law. Or, as Bilski's lawyer said, "That's our system ... We do grant exclusive rights in exchange for disclosure." Yes, we do. And when you implement such an abomination, that's what you get: absurd, unjust results, such as granting monopolies on "fundamental ways of conducting business or organizing human behavior" (and yes, patents are monopolies, despite the shrill denials by patent shills and other pro-monopolists).
Excerpts from oral arguments:
Across the board, the justices indicated a deep skepticism toward the invention described in the patent application at issue, which was rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and describes a method for trading commodities. Some of the justices went even further--expressing both a fair amount of disdain for the idea of granting broad "method" patents and a concern that ruling in favor of the petitioners would lead to patent grants on fundamental ways of conducting business or organizing human behavior. ...
Based on the justices' attitude during the arguments, it not only seems extremely unlikely that Bernard Bilski will ever get the patent at issue, it also seems clear that the court is poised to establish a new, and most likely stricter, test of what is patent eligible.
One after another, the justices prodded Bilski's lawyer, Michael Jakes of Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, in search of some idea about where to draw the line. The thrust of the questions: Does absolutely everything fall within the domain of the U.S. patent system?
"So, an estate plan?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "A tax avoidance method? How to resist a corporate takeover? All of these are patentable?"
"They are eligible for patenting under section 101," replied Jakes, referring to the section of the 1952 patent statute that governs what is patent-eligible subject matter.
... "Your argument is that anything that helps business succeed is patentable," Breyer said. Would the framers of the Constitution, he asked, really have wanted everyone with a new idea to run to Washington to get a patent, in the process enabling them to "stop the wheels of progress" unless competitors got permission?
"Why not patent a method of speed dating?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
There are a few, limited areas, Jakes said, where patent protection isn't available; he pointed to the fine arts as one example. Otherwise, he argued, patents encourage people to innovate, and it is via the patent system that they disclose their new creations to the public.
... Justice Sotomayor took issue with Jakes's suggestion that patents are always a manifestation of innovation.
"A patent limits the free flow of information," she said. "It requires licensing. You can't argue your position is enhancing the free flow of information."
Jakes replied: "It does, because of the disclosure requirement."
"Even though the public can't use [the patented invention]," noted Scalia.
"That's our system," said Jakes. "We do grant exclusive rights in exchange for disclosure."
Time and again, Jakes refused to draw a line that ruled anything off-limits to the patent regime. His position left the justices questioning whether he was advocating the "ownership" of basic human activities.
"Let's take training horses," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "Don't you think that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some ... insights into the best way to train horses? Why didn't anybody patent those things?"
"I think our economy was based on industrial processes," responded Jakes.
"It was based on horses, for Pete's sake!" said Scalia. "I would really have thought somebody would have patented that."
... Chief Justice Roberts pushed back on an inconsistency in Stewart's briefing of the case. On the one hand, he said, the government claims Bilski's method just describes a way of doing business, and therefore isn't patentable--but then posits that a computer with an "interactive website" doing the same thing might be. "That's like saying if you use a typewriter to type out the process, then it's patentable," said Roberts.
If the website scheme was part of a computer program, Stewart said, "the computer would be at the heart of the innovation."
"No, no," said Roberts. "That's just saying instead of looking in the Yellow Pages, you look on a computer."
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (147)
Comments (147)
step back
Hi Stephan,
I'm one of the commenters from IP WatchDog --just to give you a heads up of where I'm coming from.
What surprises me most is that on this ultra-capitalist's web site (Mises) you would submit for approval, the proposition that inventors should *not* have property rights but rather that their workproduct should automatically be donated to the commons (for the socialistic good of the many at the expense of the few, as a left wing version of Star Trek's Mr. Spock might say).
What astounds me even more, is that ardent readers of this site would probably agree with you. Who needs "property rights"? Let the law of the free jungle determine the winners and losers. Is that the basic view?
Published: November 25, 2009 4:17 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Step back: "What surprises me most is that on this ultra-capitalist's web site (Mises) you would submit for approval, the proposition that inventors should *not* have property rights but rather that their workproduct should automatically be donated to the commons (for the socialistic good of the many at the expense of the few, as a left wing version of Star Trek's Mr. Spock might say)."
It's not left-wing or socialist at all. I am sorry you are surprised but if you would do your homework and find out my reasons, you would not be. I am against state-granted artificial monopoly privileges because I favor property rights. Patents invade property rights. You can find out my reasons in any of my writings, available here. Perhaps a good one to start with would be "The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide." Then you will not be "surprised" that people who are in favor of private property rights are opposed to the state's monopoly-granting patent system, and you will see what patent law is in fact socialistic, contrary to your claims.
Published: November 25, 2009 4:29 PM
Scott D
step back:
"What astounds me even more, is that ardent readers of this site would probably agree with you. Who needs "property rights"? Let the law of the free jungle determine the winners and losers. Is that the basic view?"
Just because the words "property right" are used does not mean that that use is legitimate. I might declare that communism is the right of all people to own an equal share of all resources, that all of humanity has a property right to the whole world that no one person can contest. Then I might say that if you are against communism, you are against property rights. To debate me on the side of the capitalism, you would first object to my definition of property rights, which is exactly what Stephan Kinsella does with IP.
Patent and copyright are not legitimate property rights. Real property is scarce and rivalrous, where IP is neither. Stealing real property deprives its owner of that resource. "Stealing" IP, at the worst, only deprives the owner of market share, which is what happens when McDonald's opens up down the street from Burger King. As such, it is no less detestable than a law that requires florists to pass state certification exams to do business.
Read Kinsella's paper and then come back to voice your objections. If you are honest and intelligent, you will likely find his arguments quite compelling.
Published: November 25, 2009 9:11 PM
step back
Scott D,
You are way too funny.
IP includes trade secrets. (As a matter of fact, patent rights usually begin life as trade secrets.)
Let's say for argument sake that I possess as a trade secret, a new and nonobvious and high efficacious way to cure a deadly cancer that ails one of you family members or friends (or even you yourself if that be needed to make the point).
It is a "scarce" thing because only I possess it and nobody else has useful access to it. But you say there should be no property rights in such a scarce thing because 'property rights' are reserved only for truly scarce resources (e.g. arid useless land in the middle of the Mojave desert for example or swamp land in Louisiana).
So "real estate" property rights that cover thousands of square miles of useless desert land or swamps are OK, but rights to a one-of-a-kind cure for a deadly disease are not OK? Is that your position and you're sticking to it?
Published: November 25, 2009 9:29 PM
Mangix
Private property deals with the physical and tangible. Intellectual property deals with the metaphysical and intangible. One's legitimate and the other is not. Well, the latter is illegitimate because of how it's enforced but...
Published: November 25, 2009 9:53 PM
RWW
step back,
Obviously I wouldn't go so far as to say that you could do the (light) reading that has been suggested to you and still disagree with Stephan's position. However, as of right now, it is clear from your comments that you have not done that reading, and quite frankly it's embarrassing.
Published: November 25, 2009 11:21 PM
RWW
Sorry, that should be "say that you couldn't." My own sentence was apparently too complex for me to follow.
Published: November 25, 2009 11:22 PM
newson
step back says:
"So "real estate" property rights that cover thousands of square miles of useless desert land or swamps are OK..."
if the land has been homesteaded, then it is useful to someone. otherwise, transformational effort wouldn't have been expended.
dogs piss on trees to mark territory only to stake a claim on the scarse resources in the enclosed area such as lair, food, water and mates. this saves inadvertent conflict. intruders are forewarned that the area is "claimed", and challenge in full knowledge thereof. even in the "jungle", some form of behavioural code applies, at least at the intraspecial level.
Published: November 25, 2009 11:30 PM
Randy S
Stephan, As someone who works in design as an electrical engineer who creating products and new circuits and software etc... and who is considering writing an article on the pros and cons of patents for practical purposes, and someone who has worked around numerous science and technology workers and creators of patents, INNOVATORS, over the years, I just read some of your work and have to say I just don't see your point! Sure patents are getting carried away by hedge fund applications, but they still have their purpose for legitimate new and novel works.
Patents provide all the benefits of protection and monopoly that I'm sure you're aware of, and for good reason, "valuable IP" takes a lot of hard work and expertise in a field of study or "art" and warrants a method of protection from copiers in order to reap ones benefits, seems very reasonable.
On the other hand, these days, some people are getting carried away with the patent concept, and I agree it needs to be better defined to quit wasting the taxpayers time and resources.
But eve if you can patent anything, lets say, so what, if someone infringes because they have already been doing it for years prior, your patent becomes invalid. Like this case around the business model, or the hedge fund, if it's not original or novel, then the patent if granted becomes invalid.
Published: November 26, 2009 1:21 AM
Shay
step back wrote, "What surprises me most is that on this ultra-capitalist's web site (Mises) you would submit for approval, the proposition that inventors should *not* have property rights but rather that their workproduct should automatically be donated to the commons (for the socialistic good of the many at the expense of the few, as a left wing version of Star Trek's Mr. Spock might say)."
Not at all. A liberal would allow you to do whatever you wanted with your property. If you invent something, the product is the working drawings or other documentation of the invention. You could sell these drawings to anyone you pleased, and ask however much you wanted for them.
What a liberal is against is you dictating what others do with their own property. You invent something, but then want to suddenly say "OK everyone, from now on, you have to pay me if you want to form your property into something resembling my invention." But that's not enough, because people would just laugh at you. So you have the state step in to enforce your decree, and you even avoid paying for the enforcement by making the masses pay for it.
Going back and reading your paragraph, I find it absolutely ironic. Who's the socialist, and telling others what to do with their property?!?
Published: November 26, 2009 2:25 AM
newson
note the existence of copyright in the ussr. socialism and ip protection seem to gone hand-in-hand. now that should give some pause for thought. http://bit.ly/4ULcsy
Published: November 26, 2009 3:56 AM
step back
Shay,
At least I have to hand it to you that you are the first anti-patent guy who responds here with a semi-cogent argument. Your earlier posting brethren came in with such incomprehensible and embarrassing babble that you probably felt compelled to step in and save face on behalf of the half intelligent anarchists out there.
But enough with my feigned ad hominem attack. Let's get straight onto that slippery slope you so desperately want to slide down along.
You say you don't want the government (the "state") to step in and tell me what to do with my "property".
Well fair enough. I hereby declare the house you live in and the land you walk on to be "my property". Tomorrow morning my gun toting thugs will be over to the place you illegally proclaimed as "your property" and they will expel you forcibly or otherwise if you don't get out of what I here and now declare to be "my property".
Of course you are not going to go all cry baby on us and seek help from 'the state' (i.e. the police) in this situation because, as you insist, less government is better and more government involvement is evil.
People need to sort out what is theirs (their "property") the good old fashion way with guns, knives and eventually atomic bombs. Fair is fair.
After all, what is real estate "property" but just another idiot government official taking pencil to an artificial map and drawing an imaginary and abstract line so as to subdivide an intangible abstraction that he says is "the land".
Of course it is not "the land". Same as that French painting that says "This is not a pipe" is not a pipe. It is a painting of a pipe. An intangible abstraction. Definitely not the real thing. Clearly if you and I go take a look at the actual swamp area in Louisiana or the strip of desert in the Mojave we are arguing about as being the scarce resource we both claim to be "my property", there will be no actual property "line" there. The only tangible thing there is plain old and un-scarce dirt (or swamp mud, depending on which of our cherished parcels of real estate we happen to be visiting).
Once we are physically and tangibly there there, you and I can go about pissing like dogs on different spots to make natural law claims to our "properties". And then we can pull out the guns and knives and get down to the real and tangible 'negotiations' as to what is whose "property" and what is not.
The wonderful thing is that all this can be done without government intervention. It's exactly what a confessed anarchist like Kinsella would want.
(BTW, rww, yes I have read some of Kinsella's materials. We have met earlier on the battle field of another blog (IP WatchDog). Kinsella is a full blown anarchist and I can respect that. If you say the best government is no government at all and each of us is on his own, I can respect that. At least you are being intellectually honest. But to say silly things like that laws (i.e. patent laws) which government has clearly passed as being the legitimate laws are 'illegitimate'; why that's plain nuts. What is your definition of the word "legitimate"? It's legitimate only when you say it's legitimate? Well then we are back to absolute anarchy. Just admit that you are an absolute anarchist. Kinsella basically does that in his writings and I can respect him for it. What I can't respect is an argument that real estate property is any different than patent property. Both involve government officials drawing abstract lines on a piece of paper and saying to some people, you can't go there. It's called 'exclusive rights'. That's what 'property' is. It is the government enforced right to exclude other people from enjoying that which is "your property". Probably this is a little more deep than you have ever dared to think down to before and I apologize for having taken you here. It's just that it seemed you were begging for it. ;-) )
Published: November 26, 2009 4:16 AM
newson
the fugitive slave act of 1850 was "legitimate", being duly passed by congress.
http://bit.ly/82Wkmo
Published: November 26, 2009 4:24 AM
Peter Surda
Just to show a different point of view (although I said it several times over the last year or so, some people new to the site might not have read it).
I'm a software engineer and a businessman. I have been writing software for about 22 years, since I was a kid. And I agree fully with Stephan (and other contributors to this website) that IP rights are in direct conflict with the (classical) property rights and cannot coexist with them in a coherent manner. IP rights are not necessary to do business with immaterial goods, they merely encourage business models based on the monopoly rent. They are also not required for innovation, they merely encourage capital-intensive approaches to innovation. Throughout my career, I cannot recall an instance where copyright or patents were a prerequisite for me to earn money. Since I used to be an IP proponent, imagine my surprise when I retrospectively realised that.
This was not supposed to be some hard proof against IP, merely to make people curious enough to think about the issue.
Published: November 26, 2009 4:48 AM
step back
Hey there Randy S !
You can't be on both sides of the fence at the same time. Either you are for patenting all the "useful arts" or you are not.
Simultaneous existence on both sides of the fence is quantum mechanically impossible ;-).
There is no difference between you sketching on a piece of paper the symbols for a bunch of transistors and resistors and the next guy scribbling some Verilog or Java code and yet the next guy dumping a whole lot of CTAG patterns on paper or storing it in computer memory. And similarly when Bilski dumps his symbology down on paper about how to operate in the commodity markets, that's kind of the same thing also.
As an EE you obviously understand from first hand experience how difficult it can be to scribble some transistors with a pencil or do the equivalent with Verilog code.
But here on this blog, you are dealing with "economists" --you know, the guys who flunked first year physics but claim they nonetheless grok how the whole world is put together.
It's all very simple you see. First there is the "market". And the market did some messing around and created you out of raw dirt. And the market saw that it was good. So the market created many many cubicles and filled them all with engineers. The market said all engineers are the same. They are a fungible commodity. And then the market said, no engineer shall own a patent on his own; for that is holy stuff reserved only for the supreme corporate entity. And thus it was done. And the market saw that it was good. The market rested. After all, it was Thanksgiving Day, the day on which the market could give thanks that the native americans did not have advanced weapons technology to use against the legally in-immigrating Pilgrims. Let us all give thanks. Amen. ;-)
Published: November 26, 2009 4:59 AM
step back
Well well Peter S,
I've been writing code for 40 years, since I was a kid.
And I can say that I have seen instances where patents made a big difference.
Do you remember IBM's OS/2 operating system?
Question: How did IBM get all the source code for Bill Gate's Windows operating system?
Hint: He gave it to them.
Why did he give this, his most prized jewel to them?
Hint: They had patents. He did not. Well not back then. He learned his lesson quickly thereafter.
Published: November 26, 2009 5:06 AM
Matthew
I, too, am a programmer against IP, for the sake of consistency in property rights theory. I think programming can have a way of teaching people on a concrete level that any attempts to shortchange logical purity will just leave them bruised and sorry.
Published: November 26, 2009 5:16 AM
Matthew
Oh, and for the whole "non-aggression" thing, too. Peace is good. ;-)
Published: November 26, 2009 5:18 AM
Jay Lakner
step back,
The anarchist position is generally that competing private protection agencies will act as law enforcement. Your longwinded attacks on anarchy are completely invalid in light of this fact. I suggest you further educate yourself on anarcho-capitalist theory before continuing your arguments against anarchy.
As for physical property versus intellectual property, do you not understand the difference between the tangible and the intangible?
Do you really believe it is possible to assign 'ownership' to an 'idea'?
Maybe you should define "idea". And then maybe you should analyse the composition of an 'idea'.
Could it be possible that every 'idea' is simply an extension of previous 'ideas'?
And how do you reconcile your answers with the premise that a large component of human learning occurs via imitation? Is not the child learning to walk "stealing" the idea of walking from their parents? Are all children sinners in your opinion? Shouldn't they have expressly asked permission of those they were imitating?
At the fundamental level, the assignment of property rights to 'ideas' is contrary to the very nature of human education, growth and development.
Peter Surda touched on the other point I wanted to make. Namely that intellectual property rights are a direct contradiction of physical property rights. You may have one or the other, but they cannot both coexist without contradictions.
Physical propety rights: You have the right to own and acquire property. You may do anything you want with your property so long as you do not harm another individual's property.
Intellectual property rights: You have the right to own 'original' ideas. You restrict other individuals from using their property in a manner which duplicates your 'idea' in any way shape or form.
Hence the definition of intellectual property immediately conflicts with the definition with physical property. If I own a pile of materials then, by definition, I can do whatever I want with those materials. However, I am not allowed to arrange them into a device which someone has patented, even though such an arrangement would not adversely affect the property of others. Clearly the 'owner' of the patent has been given partial ownership of my materials because they now have the power to restrict the uses of my materials.
A similar contradiction occurs in copyright. I own the ink, I own the paper, yet millions of authors around the world are preventing me from arranging my ink and paper into any form I see fit. In this example, the intellectual property assigned to those authors are directly contradicting the physical property assigned to me.
Step back, at the very least I hope you realise now that the issue is not as cut-and-dried as you've been making it out to be.
Published: November 26, 2009 5:46 AM
sean
Mr. Shay:
You state:
"Of course it is not "the land". Same as that French painting that says "This is not a pipe" is not a pipe. It is a painting of a pipe. An intangible abstraction. "Definitely not the real thing. Clearly if you and I go take a look at the actual swamp area in Louisiana or the strip of desert in the Mojave we are arguing about as being the scarce resource we both claim to be "my property", there will be no actual property "line" there. The only tangible thing there is plain old and un-scarce dirt (or swamp mud, depending on which of our cherished parcels of real estate we happen to be visiting)."
Excuse me? The "property" includes the "dirt", or the "mud". It's also the "grass", the "trees", the "rocks" and other things constituting the "land", as well as any improvements thereupon. None of these things (like a particular particle of dirt) are permanently fixed, of course, but they still fall within the category of the "property" I am claiming a right to as my "property". The property in quotation marks refers to the "area" of "land" I claim, the demarcation of which can can be expressed by drawing "boundary lines" on "paper". This product, often referred to as a "map", can be copied many times over, thus permitting there to be any number of "maps" that exist, thus allowing lots of people the opportunity to view the maps and get an understanding of where "Sean's Property" begins/ends in comparison to where "Shay's Property" begins/ends, also establishing where these "properties" "are" compared to observable landmarks. The people in possession of these maps could then stand on them. They would not be standing on "Sean's property"; however, they would be standing on their property: the map (unless of course I asserted a Copy"right" to the particular "expression" of my land as depicted on the map, in which case they would be standing on my property. argh.).
Nonetheless, I think the thought underlying your argument here is really along the lines of the previous paragraphs that basically state that there is no "property" without the "State" acting as the enforcement mechanism; because without the "State" acting to provide enforcement, chaos and gang violence would reign because there are always going to be some people that just can't play nice and fair with others. Is this correct summation of your argument?
Published: November 26, 2009 5:50 AM
Jay Lakner
sean,
Shay never wrote that. You are quoting 'Step Back', not Shay.
Published: November 26, 2009 5:54 AM
Gil
Uh oh! Newson brings up the Fugitive Slave Act!
Technically, yes, the Southern were doing the right thing and enforcing the private property rights. Debt slavery is compatible with Libertarianism and quite frankly a person can't escape their debt obligations and leave the other person out of pocket.
A similar quandary for Libertarians is animal cruelty. Which comes first: private property rights or moral decency against cruelty. Most Libertarians prefer the private property rights so if A stole B's fighting dogs because A hates cruelty towards animals then B should be able to physically force A to hand over his fighting dogs.
Published: November 26, 2009 5:57 AM
The Anti-Troll
Another area where libertarianism fails is in cruelty to plants. Human cruelty of grass is widespread knowledge. We walk on it, stand on it, sit on it, play rough games on it, and we even torture it with rapidly spinning metal blades just to prevent it's growth. It's ghastly what we humans do to the blades of grass trying to inhabit this planet.
Which comes first: private property rights or moral decency against cruelty. Most Libertarians prefer the private property rights so if A stole B's lawnmower because A hates cruelty towards plants then B should be able to physically force A to hand over his lawnmower.
Published: November 26, 2009 6:45 AM
Bala
Jay Lakner,
While I'm fully with you on the anti-IP position, just thought I'll point out a consequence of a pair of statements in your post.
1. " Physical propety rights: You have the right to own and acquire property. You may do anything you want with your property so long as you do not harm another individual's property. "
2. " Hence the definition of intellectual property immediately conflicts with the definition with physical property "
I wouldn't be surprised if I, taking the role of an IP proponent, turned the tables back on you and said that the conflict is not with the definition of physical property but with an unavoidable conflict of 2 types of property rights, both of them equally legitimate.
This argument basically assumes that IP is a legitimate case of "property". Therefore, when you use "my" IP protected idea on "your' physical property, you are violating my property rights. As you have yourself conceded in the first of the 2 statements that I have identified from your post, you cannot claim that you can use your property in a manner that harms my property rights over my property. Therefore, your attempt to use "my" idea on your property would have to be termed illegitimate and your argument scrapped.
There are 2 ways out of this situation
1. Try to prove that your using "my" idea is not a violation of my rights to "my" intellectual property
2. Show that my premise that Intellectual Property is legitimate "Property" and hence show that your using "my" idea is not a violation of my property rights (since I cannot and do not have a right to own the idea).
IMO, the 2nd is the better bet. It can be based on sound moral arguments. It will also require a cogent theory of "property" that, based on sound moral principles, clearly defines the term "property" and gives unambiguous and universal rules for identifying what can be "property" and what cannot.
Published: November 26, 2009 7:06 AM
newson
gil joins step back in accepting as "legitimate" anything passed by congress. "moral decency" is whatever is dictated by the incumbent government.
governments intent on protecting animals couldn't be anything but well-intentioned, could they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
Published: November 26, 2009 7:12 AM
Peter Surda
Dear step back,
while I appreciate your reply, it does not really address anything that I said. I do not claim that there is absolutely no benefit to anybody from IP. Indeed, it is practically impossible for any rule of conduct (voluntary or enforced) not to create beneficiaries and losers. Therefore merely the existence of a beneficiary proves absolutely nothing even from utilitarian point of view.
Published: November 26, 2009 7:13 AM
Jay Lakner
Bala,
Thanks for the reply, but if you reread what I've written, you will see that I wasn't actually trying to refute intellectual property. I was merely demonstrating the contradiction between the two types of property.
As you can understand, I felt that 'Step Back' could not be ready to understand a refutation of IP. He doesn't even yet understand the fundamentals of libertarianism, how was he going to handle a refutation based on those same fundamentals?
Therefore, I felt that a simple demonstration of the distinction between tangible and intangible and the contradiction between the two would be a sufficient first step for him.
Is there a better approach?
Published: November 26, 2009 7:48 AM
Bala
Jay Lakner,
" I was merely demonstrating the contradiction between the two types of property. "
I noticed this and replied precisely for this reason. Do you note that even in this post of yours, you are implicitly acknowledging that Intellectual Property is a legitimate form of property?
The IP proponent's point would simple be that the existence of a contradiction or a conflict is not sufficient reason to justify what is a morally legitimate property right. I know this position very well because this was precisely my position before I understood certain other aspects of this debate. (You must, I am sure, be familiar with Ayn Rand's position on IP)
In such a debate, the IP proponent ends up taking the moral "high ground" and you turn out to be a person making a weak case for legitimising violation of genuine property rights, a.k.a. stealing.
" Is there a better approach? "
I think a better approach is to demonstrate that IP is not a legitimate property right. This will involve showing why ideas and patterns can and should never be considered as "property". (I have said more on this on another blog. I could repeat it if you would like me to.)
Once this is done, it is, IMO, easy to demolish the pro-IP argument as morally unsound. Thus, you will gain the moral high ground in the debate.
Published: November 26, 2009 8:33 AM
Bala
Jay Lakner,
A small correction. I said
" sufficient reason to justify what is a morally legitimate property right "
Please replace "justify" with "jettison". Thanks.
Published: November 26, 2009 8:41 AM
Gil
Gee, 'The Anti Troll' by your logic the slaves were the property of the masters and other people had a duty to return the slaves lest they be charged with possession of stolen property.
Golly, newson, are you saying being against animal cruelty is despicable? Proof? The Nazis believe animals should be free from arbitrary cruelty. I bet you were one of the audience members cheering and chugging beer and Michaels Vick's house. Private property right comes first.
Published: November 26, 2009 8:54 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Randy S:
As an electrical engineer who sees what nonsense and unjust absurdity the patent system is, I don't see how you can fail to see my point if you have really read my work. Just do your homework, if you seek to understand. I am against state-granted artificial monopoly privileges because I favor property rights. Patents invade property rights. You can find out my reasons in any of my writings, available here. Perhaps a good one to start with would be "The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide." Then maybe you will see "my point" and you will not be "surprised" that people who are in favor of private property rights are opposed to the state's monopoly-granting patent system, and you will see what patent law is in fact socialistic.
Published: November 26, 2009 9:27 AM
step back
Friends, anarchists and ultra-Libertarians,
No need to wax poetic here about the theoretical beauty of the ultra-Libertarian anarchistic way of life.
Just mosey over to the local immigration office and pick up your passport for passage to Afghanistan.
When you get there (to Afghanistan silly, not the passport office) make sure to stay away from Kabul. What you want are the truly free lands where the war lords rule as they please. Each region has the ideal setting of competing private law enforcement organizations working under the laws of the jungle (err, I mean the laws of the desert) to optimize your life style to that which you here only dare to dream about.
There is no need to argue about IP rights or real estate property rights in Afghanistan. Gang membership is all that you need. Get yourself into the right gang and work your way up the power structure (i.e. by killing rivals while they sleep) and soon it will be you who is the grand caliphate. How cool is that?
BTW. I don't think they eat turkey at the end of November in Afghanistan. But hey, that's the price of attaining the truly Libertarian way of life.
Published: November 26, 2009 12:28 PM
Old Mexican
Re: Step Back,
[...]the proposition that inventors should *not* have property rights but rather that their workproduct should automatically be donated to the commons
No such proposition has been made. An inventor can perfectly put away drawings and prototypes in a vault, without being compelled to do anything else.
Your misunderstanding comes from conflating ideas with property. Ideas cannot be property, only tangible items which are scarce and rivalrous.
Who needs "property rights"? Let the law of the free jungle determine the winners and losers. Is that the basic view?
We all have property rights. These do not exist by virtue of the existence of a third party enabler, but by virtue of our existence as rational, thinking beings.
You say you don't want the government (the "state") to step in and tell me what to do with my "property".
Well fair enough. I hereby declare the house you live in and the land you walk on to be "my property".
Ignoring for the sake of argument your non sequitur, the fact that a person does not want a third party to tell him what he or she can do with his or her property does not ipso facto invalidate that person's property rights. Property rights do not exist by virtue of the existence of the State, but actually despite of the State.
Tomorrow morning my gun toting thugs will be over to the place you illegally proclaimed as "your property" and they will expel you forcibly or otherwise if you don't get out of what I here and now declare to be "my property".
You can always try.
After all, what is real estate "property" but just another idiot government official taking pencil to an artificial map and drawing an imaginary and abstract line so as to subdivide an intangible abstraction that he says is "the land".
You are begging the question by assuming it is a bureaucrat who defines what property is.
Of course it is not "the land". Same as that French painting that says "This is not a pipe" is not a pipe.
You are relying on incorrect analogies. The land and the pipe and the painting are tangible. The image of the pipe is what's intangible.
Question to you: Did Magritte own the painting of a pipe, or did he own the image of the pipe?
Once we are physically and tangibly there there, you and I can go about pissing like dogs on different spots to make natural law claims to our "properties".
If you were an irrational brute, you would probably do that. Or, like thousands of years of human history has shown, you could just homestead a different piece of land.
Published: November 26, 2009 12:38 PM
Randy S
Stephan, I already read the same links provided to Step Back in your second post and is why I said I don't see your point. Maybe you can summarize your case against IP in a paragraph or two?
Another theme I see in some posts here that I don't' think is correct is people saying that if they buy a product containing patents they are not allowed to copy the product according to their property rights etc..., which I'm quite sure is not true, you can copy it all you want, as long as you do not take market share away from the commercial enterprise and holder of the IP. In other words, if you do not cause significant financial damages worth pursuing legally.
The patent only provides the holder the right and/or some legal support to sue for infringement and damages. So the patent must have real commercial value and the infringement must be significant and worthy of the expense to pursue legally. Otherwise you can do anything you want since the patent is public knowledge, just don't try to commercialize it if the IP holder has already done so and is likely to shut you down or demand royalties etc... seems totally fair to me.
Your position to abolish IP rights all together creates a whole new realm of problems for business. The USA would become like China, infringement central and land of copy cats.
I agree that things like "One Click Pay" should not have been patentable, along with many other software patents. I don't think there is anything exclusive or novel about writing loops, organizing data or processing data in software. A software idea should have to be patentable outside the realm of software which then only becomes its implementation.
Published: November 26, 2009 1:47 PM
Scott D
Step back:
I appreciate your honest opinion of my post as "incomprehensible and embarrassing babble", and that I am "way too funny". I'd like to think that I have a good sense of humor, even if it wasn't intended here. Please allow me the honor of addressing your counterpunch. Unfortunately, your dim view of economists, and your smug dismissal of my own brief comments gives me little hope you might engage me on the same intellectual level. Still, no harm in giving you another laugh at my unintended humor.
Your example of a trade secret confuses the definition of scarcity. Just because you choose to keep your invention secret does not mean that there is any intrinsic reason for that idea to remain so (and therefore retain its so-called "scarcity"). You can choose whether or not you share your tangible property, but doing so will reduce the amount of it that is available for the satisfaction of your own wants. Sharing your idea, by contrast, will not reduce the amount of it that you possess and can use for the satisfaction of wants.
I think, at its base, your confusion arises from the fact that human ingenuity is scarce. There has to be people who possess the right combination of knowledge and imagination to create ideas. But just because the creation of ideas is limited by the finite existence of imaginative, knowledgeable minds, it does not follow that the flow of ideas must also be limited. What if you gave your cancer cure to the world, but no one else could comprehend it? Wouldn't that serve to drastically reduce the value of your idea? If anything, the utility of knowledge increases as it becomes known and understood by more people.
PS: Does it help my credibility as a non-biased source that I am a programmer and a writer?
Published: November 26, 2009 2:09 PM
Randy S
Jay Lakner, your arguments are naive.
1) You can't patent walking, running, breathing etc.. because they are not novel and new they are preexisting knowledge. Obviously you have never seriously considered patenting anything or you would know this.
2) Regarding copyrights and patent rights, again, you can do anything you want with these materials once you own them, just do not commercialize or plagiarize them as they are not yours and is not your right to do so, or you may become subject to legal action. Owning a copy of a book or a song gives you the property rights sure, but it does not make you the artist and benefactor of said material. Geese, what's so difficult about that!
Basically all the freedom arguments here are naive, you're always free to do anything you want, just be prepared that you might get sued and have to explain or justify your actions in court.
Published: November 26, 2009 2:11 PM
ABR
Kinsella's argument follows validly from a premise: that property rights exist to resolve (in a reciprocal and just manner) the competition for scarce resources.
Creativity is scarce, but it is not a resource in the way Kinsella defines it. Resources are physical entities.
If readers are dissatisfied with the outcome of Kinsella's argument -- the abandonment of IP -- I suggest they revisit the premise of his argument.
Published: November 26, 2009 2:17 PM
Jay Lakner
Randy S,
I afraid it is indeed your arguments that are naive.
Please define "novel". How do you differentiate between a "novel" idea and an idea which is not "novel"? Can you give me non-arbitrary answers to these questions?
Please define "new". "New" to who? How do you know they're "new"?
You wrote:
" Regarding copyrights and patent rights, again, you can do anything you want with these materials once you own them, just do not commercialize or plagiarize them as they are not yours and is not your right to do so, or you may become subject to legal action."
Didn't you just contradict yourself?
I can do ANYTHING I want with them ... except A, B, C, etc. Maybe you should also define "anything" while you've still got the dictionary out.
I have a difficult time believing that you've put deep fundamental thought into this topic.
Published: November 26, 2009 2:29 PM
Old Mexican
Re: Randy S,
1) You can't patent walking, running, breathing etc.. because they are not novel and new they are preexisting knowledge.
Randy, you're begging the question - you assume a certain knowledge is "novel" in order to argue for its novelty (!) as a prerequisite for its protection under IP.
[...]you can do anything you want with these materials once you own them, just do not commercialize or plagiarize them as they are not yours and is not your right to do so[...]
Randy, you're again indulging in circular thinking. Once you own the materials, if you create a different set of rivalrous and scarce materials into something that looks like the materials you purchased, why would then those entirely different materials ipso facto belong to the purported "inventor"? You just assume they do because the inventor (and the State) said so.
The problem is that you're simply begging the question by assuming that the idea behind the fabrication of the part somehow becomes a de facto stake of ownership on any future property someone else possesses.
[...] or you may become subject to legal action.
Only by virtue of an artifice created by the State, not by any other virtue.
Owning a copy of a book or a song gives you the property rights sure, but it does not make you the artist and benefactor of said material.
You're missing the point - the person that owns a book does not intend to become the author by the sole action of copying it.
The purchaser of the book IS a benefactor of the author, in automatic, because if nobody bought the books, the author would simply not publish.
Basically all the freedom arguments here are naive, you're always free to do anything you want, just be prepared that you might get sued and have to explain or justify your actions in court.
The threat of legal action does not preclude your rights, Randy. It just means the existence of an overreaching State.
Why would it be naive to think one is free? Does somebody own your body?
Published: November 26, 2009 2:40 PM
Jay Lakner
Bala wrote:
**********
Do you note that even in this post of yours, you are implicitly acknowledging that Intellectual Property is a legitimate form of property?
**********
Yes. That is one of the first steps towards debunking it. Assume its correctness and then analyse the logical ramifications. If the ramifications lead to contradictions, then one must reassess the assumptions.
All I wanted to ascertain was that "intellectual property" and "physical property" were contradictory.
Then I would rely on Mises' calculation argument to demonstrate that physical property rights cannot be the incorrect position.
Therefore, by deduction, intellectual property rights must be the incorrect position.
This is a simple disproof of the validity of of IP.
**********
I think a better approach is to demonstrate that IP is not a legitimate property right. This will involve showing why ideas and patterns can and should never be considered as "property".
**********
But Bala, 'Step Back' was clearly confusing property rights with IP and using them interchangably. As a first step I wanted to illustrate to him the difference between them. It didn't seem logical to me to go straight into the illegitimacy of IP when the person I was replying to could not differentiate between IP and real property rights.
Do you now see why I tried to approach it in this manner?
Published: November 26, 2009 2:45 PM
Randy S
Wow, you guys are real nitpicks here.
I don't care what the property rights arguments are whether the property is tangible or not. IP has tangible commercial value just as real property does and so deserves some form of protection by the state. Otherwise copycats will run rampant. What's so difficult about this?
If you want to get philosophical, then argue why state protection of IP, ie. limited patent monopoly terms are not the greater good?
I'm not going to state my argument for IP protection as being the greater good since it is obviously the already accepted argument by the mere existence of the current IP laws. So, it's the anti-patent IPers job to refute the currently accepted logic, so refute away, and like I said, I read Stephan's work and I just don't see any strong argument or valid points to sway me.
Yes, one of my statements the way it was written if literally interpreted is contradictory, thank you for noticing, but the point I was trying to make is not.
The point restated:
Regarding copyrights and patent rights, again, you can do anything you want with these materials once you own them, just do not commercialize or plagiarize "the rights and content of them" them as they are not yours and is not your "CONTENT OWNERSHIP / IP and copyright rights" right to do so, or you may become subject to legal action.
I'm not going to argue any further. I have only seen a lot of close minded silly non-practical arguments here against IP, from what appears to be a bunch of theorists bent on construing the issue.
IP laws were put in place years ago for good reason and I think those reasons still have their place today. That is generally how I see it and nothing here has convinced me otherwise.
Good luck on your mission, but you have not won my support.
Published: November 26, 2009 3:23 PM
step back
Scott D,
You are apparently more intelligent than I gave you credit for (misinformed, but yet intelligent).
When Justice Sotomayor writes the majority opinion for the US Supreme Court in the case of Bilski v. Kappos (the case about which Kinsella start this thread), she will probably use a phrase very similar to one you used immediately upthread.
You wrote:
That is exactly correct! Although your cohorts at the League for Programming Freedom (LFPF) tell you otherwise and thus greatly misinform you, the purpose of patent law and copyright law is to encourage the free flow of "ideas" and to accelerate ("promote the progress of") the free flow of "ideas".
It is undisputed among those who are knowledgeable in the details of copyright and patent laws that "ideas" cannot be patented or copyrighted.
More precisely, the case of Bilski v. Kappos is about that section of US Patent law that implicitly says "ideas" cannot be patented. It says that the things one may patent must be chosen from the short list of "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter".
I don't want you to accept what I say just because I said it. I want you to trust but verify. Go the following site and check it out for yourself:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/usc_sec_35_00000101----000-.html
The case of Bilski v. Kappos revolves around the question of what exactly qualifies as "ANY new and useful PROCESS".
Sorry to confuse you by providing you with "facts".
If the above is too much, just remember this: Brawno, it's full of electrolytes ;-)
Published: November 26, 2009 3:38 PM
step back
Darn it Randy S,
We almost had you indoctrinated into the cult of war lord supremacy. But then you had to go and spoil it by having actual hands-on experience in inventing and designing operably "useful" gizmos. You should be more like the other folk at this site: an armchair philosopher war lord. People who actually build things are not welcome here. People who can think critically are not welcome here. Go away.
________
Brawno, It's full of electrolytes
Published: November 26, 2009 3:56 PM
Randy S
Hahaha... Step Back, yeah exactly, that's the impression I'm getting too. This anti-IP crusade seems baseless. Sure there are some issues with some patents but the patent system is mature and handles these grey areas fairly well assuming the players can afford and justify playing the game.
I get the feeling from looking at all the work Stephan has written making his argument that I think now it's more of an ego issue for him rather than a true substance issue, sorry Stephan, that's how it looks.
I only found this site two days ago after stumbling on "Economics in One Lesson" and then all this Austrian economics stuff which i find very agreeable, so much so that I placed an order with Mises for a pile of books from their top 10 list, Human Action... Man, Economy, State plus others etc...
So imagine my shock when I started reading this anti-IP blog. I expected some reasonable arguments for IP reform, but not an outright abolishment of the system!
PS, I liked your Afghanistan suggestion, very funny.
Published: November 26, 2009 4:44 PM
Anti-Utilitarian
Randy S,
"IP has tangible commercial value just as real property does and so deserves some form of protection by the state. Otherwise copycats will run rampant. What's so difficult about this?"
Nobody has any right to any "tangible commercial value". If a McDonalds opens up next door to a Burger King(or vice versa) they aren't violating any property rights even though they are hurting Burger King financially by taking some of the business away from them.
"Otherwise copycats will run rampant"
So what?
"If you want to get philosophical, then argue why state protection of IP, ie. limited patent monopoly terms are not the greater good?"
How do you propose to measure this "greater good" ? There can be no such thing as interpersonal utility comparisons. Do you have any arguments why this so called "greater good" should have any significance for the assignment of property values? Who gets to decide what is the greater good? Using what non-arbitrary criteria?
As far as these "limited patent monopoly terms" who decides what those limits should be? What are the rational criteria that should be followed in setting such limits?
"I'm not going to state my argument for IP protection as being the greater good since it is obviously the already accepted argument by the mere existence of the current IP laws. So, it's the anti-patent IPers job to refute the currently accepted logic, so refute away, and like I said, I read Stephan's work and I just don't see any strong argument or valid points to sway me."
This is not the case at all, the burden of proof is squarely on the pro-IP crowd. Ignorant power mongers(in other words politicians) adopting stupid draconian laws does nothing to prove anything. It doesn't matter one bit what is currently accepted or not.
This is obviously a disagreement over ethics, like usual(as Stephan also mentioned recently) the pro-IP crowd turn out to be utilitarians.
Published: November 26, 2009 5:27 PM
Old Mexican
Re: Randy S,
I don't care what the property rights arguments are whether the property is tangible or not.
Then you are not arguing - you're pontificating.
IP has tangible commercial value just as real property does and so deserves some form of protection by the state.
That is, again, circular thinking. The reason IP could have any "tangible commercial value" is because of the monopoly status given by the state to the holder of the patent or copyright. Sans this monopoly, the only item with a commercial value is the product itself, not the idea behind the product.
Otherwise copycats will run rampant. What's so difficult about this?
You will have to explain why this is necessarily a bad thing, instead of assuming it as a given fact.
If you want to get philosophical, then argue why state protection of IP, ie. limited patent monopoly terms are not the greater good?
Because it unduly gives title of ownership to property that does not belong to the possessor of the patent or copyright. If I make a copy of a circuit, I am doing it with MY parts, MY board, MY solder, MY cables, not those possessed by the designer of the circuit.
I'm not going to state my argument for IP protection as being the greater good since it is obviously the already accepted argument by the mere existence of the current IP laws.
This is circular thinking. You're saying that IP is valid because of the given fact that IP laws exist.
So, it's the anti-patent IPers job to refute the currently accepted logic, so refute away
It is no great task to refute faulty logic, Randy - you're resorting to question begging and circular thinking to argue in favor of IP, both logical fallacies.
Regarding copyrights and patent rights, again, you can do anything you want with these materials once you own them, just do not commercialize or plagiarize "the rights and content of them" them as they are not yours[...]
The argument is that the patent holder cannot own the materials possessed by someone else just because they look like his or her idea.
Published: November 26, 2009 6:21 PM
Scott D
Step back:
Are you actually going to debate this, or just try to show that you know more/are smarter/more handsome than me? I already don't much like you, but I refuse to debate someone who switches the topic of arguments arbitrarily.
I understand that a patent restricts specific uses that derive from an idea (making, using, selling a thing). I also know that disclosure is supposed to be one of the main benefits of patents, to encourage inventors to share what they know in exchange for monopoly privilege in the market. Now what the hell does that have to do with my argument against ideas being scarce?
The point I was making is that an idea, once created, can be endlessly repeated and recreated unless the creator chooses to keep it secret. Since ideas are not scarce, they do not possess one of the principle characteristics of ownable property.
Still with me?
Ideas are also not rivalrous. If I "steal" your cure for cancer by watching you prepare and adminster it, I can go around curing people without inhibiting your ability to cure them. Tangible property is rivalrous. If one person uses it, their use restricts the potential uses of others.
Now, do you deny these two claims? If not, you can feel free to build your case for the legitimacy of IP on some other basis than that they are the same as real property. My entire reason for posting is your assumption that it is inconsistent to support property rights and not IP. I consider the argument for IP to be very different from the argument for property rights.
Published: November 26, 2009 6:24 PM
newson
randy s. says:
""Otherwise copycats will run rampant"
coca cola's recipe is a trade secret. many other products and processes could go that route, should ip legislation not exist. trade secret costs are borne by the directly interested party, not socialized.
Published: November 26, 2009 6:45 PM
Oh look a kitty
"Otherwise copycats will run rampant. What's so difficult about this?"
What is the point of this comment? If you're against IP then obviously you view copycats as acceptable.
Published: November 26, 2009 8:32 PM
Nathan
Just an Electrical Engineer here chiming in to say I think patents are absurd having read the arguments and laughed at the absurd ad-hominem's step back has been throwing in support of his non-existent argument.
BTW: Aced physics and calc since step back seems to think that's a prerequisite for this discussion.
Published: November 26, 2009 8:33 PM
Bala
step back & Randy S.,
As I see it, the mail flaw in your argument (and in the general pro-IP position) is that you assume that IP is yet another legitimate form of property.
If something is your "property", it ought to be in your possession and your attempts to exclude others would constitute retaliatory use of force and would hence be legitimate.
If it is not your "property", there is no "ought" with regard to whose possession it should be in. Your attempts to exclude others from using it would constitute initiation of force and would hence be illegitimate.
Conversely, I would argue that for something to be legitimately called property, it is necessary for attempts to exclude others from using it to not constitute an initiation of force against them.
Physical property satisfies the above rule while IP does not. Hence, physical property is legitimate "property" while IP is not.
Please do respond if you see any hole in the above argument. IMO, this argument clearly identifies IP law as illegitimate because it is an attempt to artificially grant "property" status to that which is not and never can be "property". What's worse is that it justifies the initiation of force by the State under the (false) pretext of protecting (non-existent) "property" rights.
This is why I think your arguments are completely invalid.
Published: November 26, 2009 8:37 PM
Bala
step back & Randy S.,
Sorry about the typo....
" .... the mail flaw in your argument ..... "
That's "the main flaw in your argument".
Published: November 26, 2009 8:45 PM
Randy S
Maybe instead of calling it IP the letters could be changed to UI as in "Use of Invention" rights. This would solve the issue of "property" everyone's hung up on.
So let me get this straight, according to everyone here except for me and step back, the whole issue of IP and/or "use of invention" rights should be abolished so that a whole industry of copy cat artists and companies can flourish around reverse engineering of new products as they hit the market at the pure expense and detriment of the most brightest innovative leading edge thinkers and scientist and in their fields and the companies they work for.
I see, that sounds great, what the hell was I thinking?!
Maybe if you guys are successful you can swing the pendulum a little further the other way and get legislation passed to force the creators to continue documenting their new inventions as they do today for full disclosure in patents, this way the new industry could save a few more bucks since they won't need to hire so many reverse engineers to figure these damn things out. Then you could really rake in the cash. You could eliminate 90-99% of the bloody R&D costs. What Genius! YouReeka!
Some times I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't!
Published: November 26, 2009 11:39 PM
Jay Lakner
Randy S wrote:
**********
I'm not going to state my argument for IP protection as being the greater good since it is obviously the already accepted argument by the mere existence of the current IP laws.
**********
The argument that IP protection has a net benefit on society can be refuted by looking at the 'unseen' effects as well as the 'seen'.
Below is a post I made in another thread demonstrating just how silly the 'net benefit to society' claim is. The discussion was about drug patents but it is easily modified to any type of patent.
I wrote:
--------------------
I'll start with a break-down of your view:
1. The state enacts patent laws.
2. Drug companies decide to invest additional funds in research because of the promise of being able to charge monopoly prices.
3. Greater funding results in a greater chance that new discoveries will result.
4. Therefore the patent laws appear to increase the technological advancement of society.
So far so good right? Society has gained the knowledge of a new beneficial technology.
But what is 'unseen'? Point 5 is very important...
5. 'Technological advancement' is an ongoing process occurring at all levels in every competitive industry.
6. The additional funds that went into drugs research have been denied from going to other industries.
7. As a result, a large number of small improvements, innovations and discoveries have failed to occur in other industries.
8. It is impossible to measure the benefits of the gained drug technologies against the benefits of the numerous technologies that would have come into existence.
9. It is therefore impossible to measure the net effect of technological advancement on society.
I could just stop here and I think your point is refuted. But I think going further really demonstrates some interesting things.
10. Company A has a patent on a drug.
11. Company A therefore has a monopoly on that drug.
12. Company A therefore charges monopoly prices for that drug to maximise their profits.
13. Company A will therefore restrict its production.
14. Less of the drug is being produced than otherwise would have in a competitive market.
15. Large numbers of people miss out on a drug they otherwise would have had.
Maybe you're going to argue here that the drug would not exist at all in the absence of patent laws. Such a claim is obviously impossible to prove. But, as I continue, let's assume that the drug would be undiscovered without the research efforts of Company A.
16. The funds that went into discovering the drug instead went to other industries.
17. These other industries most likely do not contain monopolies.
18. Without monopolies, businesses are competing with one another for consumers.
19. This competition results in consumers receiving the maximum amount for their purchasing power.
20. This competition also results in constant innovation in those industries to provide better products at lower prices.
21. Technological advancement in those industries therefore increases at a greater rate.
So the choice here really is:
Do you want funds for research and innovation to go towards a monopolised industry? Or,
Do you want funds for research and innovation to go towards a highly competitive industry?
Which of the two choices will result in greater technological advancement?
I should point out that I consider the competitive market to be very much like a laboratory. Businesses are constantly trying out new products, services, business models, etc, etc, etc to see how consumers react. Funds injected into a competitve market is, in my view, funding innovation and therefore technological advancement.
But, of course, there's more...
22. Patent laws have administration and enforcement costs.
23. These costs are extra taxes on society.
24. If consumers have less money, they have less savings.
25. Less savings means less capital.
26. Less capital means less money for business to borrow and spend, for example, on research.
27. Less money spent on research means a lower rate of technological advancement.
Think I'm at the end yet? Not quite...
28. Patent laws require businesses to consult lawyers.
29. X number of extra lawyers are employed.
30. That's X number of people engaged in unproductive jobs.
31. That's X number of people not engaged in productive jobs.
32. As a result, society misses out on extra goods and services they otherwise would have had.
I actually could keep going, but I think you get the point.
Overall, the important point to keep in mind is that laboratory research is not the only means by which technological advancements occur. The market system itself is one of constant technological advancement as businesses need to continually innovate to stay competitive.
Based on my reasoning, I'd have to conclude that the net benefit of patent laws on society is negative. But I cannot prove that claim any more than you can prove your claim that the net benefit on society is positive.
But, what I can point out, is that the implementation of patent laws gives definite negative effects:
Monopoly prices
Taxes
Less productive jobs (patent lawyers)
Coercion from government
Whereas, there are no definite negative effects due to the absence of patent laws.
Given two choices where the net benefit of each is unmeasurable, it is clearly the most logical to choose the one with no definite negative effects.
--------------------
Published: November 27, 2009 12:32 AM
Bala
Randy S,
" Maybe instead of calling it IP the letters could be changed to UI as in "Use of Invention" rights. "
So, since it is inconvenient to accept IP as a legitimate form of property, you now want to try it out as a "right". Nice to see that you have take the first step of ceasing to claim that IP protection is about "property rights".
However, you are now claiming a status for your UI rights. You want "usage of inventions" to be given the status of a "right" so that you may then claim that protection of inventions is nothing more than protection of "rights".
That's what I call a good case of jumping from the frying pan right into the fire. That's because there can be no such thing as an exclusive "right" to use an invention.
Whatever you may want to call it, an invention is little more than an idea. It is the idea that a particular arrangement of men and materials results in outcomes that were either not attained till date or were attained at much higher cost through other arrangements used till date.
In effect, you are claiming that the inventor should have the "right" to prevent others from either getting the idea, even if they could do so without initiating force against the inventor, or from using it, even if it is by getting the idea without initiating force on the inventor and using materials of their own. I fail to see how you plan to achieve this without initiating force against the targets of your "preventive" actions.
Thus, you are asking for the inventor's initiation of force against those he claims are "illegitimately" using his invention to be granted the status of a "right". But then, how is this different from the "right to enslave"?
Since there can be no such thing as a "right to enslave", your entire theory of UI "rights" falls flat even before it starts off.
p.s. I think you should first try defining the term "right". Doing so will make it obvious to you too that UI cannot be given the status of a "right"
Published: November 27, 2009 3:04 AM
Shay
Randy S wrote, "IP has tangible commercial value just as real property does and so deserves some form of protection by the state."
So does me having no competition within 10 miles of my grocery store. Does this mean I deserve protection by the state? They could bar any other grocery stores from opening within that area, which would have a very tangible commercial value. If you consider this example outrageous, take another look at what IP is...
Published: November 27, 2009 3:08 AM
Alistair
Wow, step back, I must say, you're quite brilliant. Afghanistan is the perfect real world disaster to refute anarchy and libertarianism. Those Afghans, they tried so hard to live in a free society, that it just got overrun with gangs. Thank the maker that the US, came to that government-less country and are trying to bring peace and civilization. Because that's definitely what happened. I'm so impressed by your amazing knowledge of that conflict, and the players involved, I think I'm no longer an anarchist. In fact, by your definitions, I never was one. I was a gang-denier. Now I can see, that the chaos in Afghanistan is all about rival gangs trying to take unallocated stuff, rather than a complex melting pot of Communists, Theocrats and Invaders, all of whom believe in the divine power of the state, bombing, robbing, raping, manipulating and to some degree enslaving, the general populace. No, you're right. It's totally an anarchy. The simplest explanation is the right explanation.
You've opened my eyes on property rights too. Indeed, I no longer look at my computer and see my own computer. Now I just see a computer and feel lost and confused. I guess,I better call the police and tell them I have a computer that may or may not be mine, so they can tell me if anyone is justified in stealing it from me...
Hmm, it seems they've told me the computer is mine, which is nice, but all the contents on it belong to Bill Gates, because there's an ambiguous phrase in a law book somewhere. I guess that must mean he does have the right to demand I hand him a copy of, and refrain from watching, the highly personal video of my girlfriend and myself. Because, it's the government that defines property. Totally.
That was long winded, but just calling you by the names that came to mind, would probably get me blocked.
Published: November 27, 2009 4:00 AM
step back
Alistair,
Calling things by names is about as deep as the anti-patentists at this web site seem to be able to get.
From an anthropological perspective, it appears that the natives use the code phrases: "legitimately defined as property" and "not legitimately defined as property".
They haven't yet articulated a clear definition of the word "property" or source for that definition, but it seems that their self-serving definition involves words like "scarce" and "tangible".
As an aside, the online American Heritage Dictionary provides this definition:
Fact: I do not see the word "scarce" in this dictionary definition. Fact: I do see the phrases, "or intangible" and "such as copyrights and trademarks" in this 3rd party definition.
That said, the here-generated designation of "not legitimately defined as property" appears to be one that is left to the arbitrary and whimsical discretion of the anti-patentist.
Apparently, most of the anti-patentists here pay their local utility company for this stuff known as "electricity" even though the latter is intangible in a sense and at the moment not very scarce. The anti-patentists seem to recognize that this "electricity" stuff is initially the property of the utility company and that they must pay in order to have this unscarce intangible delivered to them.
The same observation appears to be true for the entertainment stuff that comes into the homes of the anti-patentists in the form of cable or satellite TV. The radio wave like signals delivered into their homes are neither scarce nor tangible and often appear to have very little energy content. They are also easily replicated. Nonetheless, the anti-patentists appear to recognize that someone else has a property right of sorts (i.e. copyright) in this stuff and they are more than happy to pay to have it delivered into their homes.
When it comes to patents however, the anti-patentists draw an arbitrary, self-serving and convenient line in the sand for themselves. Even though the other forms of "property" are enforced by government action (i.e. real estate property rights, electricity as property rights, and copyright property rights), the stuff known as patents stands out in the anti-patentist's mind as something "not legitimately defined as property".
It appears that a rationale for this position is unnecessary. Instead, the anti-patentists are happy to hold hands with the total anarchists on this issue and sing kumbaya together.
They are not willing however, to travel to the hinterlands of Afghanistan and live the life, walk the talk, of this glorious lifestyle that the anarchists espouse.
Published: November 27, 2009 4:45 AM
Peter Surda
Dear IP proponents,
I think that your way of thinking is stuck to certain dogmas and that prevents you from evaluating the counterarguments. It's not that you disagree with what has been said here, it's that you fail to address the arguments. I agree that some of them are bad, and that's why I try not to use those.
So, I'll try to explain the issues as generally as possible.
IP contradicts the classical property rights. This is not a problem of a specific implementation, but a logical consequence, because every object now has a second immaterial property layer. Therefore, every object now has two or more relations to owners, which, in some cases, are distinct people.
That it has some beneficiaries does not prove anything. Any law has some beneficiaries, regardless whether it is pro- or against market.
Net benefit has not been proven from utilitarian point of view, because the arguments miss the overall costs. This is also valid on the microeconomic level, from the point of view of individual companies, IP can affect both the revenue and the costs.
To prove net benefit (or lack thereof) is praxeologically impossible due to the inability to make interpersonal comparisons.
IP is not a prerequisite to make money off immaterial goods. Immaterial goods can be part of a contract and become enforceable without any IP laws (hint: IP is not a contract).
Many of the proponents are people that are currently making money due to IP and because they are used to it, cannot imagine making money without. This is merely a psychological reaction. A very human one but still not an argument.
I just got a funny idea. How about in case of an accusation of IP violation, the allegged violator would turn it around, saying that it was the other party that invaded his physical property? And that he want's them to remove it?
Published: November 27, 2009 4:50 AM
step back
Jay Lakner,
You assert:
Now given that this is a "Mises Economics Blog", it seems rather peculiar that you do not know that "funds" are created out of thin air. Back in the days when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there was no "money", there were no "property lines". So how did all these things come into being? Simple. People fabricated them out of thin air. They are man-made fictions.
Your point number 6 is demonstratively false even before it begins to breath. And then all of your points which rely on 6 for support fall through the crevice and into the bowels of the Earth with it. Sorry.
Published: November 27, 2009 5:00 AM
step back
Dear Peter Surda,
Your propositions are indeed absurd-ah (sorry, couldn't resist) especially because this is an "economics" blog.
You argue as follows:
That last part is not true. I can easily imagine "making money" in other ways, such as setting up a printing press in my basement. The boys from Treasury won't like it very much. But hey, at this site we believe in total anarchy, don't we?
As to the first part of your above quoted argument, that is oxymoronic. "Intellectual Property" is not limited to patents and copyrights. I don't think there is an exhaustive list of the things that can fall under the rubric of IP rights (copyrights, trade marks, trade dress, trade secrets, etc.). But you are correct that IP rights can be created by way of private party contract.
So your argument, unless you now disavow the notion of property rights in intangibles being created by way of contract, actually support the notion that property rights can "legitimately" be created for intangible and not always scarce stuff.
I think some of your anti-patent brethren at this site will be very disappointed that you caved in on that point. There position should be that "property" rights can never be "legitimately" created for intangible and non-scarce stuff. :-)
Published: November 27, 2009 5:21 AM
ktibuk
"Kinsella's argument follows validly from a premise: that property rights exist to resolve (in a reciprocal and just manner) the competition for scarce resources.
Creativity is scarce, but it is not a resource in the way Kinsella defines it. Resources are physical entities.
If readers are dissatisfied with the outcome of Kinsella's argument -- the abandonment of IP -- I suggest they revisit the premise of his argument."
I, personally have done that many times in this blog but a very few people is interested in it.
The premise is clearly wrong. It is also tainted with subjectivist (epistemologically) positivistism.,
Firstly, all private property originate from self ownership and this premise of stephans (actually Hoppes) does not cover selfownership. It is a simplistic mental construct that can be applied to a very small part of private property.
And since the premise has prequisites for property rights, like the possiblity of conflict based on "natural scarcity", it also fails spectacularly regarding physical property.
For example. By natural scarcity it is assumed that only natural exclusion is valid. The whims of one of the conflicting parties shouldnt be enough to cause a conflict.
If there is one apple and there are two people only one can eat the same apple. So the legitimate owner has right to esclude the other from the apple. It is also assumed that if there were many many apples, there wouldn't be natural scarcity thus no conflict thus apples couldnt be property. Usually natural abundant goods are mentioned and thought of during this mental construct (like Hoppes garden of Eden example). But many of the property we consume is produced. And many products can be produced so much that there wouldnt be conflict regarding them.
So in short if natural scarcity is required for property rights, it follows that abundance dissolves property rights. If not this means something other than scarcity is the reason behind property but this premise actually denies this.
Of course there are many problems and contradictions in this view.
Bill Gates, if he wanted can produce apples so abundant that apples would cease to be scarce thus no possibility of conflict can arise (apart from the whims of Bill Gates).
According to Hoppes premise, apples would cease to be property. But as weird as this sounds by itself it isnt the only weird part. Apples dont become superabundant over night. There is a process of production that increases the amount of apples over time.
First 10 thousand apples are produced, which doesnt remove scarcity thus they are Gates property.
Then 1 million, which still wouldnt remove scarcity I imagine.
When the amount of apples reach, say 100 billion sacrcity would be removed I imagine, but who can say? Who would decide who owns what during this process of increasing the amount that this many is enough so property rights on apples are abollished? Since the first 10 thousands didnt rmove scarcity can Gates legitimately own the first 10,000 of the billions?
Also leaving aside apples, Gates' whole wealth is more than he can consume by himself. Between Gates and me there is actually no scarcity of wealth. The wealth is more than enough for the both of us. How can Gates legitimately exclude me from his wealth if the only reason he can own property is scarcity? His wealth may not be enough for every human but only me is enough for a conflict.
Going back the Hoppes false premise.
Instead of, "people invented property rights to deal with scarce resources and justly resolve conflict", but it should be "conflicts arise when people disregard property rights which are natural laws derived from mans and his enviroments nature"
Of course this true premise doesnt itself define property rights.
So we have to go back to the self ownerhip.
Humans own themselves. They are the absolute sovereigns regarding their actions. This is not an "ought" proposition but an "is" proposition. This is mans nature. Man can be coerced to act in a certain way but he is still in charge regarding his actions. He may do what the coercer wants not because he has no other choice or because he is his puppet, but he doesnt want to face consequences.
Since this is so, no other person should coerce some other person to make him choose an action that he shouldnt have. Coercion of one man by others is aginst human nature.
Also humans need to occupy space, eat, and protect themselves from nature to stay alive. This means they have to interact with their enviroment which includes broadly this universe. Humans interact by both physically altering the enviroment and altering the abstract reflections of their environment. This extension and interaction of the man to the outside world is called homesteading.
(Actually always the altering of the abstract precedes the altering of the physical (people set goals, decide which means to use and then act), and in this regard Rand was right. Ip is at the core of every physical property. But of course this doesnt mean Rand didnt err regarding IP.)
Since humans own themselves and others should respect this natural law, they also own extensions of themselves as exonogenous property and this should be respected as well. There is no difference between coercing someone to act in some manner, and coercing someone to act regarding his extension (his property) in a certain way he doesnt consent to.
So consent is the key concept regarding coercion, or aggression. Not some objectively defined altering of physical attributes. Cutting someones flesh isn't necessarily aggression, if the owner of the cut body consents, like during a surgery.
This true for both actions regarding physical and the non physical. Aggression on the physical (both the body and the physical extensions called property) and non physical (the abstractions of the physical reality) only depends on the consent of the owner.
If a human arranges concepts and letters in such a way that he creates a brand new novel, he owns the novel. The novel is the mans extension, thus his property. If the man didn't exist the said novel wouldn't exist. Some other person might write a similar one, or however improbable the exact same novel but that would still be another novel, because the novel is classified as an extension of an individual regarding its property status.
So by writing the novel the man actually homesteads the novel. Now other persons actions regarding the said novel is dependent on the consent of the owner of the novel, just as actions of others regarding his body is dependent on his consent.
If a copying takes place without the consent of the owner, a crime against a property have been committed.
Anti IP people at his point disregard this action (unauthorized copying) and prefer to jump to a later time and argue from there. They claim the copy is embedded to a physical property of the copier so IP right contradict physical property rights.
This is utter nonsense because the crime took place before. The crime is not that some other person has identical novel on some other physical property. If the other person independently wrote the same novel there wouldn't be any problem. The crime is the process of copying. And this crime is not contained to the original copier. Since every human can make the distinction of a nature given free good, the product of someone else's and his own production no one can get off the hook. If you come across a novel there are only three choices regarding it. It is either nature given, or written by someone else, or you wrote it. The same is true for a pirated movie over the internet. When someone asks how this file came about there are again three options and there is only one true answer, disregarding the process of finding out what actually is the true answer.
There may be instances where there is independent creation and homesteading of same or very similar IP like for many inventions. Again the crime, the aggression against property is in the act of unauthorized copying. Also if someone claims there have been copying in opposition to independent invention, the burden of the proof is on the accuser and he may not be able to prove this even if there has been copying. But this doesnt change the ethical principle which are always "ought" propositions. Either a copying took place or it didn't. Ethically copying is wrong, a crime against property. This fact doesn't depend on the actual judgement. The fact is the objective reality. The judgment may reflect this reality or there may be errors in judgement but the fact remains.
So saying "you should have kept it secret" is the same as saying to the victim of physical property theft, that he should have hid his. The ability to protect property doesn't justify private property, otherwise the only rule you would need would be "might makes right". Some people may steal either physical or non physical because they are stronger, but the shouldnt. And nobody should be forced to hide their property in order to keep his ethical legitimacy regarding property. If this was so the concept "right" wouldn't mean a thing.
In short IP exists, ideas can be owned, actually they are owned, and thus they should be respected.
Published: November 27, 2009 5:33 AM
Bala
ktibuk,
We've gone through this before.
" In short IP exists, ideas can be owned, actually they are owned "
"Owning" implies the right to exclude. I would like you to show me how anyone can exclude anyone else from an idea without initiating force against him. Once you do that, the argument is settled.
Continuing where I left off in our previous argument, ideas cannot be property simply because my coming to possess an idea you came up with does not require any initiation of force against you. In fact, ideas should not be considered as property because enforcing the notion that ideas constitute property necessarily requires initiation of force against me when you try to prevent me from using the same idea.
You are yet to refute this. I'm still waiting for your answer.
Published: November 27, 2009 5:45 AM
Peter Surda
@step back:
IP and property rights in immaterial goods are two categories, although there is an overlap. Once you realise that, your reply becomes irrelevant.
The issue with ownership of immaterial goods is, in my opinion, not in the scarcity. It is that in the implementations proposed by IP proponents, the property stretches throughout the whole universe, and there is no way to objective define demarcation rules (it introduces the notion of "similarity" as a demarcation criterium).
The immaterial good, when part of a contract, is only limited to that particular contract party, and the scope of similarity is also specific to that contract. There is no problem here. Whether one interprets such a contract as a confirmation of the ownership of immaterial goods or just reinterprets it as trading of services, the outcome is the same.
But when defining ownership of immaterial goods in law (although the current law actually doesn't do that), why should it include unlimited physical boundaries and instances that are similar (but not identical)? The classical property rights don't do that. The reason is simple: without those two, such a law would be of little practical value.
Published: November 27, 2009 5:56 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
> Between Gates and me there is actually no scarcity
> of wealth. ... How can Gates legitimately exclude me
> from his wealth if the only reason he can own
> property is scarcity?
This reasoning is based on the incorrect assumption that one owns the value of their property, rather than the integrity.
The rest of the argument (copying) is based on the assumption that one can objectively ascertain copying happening on the immaterial level. Which one can only ascertain subjectively, therefore IP is artificial. Letters, the english language, cultural context, are only interpreations that exist in people's minds. Just because you use them in a specific manner does not mean the result becomes an objective entity somehow.
How about if I claim that while I was retyping a book while looking at an original, it was the original that invaded my property against my will? And, therefore, it is the author of the original that violated my property, and would he be so kind and remove his immaterial property from my book, thank you very much? This is an equally valid interpretation of what has happened.
Published: November 27, 2009 6:08 AM
Bala
ktibuk,
" How can Gates legitimately exclude me from his wealth if the only reason he can own property is scarcity? "
He can exclude it without initiating force against you. But can you take any part of it without initiating force against him? Short of fraud, I am unable to think of a way.
So, please stop twisting the point to suit your conclusions.
Published: November 27, 2009 6:17 AM
step back
Peter Surda writes:
Sorry Peter. I haven't yet realized it and thus my reply remains relevant.
I think you anti-patentists are self-imploding on your own arguments.
One of you says that scarcity is essential and the other says it's not.
One of you says he doesn't know how to cut an apple in half and the other says two haves make a convenient hole for you anti-patentists to climb out through and escape the contradictions of your own self-contradicting ideas.
Why don't you fight it out amongst yourselves and then come back to let the rest of us know what novel and nonobvious solutions you guys have come up with for your own self-imposed dilemmas?
___________
BTW, what's your solution to the purloined $100 bill puzzle over at the Mises puzzle page:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/011101.asp
Published: November 27, 2009 6:22 AM
Jay Lakner
Step Back wrote:
**********
Now given that this is a "Mises Economics Blog", it seems rather peculiar that you do not know that "funds" are created out of thin air.
**********
Step Back, there is no point politely trying to debate the subject with you further. You are a moron.
Goodbye Step Back.
Published: November 27, 2009 6:32 AM
step back
JL:
Like I said, two halves make a convenient escape hole for you people.
Chow.
Published: November 27, 2009 6:40 AM
Bala
step back,
Could you please reply to the post I had made addressed to you? Given how vociferous you have been, I thought you should have replied by now.
Published: November 27, 2009 6:52 AM
Peter Surda
@step back
> One of you says that scarcity is essential and the
> other says it's not.
We merely use different terminology. One can say either that two instances refer to the same non-scarce immaterial property and then you can't own it, or that they are different and then owning one instance does not preclude someone else from owning a different instance. The outcome is the same, the differences are in terminology. I favour the second approach, but that's only a personal preference.
Published: November 27, 2009 7:11 AM
ktibuk
Bala,
"He can exclude it without initiating force against you. But can you take any part of it without initiating force against him? Short of fraud, I am unable to think of a way.
So, please stop twisting the point to suit your conclusions."
You are stuck at the "initiation of force" but whether you call it that or aggression or coercion, definition of property rights must precede this particular action. Aggression or initiation of force or coercion is only meaningful in the context of property rights. Thus definition of property rights can not be based on "initiation of force" or aggression or coercion. Aggression is wrong because it literally means disregarding property rights.
Published: November 27, 2009 8:05 AM
ktibuk
Peter Surda,
So you are claiming that, there is no way to determine the movie on your hard disk, in fact produced by some people, appeared suddenly in nature or a production of yours.
Is that right?
Published: November 27, 2009 8:08 AM
ktibuk
Peter Surda,
"This reasoning is based on the incorrect assumption that one owns the value of their property, rather than the integrity."
No it is not. I said wealth, that must have confused you. Gates can trade his wealth with some physical good so abundant it wouldn't be scarce regarding our both claims. This has nothing to do with value, but everything with that shaky scarcity bit.
There can be many examples of this. A theatre with a capacity of 2000 people in a town populated by 1000 was given before.
If someone builds this theater does he lose his ownership because there is no scarcity regarding the theater? If not there must be something other than scarcity that makes his claim legitimate regarding the ownership of the theater. And there is. The theater is his, because he built it.
Published: November 27, 2009 8:15 AM
Bala
ktibuk,
" Aggression or initiation of force or coercion is only meaningful in the context of property rights. "
You couldn't be more incorrect than this. To me, this explains all your errors.
Frankly, this is why I disagree with the Libertarian position that all rights are property rights. I am more inclined to use the ideas of Ayn Rand in this regard.
My arguments is as follows.
1. Life is a sequence of self-generated self-sustaining actions. The goal of the actions is sustaining life itself.
2. Man is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. His sole guide to action is his rational mind which processes the sensory information his sense organs gather to form concepts.
3. To sustain his life, man has no choice but to act. To cease to act is to die. To be prevented from acting is to be condemned to death. To be prevented from acting as per the choices made by one's rational mind is tantamount to enforcement of a death penalty.
4. A right is a moral concept sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context.
5. The only axiomatic right is the Right to Life. It means the freedom to act to sustain his life as per the judgement of his rational mind.
6. In a social context, man may be prevented from acting by the initiation of force by other men. Thus, for a man to be able to sustain his life in a social context, he needs other men to refrain from initiating force against him.
7. This concept of non-initiation of force is the concept of Liberty
Thus far, there is no mention of property. There is no need either.
So, your argument that non-initiation of force stems from property rights is fundamentally flawed. Incidentally, this is what I find to be incorrect in the Libertarian position on Rights. I find their claim that all rights are property rights fundamentally unsound. I find the principle of self-ownership extremely weird and contrived. The way I see it, I am an autonomous being that cannot be "owned". I find the term "resource" applied to a human being disgusting. That's because my actions are guided by my rational mind and not someone who owns me.
The term "I" refers to my body and my mind as a joint entity. One does not exist without the other.
To take a simple example, if you brandish a knife and threaten me saying "Your money or your life", it is me you are threatening, not the "resource" called my body. It is my mind that you are trying to coerce into thinking that I am better off surrendering my money (which I would have otherwise not given to you) to you. You are thus forcing me to act against the judgement of my rational mind (which was to not give the money to you).
So, I am not the one who is stuck. It's you who are stuck to a fairly indefensible position that you are better off getting rid of.
Published: November 27, 2009 8:33 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
> So you are claiming that, there is no way to
> determine the movie on your hard disk, in fact
> produced by some people, appeared suddenly in
> nature or a production of yours.
No ktibuk. Reread my previous posts. I claim that there is no objective way to establish a relationship of the the immaterial properties of my "copy" of the movie and of those of the original. Bits are merely human interpretation. The problem is even more obvious if you change the encoding, resulting in completely different data. Any comparison relies on an interpretation in the human mind. It only appears similar to us because of the way our brain processes inputs and we put it into the context of what we know (e.g. alphabet, language, culture). But from natural point of view, there is no relationship.
Merely aggreeing that bits of a copy were created by replicating the bits of the original only establishes that there was a physical process, creating a new arrangement of particles, which are, objectively, different than the original particles. If the computer creates a digital representation of those particles, again it is only our interpretation, because we assign meaning to those zeroes and ones. But from natural point of view, it is still only a bunch of particles without any special relation to other bunch of particles.
> Gates can trade his wealth with some physical
> good so abundant it wouldn't be scarce regarding
> our both claims.
This still relies on a subjective evaluation.
> There can be many examples of this. A theatre
> with a capacity of 2000 people in a town
> populated by 1000 was given before.
I am not sure I understand correctly. Are you claiming that, according to that theory, if you go into a theatre/town that is running below 100% utilisation, you wouldn't actually be violating any property? I would counter that rivalry is a better description of the issue. Rivalry means that consumption precludes other uses, even those hypothetical uses that do not actually happen but if the owner desired so, the other use would have been in conflict. This signifies a differerence to non-rival goods, such as the contents of a book.
However, I don't really like that approach, because it requires IP proponents to abandon too many of their assumptions. I would rather argue that in case of immaterial goods, two copies do not necessarily reflect the same immaterial property. So, it is perfectly possible for two different people to "own" the immaterial good "attached" to their own copy of a book, without there being any infringement.
> The theater is his, because he built it.
Going back to my previous paragraphs:
- rivalry vs. scarcity: the theater is his, because if someone uses it without his permission, the resources wouldn't have been available for other uses (violation of integrity)
- identity: what if I built another theater, and you claimed that because you already have a theater and it appears to be similar to mine, and I made my theater while looking at a picture of your theater made by some random guy, I have violated your property?
Published: November 27, 2009 8:45 AM
ktibuk
Peter surda,
Are you claiming that if you take my apples without my consent and bake an apple pie, what you have done is not a crime because you changed the state of the apples and there is no way how much of the pie is made of my apples?
Published: November 27, 2009 9:14 AM
ktibuk
Bala,
I understand you trail of thought but you are using wrong definitions and are bound to contradict yourself down the line.
For example you don't have right to life. You may have a moral duty to life, to sustain it as long as you can. But a right to life implies other things as you yourself said rights are meaningful in social context. You have right to be left alone, which is actually based on self ownership.
Unfortunately I dont have time to go over your post line by line Maybe later.
Published: November 27, 2009 9:18 AM
Lysander
Bala says:
"I would argue that for something to be legitimately called property, it is necessary for attempts to exclude others from using it to not constitute an initiation of force against them."
Physical property satisfies the above rule while IP does not. Hence, physical property is legitimate "property" while IP is not.
No. The right to life, liberty, and property must sometimes be defended forcefully. (Evil can triumph if good men do nothing.) If someone wanders onto my land and refuses to leave, then I push him off: it is I who initiate force against him. If a line of people block the entrance to my house and refuse to budge, then I force my way through them: it is I who initiate force against them.
You might say that the act of trespass or obstruction is itself an application of force, in that it is a violation of my land or liberty. But then you are simply defining force as any action which which violates your pre-conceived notion of property, which makes your "rule" nothing more than a redefinition of force.
"it justifies the initiation of force by the State under the (false) pretext of protecting (non-existent) "property" rights"
No. If you accept the notion of IP, then you have every right to destroy someone who makes copies of your works without your consent, irrespective of the State. You might as well say that the law of real property requires the State to enforce it. It does not.
"Whatever you may want to call it, an invention is little more than an idea."
No. An invention is more than just an idea. An invention is a distinctive conjunction of ideas, something which no one else might have thought of doing for years or even decades. Yes, the definition is imprecise, and patent law is a minefield. But so is real property law. The point at which a minor becomes an adult and should be accorded full legal rights is also imprecise, but that is no reason to treat minors as adults.
One final observation. The ideal of communal intellectual property has many attractions. But it would not lead to a more open society. Quite the reverse. Vast effort would be put into designing inventions that could not be analysed, or that would self-destruct if tampered with. Operating systems would be developed with the object of making it near-impossible to copy or even view files at a binary level. Businesses would be obsessed with secrecy and would go to inordinate lengths to prevent leaks. The abolition of IP would actually have the opposite effect of what one might imagine. It would throttle the free flow of information, not lubricate it.
Published: November 27, 2009 10:12 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
Have you actually read what I wrote? You appear to be capable of comprehending written text, so how come you make a claim like that? I clearly wrote:
- "Rivalry means that consumption precludes other uses ... "
- "... the resources wouldn't have been available for other uses ..."
> Are you claiming that if you take my apples
> without my consent and bake an apple pie, what
> you have done is not a crime because you
> changed the state of the apples and there is no
> way how much of the pie is made of my apples?
Last time I checked, baking an apple pie prevents alternative uses of those apples.
Published: November 27, 2009 11:12 AM
Bala
Lysander,
" The right to life, liberty, and property must sometimes be defended forcefully. "
Two points.
1. You are confusing my attempts to explain the meaning, rather the derivation of the meaning, of the concept "property" for an explanation of the "Right to Property". Logically speaking, you need to first define the concept "Property" before you speak of a "Right to Property".
2. Defending legitimate "Property" through the use of force would translate into retaliatory use of force because the need to defend is caused by the initiation of force by someone else who is attempting to take your property away from you. So, the need to defend your right to property with force is not a justification for the initiation of force.
" You might say that the act of trespass or obstruction is itself an application of force, in that it is a violation of my land or liberty. "
Yes.
" But then you are simply defining force as any action which which violates your pre-conceived notion of property "
Not exactly. The principle is that physical property can be possessed. To take a possession out of my hands without my consent or to prevent me from using my possession as I desire to, you will need to initiate force. My protection of my property would therefore translate into retaliatory force.
" An invention is a distinctive conjunction of ideas, something which no one else might have thought of doing for years or even decades. "
How is a conjunction of ideas not another idea, however distinctive it may be?
" The point at which a minor becomes an adult and should be accorded full legal rights is also imprecise, but that is no reason to treat minors as adults. "
This is where it helps to recognise that Rights are a Moral concept applicable only to rational animals with a volitional consciousness. Minors have the potential to be rational but their rationality is not fully developed. That is why it makes no sense to castigate an adult who "initiates" force to restrain a child. That is also why I would say a child's only right is the right to be free from harm.
Finally, there is no moral justification for IP simply because it is a self-contradictory notion. If it is "intellectual", it cannot be "property" and vice versa.
Published: November 27, 2009 11:12 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
Oh, now I see your point. You are unable to connect the two issues.
Baking a pie from apples prevents alternative uses of those apples. But making a copy of a book does not prevent alternative uses of the contents of the book. This is the approach when you assume that two instances of immaterial good refer to the same immaterial property. In this case, you can't own the immaterial good, therefore there is no property violation.
Now, if you assume that the goods are different, you have to conclude that there is no objective relation between an original and copy and whether the immaterial properties thereon belong to the same owner is a subjective matter. In this case, there are two immaterial goods, belonging to different parties, therefore there is again no property violation.
Published: November 27, 2009 11:20 AM
NF
The comments below are not directed at any of the comments listed on this website, but are simply the views of this writer.
1. No one should have the absolute right to help themselves to the fruits of someone else's creativity, labor and great expense.
2. If prior art does not exist, then that's too bad for the copy cats. The PTO will not grant a patent where there is prior art no matter how silly or serious people may think it is.
3. I speculate that the vast amount of opposition to method patents comes from those who are employed by large mega firms to create unique ideas with commercial viability, who do not want to be outdone by the "Little guy".
4. And then there are the simple and pernitious of all human traits that few will admit to, envy and jealousy.
5. We all know that it's all about the money, otherwise who cares! If a business method is created that has never been done before, and it's worth implementing, just pay for it if you want to use it, or don't use it, and come up with your scheme.
Published: November 27, 2009 12:42 PM
Oh look a kitty
"No one should have the absolute right to help themselves to the fruits of someone else's creativity, labor and great expense."
No one ever claimed such a right. If you don't want anyone else to use an idea that originated with you simply don't release it. You don't have to create for free either. (For example, those appropriately skilled can get paid for developing Linux, a kernel which is licensed in a way that allows anyone to make and distribute copies)
Published: November 27, 2009 1:42 PM
NF
To the commentator above:
It appears that you fit well into both # 3 and # 4 of the points I have made. Your argument is weak and not on point. In the entire string of conversations that preceded mine, your's is the only one that had to resort to name calling.
Published: November 27, 2009 2:38 PM
Bala
ktibuk,
" I understand you trail of thought but you are using wrong definitions and are bound to contradict yourself down the line. "
Oh please!!! Do explain which of the definitions are wrong and how and where I am bound to contradict myself. Please do it quickly because what you have said, i.e.,
" Unfortunately I dont have time to go over your post line by line Maybe later. "
gives me the a sinking feeling.
" You have right to be left alone, which is actually based on self ownership. "
That's what you (and Libertarian philosophers) say. I think it is you who are wrong.
I see myself (as I see you) as an autonomous individual with life that I needs to sustain through my actions directed by my rational mind. I am an existent with certain characteristics, not a resource to which ownership is to be ascribed.
Finally, in addition to what I said earlier, rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival (basically, qua man). For a rational animal with a volitional consciousness to sustain his life as per his nature, freedom of action is a necessary condition. This is what we understand as the "right" to Liberty.
Full comprehension and implementation of "rights" requires people to act in their rational long-range selfish interest. However, since man is not infallible (and may fail to recognise the importance to themselves of respecting the rights of others), it is necessary to state this "right" to freedom of action (Liberty) as a negative right, that of freedom from initiation of force against oneself.
Your attempts to somehow squeeze property rights into this appear completely faulty to me.
Published: November 27, 2009 3:00 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Peter Surda:
"Baking a pie from apples prevents alternative uses of those apples. But making a copy of a book does not prevent alternative uses of the contents of the book. This is the approach when you assume that two instances of immaterial good refer to the same immaterial property. In this case, you can't own the immaterial good, therefore there is no property violation."
Here is what the IP advocates have to defend. They never put it this way since it's more obviously insane, but it's this: they have to say that you create "the invention" (the recipe, design, whatever); to own it, you have to be able to "profit from" it; to profit from it, you have to able to sell it; to sell it, given its immaterial, non-scarce nature, you have to have the right to stop others from using their own property in "similar" ways; if you deny them this monopoly then they will not be "able to profit" from it. So they think you have a property right in profit, in the business of customers, in being patronized, in the "value" of the monopolized-idea. They don't want to put it so clearly and plainly and starkly, because it's obvious there is no right to the business of customers, no right to value or profit.
Published: November 27, 2009 3:11 PM
Bala
Stephan,
" you have to have the right to stop others from using their own property in "similar" ways "
No. I think it is more like..... you have to have the power stop them from using their own property in "similar" ways. To do it in a sustained manner, you need to confuse people into thinking that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. So, you create a new "right" where none existed and can ever exist, conflate it with an existing legitimate right and use all available tools of state indoctrination to get people to believe that new "right" is indeed a legitimate one.
Just trying to add the point that a lot of people try to call it a "right" to try to give it more legitimacy. It helps to call it what it is - a hunger for power over others, to lord over others.
The rest of your post could continue from here.
Published: November 27, 2009 3:42 PM
Randy S
Glad to see some more well put arguments here today in favor of IP from other posters besides me and step back.
I was starting to feel like Neil Degrasse Tyson at an intellectual KKK meeting!
Published: November 27, 2009 3:48 PM
Randy S
And Yes, the obvious contradiction of "intellectual KKK meeting" is implied.
Published: November 27, 2009 3:52 PM
step back
The normative re-attribution of property like associatives in cognitively recognizable expressions of one man's creativity without forcible trespass on natural rights of fellow rational beings predisposes one to comprehend the fruitlessness of ontological dissection. Hence sentient beings that intercommunicate with one another along these normatives are basically engaged in excretion of psycholinguistic incomprehensibilities.
Published: November 27, 2009 3:57 PM
newson
ktibuk says:
"Bill Gates, if he wanted can produce apples so abundant that apples would cease to be scarce thus no possibility of conflict can arise (apart from the whims of Bill Gates)."
gates' apples are not equivalent to hoppe's garden-of-eden-apples because gates' time is a scarce resource.
Published: November 27, 2009 5:30 PM
newson
ktibuk on july 28, 2007 @ 4:55 am, speaking of the randy barnett article on the iraq war:
This is the dillema[sic] of the statist libertarian (if there is such a thing) Trying to make sense of a government action. Give it up you can not. I know because I was a statist libertarian. You can not get rid of paradoxes while still clinging to the necessity of the state. Libertarianism can only make sense or judgements of the actions of the individual. Not some organized crime outfit.
so how can you support legislative ip protection?
Published: November 27, 2009 5:40 PM
ABR
"it's obvious there is no right to the business of customers, no right to value or profit." -- Very true. But an author with a copyright expects no such right. If readers are not interested in reading his book, he has no customers. He makes no profit.
Published: November 27, 2009 6:57 PM
Bala
step back,
All the incomprehensibility apart, I am still waiting for an answer, maybe even a discussion.
Published: November 27, 2009 7:29 PM
ktibuk
Stephan,
"Here is what the IP advocates have to defend. They never put it this way since it's more obviously insane, but it's this: they have to say that you create "the invention" (the recipe, design, whatever); to own it, you have to be able to "profit from" it;"
Stop right there. All it is needed is the right to exclude. That is it. If you want to defend your IP socialism you need to try to defend the position that creators (or producers) do not have a right to exclude others. Peter Surda at least tries this and I think he fails but he doesn't evade the issue like you do.
Also there is a misundestanding about "being able to profit". This issue although mostly put wrongly, isnt about the value, which is of course dependent on other peoples valuations and can not be owned.
There is a value and this is assumed so. The question is, if there is gain to be had a profit to be made, who should be the one. The creator, or the society at large (or the people who have copied it). This has nothing to do with guaranteeing some specific value.
Published: November 28, 2009 4:26 AM
Peter Surda
@Stephan Kinsella
> to sell it, given its immaterial, non-scarce nature,
> you have to have the right to stop others from
> using their own property in "similar" ways;
Actually, this is not even true. You merely need to find someone willing to enter a contract, and this does not require IP laws in any way. You can e.g. sell the first instance of the immaterial good, or bundle the immaterial good to something material and sell that. Or you can buy put options on your competitors' shares before you go public with the information. The possibilities are infinite.
Published: November 28, 2009 4:29 AM
ktibuk
Stephan,
"Here is what the IP advocates have to defend. They never put it this way since it's more obviously insane, but it's this: they have to say that you create "the invention" (the recipe, design, whatever); to own it, you have to be able to "profit from" it;"
Stop right there. All it is needed is the right to exclude. That is it. If you want to defend your IP socialism you need to try to defend the position that creators (or producers) do not have a right to exclude others. Peter Surda at least tries this and I think he fails but he doesn't evade the issue like you do.
Also there is a misundestanding about "being able to profit". This issue although mostly put wrongly, isnt about the value, which is of course dependent on other peoples valuations and can not be owned.
There is a value and this is assumed so. The question is, if there is gain to be had a profit to be made, who should be the one. The creator, or the society at large (or the people who have copied it). This has nothing to do with guaranteeing some specific value.
Published: November 28, 2009 4:30 AM
ktibuk
Newson,
"so how can you support legislative ip protection?"
Who said I do so? Have I ever said you need a state or legislation for a pro IP position?
You seem to be confused by the lies of Stephan and like that says IP needs state protection and can not exist in a free society.
Published: November 28, 2009 4:36 AM
ktibuk
Newson,
"gates' apples are not equivalent to hoppe's garden-of-eden-apples because gates' time is a scarce resource."
So is the time of the author who wrote the novel.
Published: November 28, 2009 4:38 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
> The question is, if there is gain to be had a profit to
> be made, who should be the one.
Actually, that's wrong, this is the value approach to property too. There are externalities in all human activities, but that's insufficient to claim the right to profit.
Walter Block eloquently explains the externality issue. Just read his books. My favourite examples are:
- if you use a deodorant in public transport, the others profit because they don't need to breathe in your sweat. Should they be forced to pay you for that?
- a woman with a miniskirt walking on a street provides a satisfying service to men in the proximity. Does that mean that she can enforce payment from them?
Published: November 28, 2009 4:38 AM
ktibuk
Peter Surda,
This issue has nothing to do with externalities. A novel is not an externality it is the object itself. If the novel caused some other positive or negative externalities that would fit Blocks argument, which I myself also support.
I am saying the value is assumed, since there is the act of copying. If there was no value to be had there would be no action regarding it. And since the value is assumed, this is about who has a right on it not some specific amount of value.
If I produce something (tangible or intangible) I don't have a right to certain profit, but if there is to be a profit it is my right rather than someone elses.
Published: November 28, 2009 4:43 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
> A novel is not an externality it is the object itself.
Wrong. You still do not comprehend that the immaterial properties of goods only exist in people's minds. Only the physical book is an object.
> I am saying the value is assumed, since there is
> the act of copying.
You still have not proven that copying can ever happen on the immaterial level and that the contents of the book can have an existence independent of human mind. In my opinion, this is the critical argument, because without that, IP cannot be natural.
> ... if there is to be a profit it is my right rather
> than someone elses.
Again, there is a problem with reversing the implication. Just because someone else exploits an opportunity that you didn't, does not mean you have a right to profit from it.
For starters, you can read the book review I posted a couple of days ago and tell me if it's a review of Ender's Game or Harry Potter. Unless you can find a way to objectively determine that, you need to conclude one of the following:
- they are the same book
- immaterial properties are subjective and so is IP
Published: November 28, 2009 5:02 AM
ktibuk
Bala,
It seems you are having trouble with "is-ought" dichotomy and it seems this is arising from your interpretation of Objectivism.
I also think "ought" follows "is" and there is no gap in between for agents capable of using reason. But there is still a difference between "is" and "ought" and ethics are about "ought" propositions.
"1. Life is a sequence of self-generated self-sustaining actions. The goal of the actions is sustaining life itself."
True.
"2. Man is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. His sole guide to action is his rational mind which processes the sensory information his sense organs gather to form concepts."
True
"3. To sustain his life, man has no choice but to act. To cease to act is to die. To be prevented from acting is to be condemned to death. To be prevented from acting as per the choices made by one's rational mind is tantamount to enforcement of a death penalty."
Now we have a problem here. What do you mean by "to be prevented". This is a very broad concept. You may need something very badly and me not giving you what you need may be understood as "preventing". Also there are other circumstances than other humans that prevent one from doing things. Are they included your definition?
The fact is, humans are individuals and isolation is enough for them to exist. On the other hand society is an abstract concept dependent on individuals to exist. So self-ownership is a very useful and uncontradictory concept especially analyzing concepts in social context..
4. A right is a moral concept sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context.
Actually no. This assumes rights are derived from society or other individuals forming the society.
Rights (and also crimes) are moral concepts, carried over from the isolated state of the individual to a social context. This way we can establish that, an isolated individual represents the ultimate free individual or in the ultimate state of liberty and when he enters in society he carries this liberty by the way of rights.
5. The only axiomatic right is the Right to Life. It means the freedom to act to sustain his life as per the judgement of his rational mind.
As I said, although this "right to life" is an often used concept, it is a wrong concept. Nobody has a right to life. Not in isolation nor in a social context. Everyone has a right to be treated as if he is on an isolated island. Which I prefer to frame as "right to be left alone". You don't have right to life so that someone else has to keep you alive, or assist you in any way. You have right to be left alone to pursue life.
6. In a social context, man may be prevented from acting by the initiation of force by other men. Thus, for a man to be able to sustain his life in a social context, he needs other men to refrain from initiating force against him.
Again prevention is not a useful concept it is too broad. It assumes there is a goal that has be reached and anything can have an effect regarding this goal. For example the shape of our arms are preventing us from flying. Or I may be preventing you from receiving healthcare by not giving you the money you lack.
In social context there may be aggression against mens property, including himself. This can not happen in isolation but only in social context.
7. This concept of non-initiation of force is the concept of Liberty.
It is a neat and simplistic concept but not enough. As in the case of fraud and unauthorized copying there is no actual or implied "force" but you seem to take fraud arbitrarily in while leaving copying out.
Anyways even if we agree on your premises and deduction, an anti IP stance is contradictory.
IP is the result of the human action. If he is "prevented" from acting to create IP this is a death sentence.
Published: November 28, 2009 5:12 AM
ktibuk
Peter Surda,
Lets say that people who can distinguish between; a nature given free good, some other persons creation and his own creation should be bound by the ethical rule that says "you can homestead the nature given free good, keep your own creation and respect the property rights of others when it comes the the creations of others"
And lets take, the delusional people who can not differentiate between these and think reality is the creation of their mind, of the hook.
Agreed?
Published: November 28, 2009 5:30 AM
step back
Bala,
I tried to respond, but got censored by TPTB (the powers to be here)
Published: November 28, 2009 5:58 AM
step back
Bala, Here is a retry of some parts I tried to post:
I provided a 3rd party definition of the word "property" here.
You have not refuted that definition.
Instead you go round and round in your discussion here talking about "initiation of force" and "retaliatory use of force".
Published: November 28, 2009 6:05 AM
step back
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
You assert that:
Other than you and your invisible army, who else ascribes to that definition? You have not refuted the 3rd party definition I showed you. You have not refuted my position that the concept of "property" is a man-made fiction. Thus you presumably accept it. At the time of the dinosaurs, there was no "property", there was no "money", there was no "man". It is man who fabricated out of thin air and as a mere abstraction, the notions of "property", of transfer of "title" in property and of use of "money" to effect transfer of this invisible abstraction known as title in property.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:08 AM
step back
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
If I obtain this thing called "letters patent" from the US Government, first I give them something of value in the form of filing fees and a 'written disclosure' of how to make and use the claimed invention. I do not 'initiate' force against anybody. I contribute in a positive way to the general welfare of our less than perfect union. (See Preamble to USA Constitution.)
If the US Government agrees that I was first to invent or discover a new and useful machine, composition of matter, manufacture or process, the Government also agrees that I could not possibly be taking out of your "possession" that new and useful subject matter because you never possessed it to begin with.
No one is 'initiating' force against you. No one is engaging in 'retaliatory' force against you. The patent is openly and notoriously published.
If you have good cause to assert that you were in possession of the invention beforehand, you can peacefully come forth with proof of such earlier possession.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:10 AM
step back
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
Your problem is that you can't. You can't because you never had 'possession' of the invention beforehand. Nothing was taken from you. You may continue to practice the prior art as you always had.
Your hang up is that you are a communist. Not only do you believe that "What's mine is mine". You also persist in asserting that "What's yours is mine". Thus you 'initiate' the act of force and trespass against my property. No one is asking you to do so. You do it out of sheer greed and jealousy. You were incapable in the first place of originally producing the invention on your own. You merely want to pretend that you "could have" rearranged some of the materials you now "own" into the form of this new invention.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:11 AM
step back
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
That is two fibs packaged as one. Firstly, you probably did not possess all those materials beforehand. And even if you did, you could not have rearranged them into the form of this new invention. The reason is because you did not possess the know-how to do so. You want to steal the know-how from me and pretend you had it at an earlier time. That's your position as far as I can see it. All your talk about legitimate and illegitimate property is merely the double talk of someone who is jealous that he cannot invent anything of worth on his own.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:14 AM
Bala
ktibuk,
" This assumes rights are derived from society or other individuals forming the society. "
We've gone through this before but you are just repeating your earlier point without further justification.
So, let me repeat too.... "Social context" means that the very concept of "right" has a meaning only in a social situation. The source of the "right" is man's nature as a rational animal with a volitional consciousness who needs, for his survival as per his nature, to choose his values using his rational mind and act to attain them.
An isolated man (such as Robinson Crusoe) has a desperate need to act to sustain his life, but there is no need for a concept "right". On an isolated island, Robinson Crusoe faces many challenges from hostile circumstances and living beings.
It is only in a social context where man recognises that his long-range well being is ensured if he and others act as per the principle a rational beng recognises as "rights" that the said concept becomes relevant.
You also need to remember that concepts are not floating abstractions that exist independent of a human (i.e., rational) mind. So, when I say moral "concept", I am referring to a human mind that first needs to form the concept.
You are claiming a defect in MY understanding of Objectivism. So, let me point out where you have got it completely wrong. I said Rights are a MORAL concept.
As per Rand, morality is a code of values guiding man's actions in the face of choices. Man's distinctive quality is that his values are not automatic or subconsciously absorbed (as is the case with most other living beings) but chosen by the application of his rational mind. Thus, in this very statement defining "rights" I have clearly indicated that the concept "rights" originates from man's nature and not from society. That you fail to understand it is your failing, not mine. Did you, by anychance, take the word "moral" in my definition to be a social custom for you to imply that my definition indicates that rights originates from society? Then that indicates a further misunderstanding of my and Ayn Rand's concept of "rights".
You are making too many mistakes and just refusing to correct them by stubbornly repeating that I am wrong while giving flawed explanations all the time. Your answer is replete with misunderstandings and misrepresentations, some of which I have pointed out. I'm not sure if all that is taking this discussion anywhere at all.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:14 AM
step back
Bala,
I have not figured out what vocabulary words TPTB at this site automatically object to. My original post did not include any explicative deleted's. The above is just part of it. It's enough for you to respond.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:17 AM
step back
ktibuk
re you answers to Bala,
True? No. FALSE.
True? No. FALSE.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:22 AM
step back
Let's not quibble about (1) The meaning of Life.
But (2) is clearly False.
The evidence is all around you that man is an irrational creature no different than many other creatures on this Earth.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:25 AM
step back
Bala,
I didn't realize that you were part of the Ayn Rand cult.
So are you speaking on her behalf or on behalf of John Galt himself; inventor of the perpetual energy machine?
Published: November 28, 2009 6:29 AM
Shay
"If I produce something (tangible or intangible) I don't have a right to certain profit, but if there is to be a profit it is my right rather than someone elses."
How is this any different than the examples Peter Surda just gave, in terms of externalities? In all cases, others are able to get benefits from whatever you're doing, without disturbing any of your property.
Another example more along the lines of what you describe: A sells a portable music player, lots of people buy it, then B starts selling protective cases that match the shape perfectly. Does A have a right to all the profit B makes?
Published: November 28, 2009 6:31 AM
step back
Bala,
It appears someone has collected Ayn Rand's thoughts about patents.
Check it out:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
Published: November 28, 2009 6:34 AM
step back
Bala,
Some more apparent quotes from the high priestess of Objectivism:
source:
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.2
Published: November 28, 2009 6:41 AM
step back
Bala,
Apparently, Libertarians are split on the IP issue.
See the following piece:
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
Therefore you and Kinsella do not speak for the entire Libertarian Nation, but rather only for a splinter group within it.
Published: November 28, 2009 6:47 AM
newson
me:
"gates' apples are not equivalent to hoppe's garden-of-eden-apples because gates' time is a scarce resource."
ktibuk says:
"So is the time of the author who wrote the novel."
...but unlike gates' apples, the ownership of which is able to be ascertained objectively by enclosing fences, marking of trees etc, the author's claim to ownership is contentious. we don't know how scarce his ideas are. if originality is what gives rise to title in the case of ip, how much originality is required? 100%, 90%, 20%? what if the theme is the same, but the language different? how can this not give rise to endless conflict and arbitrariness? and who decides these criteria?
me:
"so how can you support legislative ip protection?"
ktibuk:
"Who said I do so? Have I ever said you need a state or legislation for a pro IP position?"
gates' apples could be policed feasibly either by himself or by a caretaker; the author's claim to protection could only ever by enforced by the state. otherwise, all copying would simply migrate to the geographic zone where ip is not recognized or where policing is weak.
only one-world government, or standardized international norms could prevent copying from simply shifting jurisdiction, as we see in china these days.
Published: November 28, 2009 7:46 AM
ktibuk
Newson,
"...but unlike gates' apples, the ownership of which is able to be ascertained objectively by enclosing fences, marking of trees etc, the author's claim to ownership is contentious"
So? The author can put name on the novel. It can be removed, you say? So can the fence. Claim to ownership is a simple signature, whether by pen or fence or some other way.
"we don't know how scarce his ideas are. if originality is what gives rise to title in the case of ip, how much originality is required? 100%, 90%, 20%? what if the theme is the same, but the language different? how can this not give rise to endless conflict and arbitrariness? and who decides these criteria?"
You don't need any percentages of originality to claim legitimacy Is the authors time scarce? Yes. End of story. At least regarding the "scarcity" issue. If you are talking about the actual judgement regarding a case that is another issue.
"gates' apples could be policed feasibly either by himself or by a caretaker; the author's claim to protection could only ever by enforced by the state. otherwise, all copying would simply migrate to the geographic zone where ip is not recognized or where policing is weak."
The same thing can be applied to physical property. Someone can steal your stuff and take it to some place where "your property law" is not recognized. And then what? Do you think law is based on recognition of humans? Law is about the rules of this universe. You may acknowledge it or you may deny it and face the consequences.
You do not need a state to have property rights.
Published: November 28, 2009 8:27 AM
Randy S
A man walks into the patent office with a bushel full of apples and says I want to patent these apples.
Office: What do you mean you want to patent these apples, what so special about these apples that you want to patent them?
Man: Man takes an apple from the basket, shines it up and passes to the guy at the office and says "here, take a bite"
Office: Guy takes a bite and says, WOW, tastes like bananas!
Man Says: Turn it around and take another bite.
Office: He turns it around and takes another bite, WOW, tastes like strawberries!
Man Says: Here try this one.
Office: Guy takes a bite, WOW, tastes like oranges!
Man Says: Turn it around and take another bite.
Office: WOW, tastes like coconuts!
Office: Holy cow man, this is amazing! You know, if you could make an apple that tastes like pussy, you'd become a millionaire!
Man Says: Yes I know, here, try this one.
Office: Guy takes a bite, ah, yuck, ick, gross, spits it out and exclaims, oh god that tastes like shit!
Man Says: WELL TURN IT AROUND!
Published: November 28, 2009 1:24 PM
newson
ktibuk says:
"So? The author can put name [sic] on the novel. It can be removed, you say? So can the fence. Claim to ownership is a simple signature, whether by pen or fence or some other way."
the fence can be patrolled, the property can be manned. the book, once sold, is not able to be traced by the author. how can the author enforce a non-copy contract if he cannot trace the book? that's why ip proponents argue for legislation, because they realize contract law will get them nowhere. enforcement becomes nigh on impossible. and yes, physical property is also susceptible to theft, and that's why there's a vast market for security services. possession is ninety percent (at least, and maybe more, say i) of the law, so just don't lose it in the first place. pay a guard.
i don't understand what your answer means with respect to originality. if i change two words in an existing novel, does my work also become unique. what if i change 98% of the words? who decides these arbitrary limits, on what basis and authority?
Published: November 28, 2009 9:14 PM
newson
ktibuk says:
"So? The author can put name [sic] on the novel. It can be removed, you say? So can the fence. Claim to ownership is a simple signature, whether by pen or fence or some other way."
the fence can be patrolled, the property can be manned. the book, once sold, is not able to be traced by the author. how can the author enforce a non-copy contract if he cannot trace the book? that's why ip proponents argue for legislation, because they realize contract law will get them nowhere. enforcement becomes nigh on impossible. and yes, physical property is also susceptible to theft, and that's why there's a vast market for security services. possession is ninety percent (at least, and maybe more, say i) of the law, so just don't lose it in the first place. pay a guard.
i don't understand what your answer means with respect to originality. if i change two words in an existing novel, does my work also become unique. what if i change 98% of the words? who decides these arbitrary limits, on what basis and authority?
Published: November 28, 2009 9:23 PM
Bala
step back,
You insisted that I respond to your "3rd party definition".
This is what you were referring to, right?
******************
a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
******************
You call this a definition? What aspects of the concept "property" does it explain? The fact is - NOTHING. It is the most worthless attempt at defining that I have come across.
Just a few indicators as to the utter uselessness of your "definition".
1. It fails to make the fundamental distinction between a possession and "property". If a thief steals your property, it becomes his possession but not his "property". It is because it is YOUR "property" that is in HIS "possession" that you are justified in using force to retrieve it from him. So, "definition" 1 is utter rubbish.
2. As for definition 2, it is an example. The most fundamental aspect of "definitions" is that an example never becomes a definition of the broader category. So, I wonder what fantastic truth you were getting at by using this.
3. Point 3 is worse because it makes the definition of property dependent on possessing a "legal title". That is the ultimate in question begging, especially if one considers the larger question of ideas and patterns being granted the status of "property" through IP laws.
Thus, your attempt at "definition" has been worse than juvenile.
" You have not refuted that definition. "
Now that I have shown your "definition" to be unadulterated nonsense, could we please have a proper definition?
Alternately, I have tried giving a definition that is a serious attempt at explaining various characteristics of the concept "property". How about telling me why it is wrong"
So far, you have only made pronouncements like "False"..... "False" with absolutely no attempt to explain why it is so. The only one was a sad attempt to try to show that man is by NATURE not a rational animal by showing examples of human beings who you claim "failed" to act "rationally".
Finally, on the specific quotes from Ayn Rand that you have pulled out, I have gone through them many times before and know them pretty well. It should by now be clear as to how exactly I will dismiss those specific statements as incorrect - very simply, at the point where she assumes that ideas can be and are "property" without defining what "property" is.
Published: November 29, 2009 5:02 AM
Shay
Bala, watching you is like watching an adult try to carry on an intellectual conversation with a child who is half the time calling the adult names and throwing toys at him. I'd like to engage "step up", but at least half his posts contain attacks that serve no constructive purpose. I can't shake the feeling that I'd perhaps have a meaningful exchange, but at some point he'd revert and I'd have wasted my time. At the simplest level, making no value judgements, it's like trying to have a discussion over a bad cell phone connection, where one guy's battery is low. Why waste time if it's hard to get through and you might be cut off at any time?
Published: November 29, 2009 6:06 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
You still miss the deeper meaning of what I'm saying. I'm not saying people aren't able to recognise the immaterial properties of goods. I'm saying they are subjective, because they only exist in people's minds.
If these properties were objective, it would be possible to construct an instrument to measure them. There are only two instruments that can assess immaterial properties: human mind and computers. But they both depend on the material features goods being interpreted into abstract schemata based on purely virtual standards (such as language, alphabet, cultural context etc). Outside of these standards, they have no meaning.
Compare that for example to measuring of physical properties. You can also use various standards, such as the SI-system or the imperial system. But they all are grounded in very strict physical phenomena, and there is a fixed relationship between them. Even if you create a new weight system and use that within your calculations, although you get different numbers they mean the same thing. With standards on immaterial properties, these all are virtual, can be interpreted in different ways, and change all the time.
Published: November 29, 2009 6:34 AM
Bala
step back,
" The evidence is all around you that man is an irrational creature no different than many other creatures on this Earth. "
This statement alone confirms what Shay said. There's no point talking to you. You are hellbent on spewing your nonsense all over the place. You are best treated like every troll should be - ignored.
Good bye
Published: November 29, 2009 9:49 AM
Jay Lakner
Shay wrote:
**********
Bala, watching you is like watching an adult try to carry on an intellectual conversation with a child who is half the time calling the adult names and throwing toys at him. I'd like to engage "step up", but at least half his posts contain attacks that serve no constructive purpose. I can't shake the feeling that I'd perhaps have a meaningful exchange, but at some point he'd revert and I'd have wasted my time. At the simplest level, making no value judgements, it's like trying to have a discussion over a bad cell phone connection, where one guy's battery is low. Why waste time if it's hard to get through and you might be cut off at any time?
**********
You can see why I exited the discussion with Step Back a long time ago. Maybe I was stuping to his level by calling him a moron, and I kind of regret that, but I don't entirely think the statement was unjustified.
Maybe with his "funds are created out of thin air" statement he truly didn't understand that extra funds that are invested in research divert resources away from other fields? Maybe I should have stated it in this way in the first place? Maybe I jumped the gun a bit by assuming that he was capable of making that connection?
In any event, I apologise to the other posters on this site for lowering myself to his level and responding to him in an unlibertarian way.
Published: November 29, 2009 11:05 AM
step back
Bala,
The fact that you too are an irrational being is clear from the appeal to emotions you make here.
The reason that a thief in physical possession of your property is not the owner is because legal "title" has not been lawfully transferred.
The definition I gave you is not "my" definition. It is from an online dictionary. Check and verify it out for yourself here (if you dare).
Dictionary definitions are of course brief and not intended to be the end all of defining the meanings of words as used in specific contexts. For example a chemical compound can have certain chemical "properties". That is the word taken in a different context. The context you and I are supposed to be working in is the legal definition of "property".
If you want to self-centrally focus only on the Bala context, that is fine. Just keep it to yourself.
Published: November 29, 2009 1:36 PM
step back
JL,
Trolls do not present specific evidence to back up there assertions.
I have hyperlinked to specific 3rd party sites that say there is a split over IP in the Libertarian movement.
You don't like facts. So you engage in name calling (in calling me childish and trollish).
Look in the mirror.
Published: November 29, 2009 1:42 PM
Andras
step back,
You are not unique, I got the same responses from the same people at the parallel http://blog.mises.org/archives/011076.asp thread. I have truly enjoyed your argumentation. Thanks
@ktibuk,
May I copy and use your arguments at
Published: November 27, 2009 5:33 AM
Thanks, Andras
Published: November 29, 2009 5:26 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Surda: "The issue with ownership of immaterial goods is, in my opinion, not in the scarcity. It is that in the implementations proposed by IP proponents, the property stretches throughout the whole universe, and there is no way to objective define demarcation rules (it introduces the notion of "similarity" as a demarcation criterium)."
Well, scarcity is involved in this because you first recognize how rights are assigned in scarce resources, and that in order to give someone a right in an idea, they effectively have a right to control the scarce resources already owned by others.... so it's a type of theft or re-homesteading, a transfer of rights from owner to innovator. In Tom Palmer's papers I cite in my Concise Guide to IP, he refers to the "things" protected by IP as "ideal objects," I believe.
Published: November 29, 2009 7:33 PM
Bala
step back,
" The fact that you too are an irrational being is clear from the appeal to emotions you make here. "
Appeal to emotions?????? ROFLMAO. You are getting truly hilarious.
" The reason that a thief in physical possession of your property is not the owner is because legal "title" has not been lawfully transferred. "
So, in the absence of a "legal title", property is not Property, is it? Quite an interesting point there. And what is the source of the "legal" definition of property? Human whims? You have already indicated as much in your earlier posts.
Moral relativism is oozing out of every word you have posted. You are discrediting yourself with every additional word that you utter.
" The definition I gave you is not "my" definition. "
How does the source matter? All I was pointing out was its utter uselessness for a discussion on what constitutes "property".
Published: November 29, 2009 11:54 PM
ktibuk
Peter Surda,
I understand what you are trying to say but even if we leave aside epistemological quarrels regarding what is objective reality and what is not, your main problem is your understanding of ethics.
Ethics are about "ought" propositions for self conscious agents regarding their actions based on their free will. There are some who believe free will is an illusion thus ethics doesn't or can not exist but I am assuming you are not one of them.
So all you need to formulate ethical rules is the person that is acting purposefully, or consciously. A person that can differentiate what is wrong and what is right.
You keep imagining a world where a third party, a judge, is needed to establish and judge (that will measure and such to establish if a wrong has been committed or not) ethical rules but you are wrong.
In order to have meaningful ethical rule like "lying is wrong" all you need is a person that can distinguish between a lie and a truthful proposition and aware of his actions. Lying is a deliberate action and ethical rules are about deliberate actions.
When I say, you shouldn't lie, (or any ethical rule), to you I am assuming you know what what the actual truth is and also assuming you know what your are doing. I am also assuming you have a choice on this matter and I am saying you shouldn't make the wrong choice.
So I will repeat myself. If a person can distinguish between a nature given good, his own creation and a creation of another individual he will be bound by ethical rules regarding property.
A self conscious person knows perfectly well when he copies a novel that is written by someone else. Even when he changes some bits of it. (he may not know if the object is owned or a free gift but that is beside the point here) This changing of bits may confuse a third party judge, but the one who is copying the original knows what he is doing. And that is sufficient regarding ethics, because when we say "you shouldn't copy without consent" we are talking to the guy who is actually copying.
So in order to refute this ethical rule " a person shouldn't copy another's creation without his consent" you need to show that the person in question can never distinguish between the three possibilities I mentioned before.
Published: November 30, 2009 1:11 AM
ktibuk
Yes Andras, you may.
Published: November 30, 2009 1:12 AM
scott t
So in order to refute this ethical rule " a person shouldn't copy another's (recorded instance of previous action) creation without his consent"
is that an ethical rule?
i can see where if i found a pattern of 5000 words, and then claimed that i developed and authored the linguistic and cognitive concepts in the 5000 words but i really didnt ......well, that would seem to be saying something that wouldnt be true...and in the ethical realm.
to repeat what i see here or read doesnt seem to be any ethical rule at all.
Published: November 30, 2009 2:31 AM
Peter Surda
@ktibuk:
You still miss the point. The point isn't whether it's ethical or not, but whether there can be natural IP.
> A self conscious person knows perfectly well when
> he copies a novel that is written by someone else.
That alone does not make anything exist. It merely shows that people have similar mental processes (hardly a surprise, considering the biologicial and sociological heritage they share).
People also understand that currency has value, and also more-or-less "agree" on what it is at a specific moment. But that does not mean that there is a value independent of human minds.
No matter how you approach it, you must conclude that immaterial properties are the result of people's interpretations and outside of those, have no meaning.
Let's take for example my book summary. It could be a summary of Harry Potter, or of Ender's Game. There is no way to tell merely from the summary itself, even if you have all the words and we agree on what they are. The only way to determine that is to ask what I was thinking when I was writing it. But, according to your theory, that can't be, because that would make the immaterial properties depend on subjective interpretation. So we must conclude that you are wrong, immaterial properties are subjective and not natural and there is no natural IP.
Published: November 30, 2009 3:47 AM
step back
Bala,
You responded:
Your very response is proof that all you've got left in your bag of tricks is an appeal to the emotions.
This appeal is only effective on members of your own choir (the anarchist/Librarian choir). It basically says, come oh yeah brethren anarchists/Librarians let us hypothetically engage in the emotional kumbaya reaction of all of us Rolling On [the] Floor [of the ignorant] Laughing Our A$$e$ Off (ROFLMAO). The person who is not laughing with us will feel marginalized from our group of laughing in the mud hyenas and wish that he was part of our noble gang of rationally thinking creatures.
Well that is what I visualize. A group of irrational laughing hyenas who have nothing more in their bag of tricks and thus must resort to this "natural" response as their last refuge.
You also wrote:
The fact that you are not knowledgeable about the legal definitions of "property" indicates to others that you are too lazy to look them up on your own and that you exude extreme hubris as you roll in your own ignorance. That is hardly a convincing response.
I believe your brethren hyenas are hoping that you would objectively silence yourself before you embarrass them some more.
Published: November 30, 2009 4:48 AM
Bala
step back,
The picture is like this. I tried defining "property". You said "That is YOUR definition. So let's use a 3rd party definition".
Subsequently, I tore that 3rd party definition to shreds and showed how unsuitable it is to start any discussion on "property".
I give arguments showing each of the 3 bits of your precious definition to be total and unadulterated nonsense and you say that is "appealing to emotions"?
And then you wonder why I am laughing so much!!! I think I have discredited you enough. So, goodbye. This time, its forever. I shall not yield to temptation.
Published: November 30, 2009 9:07 AM
Jay Lakner
Bravo Bala. :)
Now that's over, I have something I'd like to bring up.
You wrote:
**********
3. To sustain his life, man has no choice but to act. To cease to act is to die. To be prevented from acting is to be condemned to death. To be prevented from acting as per the choices made by one's rational mind is tantamount to enforcement of a death penalty.
**********
This all sounds well and good, but one has to define "act". I would define "act" as the manipulation of material objects. Hence I would argue that your fundamental viewpoint is still based on the premise of property rights.
My point is that I see your opinion to be identical to Stephen Kinsella's. Once "act" is defined, then the entire basis of your philosophy really does boil down to the definition of property and the rules by which it's assigned to different parties.
Hence you and Mr Kinsella fundamentally believe the same things except that you both state them in different ways.
Published: November 30, 2009 9:41 AM
Bala
Jay Lakner,
" I would define "act" as the manipulation of material objects. "
Or oneself. I agree with you on that. Forming concepts (i.e., producing ideas) can by no means be called action. Important and essential though it is, it can only be called the precursor to action.
" Hence you and Mr Kinsella fundamentally believe the same things except that you both state them in different ways. "
Once again, I agree. Where I differ is in insisting that the moral concept "property" is the best starting point of any discussion on IP because once that is settled, there is (IMO) hardly anything at all left to discuss and no conclusion except that IP in not legitimate property.
p.s. I may come across as too stuck up on "morality", but IMO, that gives a sound and consistent framework to work within, especially if it is a rational morality consistent with man's nature.
Published: November 30, 2009 10:24 AM
Bala
Jay Lakner,
" the rules by which it's assigned to different parties. "
I would differ a little on this. I would rather use the phrase "how ownership is identified" rather than talk of "assigning" ownership. IMO, the idea that ownership is "assigned" is erroneous. Ownership is fundamentally a moral issue - the issue being who "ought" to be in possession of an object - and can only be identified, not assigned.
Published: November 30, 2009 10:30 AM
Jay Lakner
@Bala.
Fair enough. It's not my personal disposition to base my philosophy of the universe on moral foundations. Hence the differences in our methods of debunking IP and use of the words assigned/identified regarding property.
In general your views are usually consistent with mine so there's no great need to try to break down each others fundamental starting points (yet!). I'm sure we'll have a raging debate about it at some point. But for now, peace. :)
Published: November 30, 2009 12:53 PM
scott t
"look them up on your own"
well, you just put a wiki page lik without even questioning or quoting the wiki concept of property. a correct as you go web-tionary.
do the ip advocates basically say that since a numerous copies of an original decreases the valueness of the original that the original content is indeed scarce? i guess along the lines of , if you have two hammers then the value of each is reduced ?
Published: November 30, 2009 1:20 PM
Gabe Harris
It seems some of the pro-IP gentlemen who have been posting here have a valiant fear of "copycats" and how eliminating our current Patent law would spawn a industry of copycats.
While it is true that those who currently benefit greatly from making curent IP law a big part of their business plan and that "copycat" firms would spring up and rapidly grow many industries, I think mayeb you should look into the benefits as well as teh negatives of this.
It would be nice to have some growing inustries inthis coutnry right? "copycat" industries would be making a lot of stuff cheaply that would improve the lives of many people in this country. It is true that many lawyers would have to find entirely new jobs, but aren't lawyers and the rapid growth in lawyers over the last 50 years kind of a symbol for what has gone wrong in this country?
I also think that IP law violates physical property rights...suppose I hear you talking about a new ingenius algorithm for solving some problem that I find to be very useful. It enters my ears through sound waves...my brain proccess it and interprets the info in a certain way...my synapses and neurons physically transform in new ways as my understanding takes hold and I become obsessed with the idea(your genius idea) I then start to act on it and create a book. Then your lawyers call the state and have them send men with guns to tell me what I can do with my brain, my hands etc. All these violations of my personal property rights even though nothing I am doing would be illegal on it's own...only because you and your lawyers claim to have had the idea first?! knowing how the law usually works, won't this result in lots of politically powerful folks with lawyers actually getting the "rights" to ideas that non-lawyery types who actually invent stuff actually thought of in the first place? how do you deal with this besides saying, "sucks to be you, should have saved more money to pay lawyers"? now do what the government tells you, they do literally own your brain and you have to be granted a special right in order to use it the way you want.
Doesn't the IP law come down to bigger barriers to entry for creators who aren't lawyered up enough? protectionism for big corporations from individuals? and jobs programs for do-nothing lawyers, beuracrats?
I assume you are for some time limit...on this non-tangible property right or else we'd all be paying prometheus's decendents for their fire idea...so are you pretty set on the 17 year right? or are you for shorter time limits?
If I am forced to accept IP law...which I kinda am, then I'd at least always argue for much shorter time limits on these rights granted over the brains of fellow humans. Do you think the current expiration times are set too long?
Published: December 4, 2009 1:50 PM