Political Crossfire Forums

[gavnook]

One of my favorite things about patents is that you can patent something and do nothing with it. I mean, I could patent a wonder-pill that cures every disease and then not produce it or let anyone produce it for 20 years. It's my right, right?

[Atlas Bergeron]

gavnook wrote: One of my favorite things about patents is that you can patent something and do nothing with it. I mean, I could patent a wonder-pill that cures every disease and then not produce it or let anyone produce it for 20 years. It's my right, right? of course you could, you designed it. It is your right to sell its design if you don't wish to use it.

Do you not have the right to also keep your discovery secret? If you don't sell anything, then you would inherently be keeping it secret.

[gavnook]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: gavnook wrote: One of my favorite things about patents is that you can patent something and do nothing with it. I mean, I could patent a wonder-pill that cures every disease and then not produce it or let anyone produce it for 20 years. It's my right, right? of course you could, you designed it. It is your right to sell its design if you don't wish to use it.

But I choose to keep it completely off the market. Maybe I'm affraid of overpopulation or something. Is that okay?

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Do you not have the right to also keep your discovery secret? If you don't sell anything, then you would inherently be keeping it secret.

Secrets are quite different. If I do not get a patent for my discovery, some other guy could make the same discovery himself and I'd be legally powerless to stop him. This may seem trivial, but most modern patents are issued for innovations that are fairly obvious. A typical patent lawsuit results when someone unknowingly "re-invents" something that was already patented.

[Gus]

Ideas aren't stealable...

[perdidochas]

Gus wrote: Ideas aren't stealable...

That's easy to say if you've never developed an idea to the point of being a published/usable product.

[Gus]

perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: Ideas aren't stealable...

That's easy to say if you've never developed an idea to the point of being a published/usable product.
And of course you'd know if I had or not, right? Thought not.

Irrelevant ad hominem response anyway. Ideas may be the only entities that each person naturally and rightfully owns...current technology also considered, ideas aren't stealable. One certainly is not stealing an idea by merely laying eyes on something and then thinking about it (i.e. constructing one's own idea about it), contrary to the assertions of intellectual property advocates. Does the object mystically hold the idea until I look at it and the idea suddenly flies into my head?

[perdidochas]

Gus wrote: perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: Ideas aren't stealable...

That's easy to say if you've never developed an idea to the point of being a published/usable product.
And of course you'd know if I had or not, right? Thought not.

Irrelevant ad hominem response anyway. Ideas may be the only entities that each person naturally and rightfully owns...current technology also considered, ideas aren't stealable. One certainly is not stealing an idea by merely laying eyes on something and then thinking about it (i.e. constructing one's own idea about it), contrary to the assertions of intellectual property advocates. Does the object mystically hold the idea until I look at it and the idea suddenly flies into my head?

My point is that ideas often take a lot of work and effort to go beyond just a simple idea. That work deserves to be rewarded. Also, I was making a blanket statement. I have worked on products that were published. I consider those products to be my work, and I rightfully deserve to control those products.

Patents, etc., began during the Renaissance. IMHO, they are the reason that invention and inventors flourished after that time. After all, if you can benefit from the ideas you perfect, you are much more likely to perfect them.

[RueTheDay]

perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: Ideas aren't stealable...

That's easy to say if you've never developed an idea to the point of being a published/usable product.
And of course you'd know if I had or not, right? Thought not.

Irrelevant ad hominem response anyway. Ideas may be the only entities that each person naturally and rightfully owns...current technology also considered, ideas aren't stealable. One certainly is not stealing an idea by merely laying eyes on something and then thinking about it (i.e. constructing one's own idea about it), contrary to the assertions of intellectual property advocates. Does the object mystically hold the idea until I look at it and the idea suddenly flies into my head?

My point is that ideas often take a lot of work and effort to go beyond just a simple idea. That work deserves to be rewarded. Also, I was making a blanket statement. I have worked on products that were published. I consider those products to be my work, and I rightfully deserve to control those products.

It deserves to be rewarded? That sounds like an entitlement mindset to me. Very similar to the argument certain people make in favor of things like living wage legislation - everyone DESERVES to make at least $20 an hour. In reality, no one deserves any such thing. If your idea is so great, then execute on it and bring a superior product to market. Don't expect the government to grant you exclusive distribution privileges, which is all copyrights and patents are.

Quote:
Patents, etc., began during the Renaissance. IMHO, they are the reason that invention and inventors flourished after that time. After all, if you can benefit from the ideas you perfect, you are much more likely to perfect them.

Go up a few posts and read what I wrote about the origin of patents and copyrights. They started out as government trade regulations, not as a mechanism for protecting authors and inventors.

[Atlas Bergeron]

RueTheDay wrote:

It deserves to be rewarded? That sounds like an entitlement mindset to me. Very similar to the argument certain people make in favor of things like living wage legislation - everyone DESERVES to make at least $20 an hour. In reality, no one deserves any such thing. If your idea is so great, then execute on it and bring a superior product to market. Don't expect the government to grant you exclusive distribution privileges, which is all copyrights and patents are.
You deserve the products of your mind as sold on the market.

[RueTheDay]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: RueTheDay wrote:

It deserves to be rewarded? That sounds like an entitlement mindset to me. Very similar to the argument certain people make in favor of things like living wage legislation - everyone DESERVES to make at least $20 an hour. In reality, no one deserves any such thing. If your idea is so great, then execute on it and bring a superior product to market. Don't expect the government to grant you exclusive distribution privileges, which is all copyrights and patents are.
You deserve the products of your mind as sold on the market.

Rather, you deserve whatever you can get from selling the products of your mind on the market. You do NOT deserve a special privilege from the government that enables you to prevent other people from selling something on the market.

Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Quote: Rather, you deserve whatever you can get from selling the products of your mind on the market. You do NOT deserve a special privilege from the government that enables you to prevent other people from selling something on the market.
don't be silly Rue, for that to be true, you must prove that intelectual property is not property. Which you have not done. You get a "special privelege" from the government for all your other property.

Quote: Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something.
'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'

[Gus]

perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: Ideas aren't stealable...

That's easy to say if you've never developed an idea to the point of being a published/usable product.
And of course you'd know if I had or not, right? Thought not.

Irrelevant ad hominem response anyway. Ideas may be the only entities that each person naturally and rightfully owns...current technology also considered, ideas aren't stealable. One certainly is not stealing an idea by merely laying eyes on something and then thinking about it (i.e. constructing one's own idea about it), contrary to the assertions of intellectual property advocates. Does the object mystically hold the idea until I look at it and the idea suddenly flies into my head?

My point is that ideas often take a lot of work and effort to go beyond just a simple idea. That work deserves to be rewarded. Also, I was making a blanket statement. I have worked on products that were published. I consider those products to be my work, and I rightfully deserve to control those products.

Patents, etc., began during the Renaissance. IMHO, they are the reason that invention and inventors flourished after that time. After all, if you can benefit from the ideas you perfect, you are much more likely to perfect them.
The Labor Theory of Value is a joke...I hope I needn't say more on that. Regarding your second assertion, who is more likely to perfect a product? One company of a few men? Or many companies, perhaps hundreds of thousands of men? Anyway, I'm going to back out if this turns into a debate on the utility of patents...firstly I'm not educated enough on ecomomics, and secondly, it's nothing but a long complex line of speculation that rests upon nearly an infinite number of variables.

[Gus]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: 'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'
I don't think that is so in the case of ideas. Property of an idea is not a privelege; it is, like I said before, probably the only present case of a natural right of property...you absolutely own your thoughts and nobody can take those thoughts away from you (unless they disable your faculty for thought, which is something entirely different). It is not a moral issue when it comes to idea-theft. Idea-theft is not even currently possible.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Gus wrote: perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: perdidochas wrote: Gus wrote: Ideas aren't stealable...

That's easy to say if you've never developed an idea to the point of being a published/usable product.
And of course you'd know if I had or not, right? Thought not.

Irrelevant ad hominem response anyway. Ideas may be the only entities that each person naturally and rightfully owns...current technology also considered, ideas aren't stealable. One certainly is not stealing an idea by merely laying eyes on something and then thinking about it (i.e. constructing one's own idea about it), contrary to the assertions of intellectual property advocates. Does the object mystically hold the idea until I look at it and the idea suddenly flies into my head?

My point is that ideas often take a lot of work and effort to go beyond just a simple idea. That work deserves to be rewarded. Also, I was making a blanket statement. I have worked on products that were published. I consider those products to be my work, and I rightfully deserve to control those products.

Patents, etc., began during the Renaissance. IMHO, they are the reason that invention and inventors flourished after that time. After all, if you can benefit from the ideas you perfect, you are much more likely to perfect them.
The Labor Theory of Value is a joke...I hope I needn't say more on that. you do need to say more
Quote: Regarding your second assertion, who is more likely to perfect a product? One company of a few men? Or many companies, perhaps hundreds of thousands of men? depends on thier inteligence and the interest they have in actually developing the product. A small company of a few inteligent men will probably have more reason to develop the next best technology than a huge company which thinks it is almighty.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Gus wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote:
Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something. 'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'
I don't think that is so in the case of ideas. Property of an idea is not a privelege; it is, like I said before, probably the only present case of a natural right of property...you absolutely own your thoughts and nobody can take those thoughts away from you (unless they disable your faculty for thought, which is something entirely different). It is not a moral issue when it comes to idea-theft. Idea-theft is not even currently possible.
you do know I was saying that phrase sarcastically right? It was a reducto ad absurdium argument where I was rephrasing his wording to match a similar concept. It was meant to shoot down the original statement by saying a smiliar statement which was clearly false.

[Gus]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Gus wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote:
Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something. 'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'
I don't think that is so in the case of ideas. Property of an idea is not a privelege; it is, like I said before, probably the only present case of a natural right of property...you absolutely own your thoughts and nobody can take those thoughts away from you (unless they disable your faculty for thought, which is something entirely different). It is not a moral issue when it comes to idea-theft. Idea-theft is not even currently possible.
you do know I was saying that phrase sarcastically right? It was a reducto ad absurdium argument where I was rephrasing his wording to match a similar concept. It was meant to shoot down the original statement by saying a smiliar statement which was clearly false.
I know. Whether you were being sarcastic or not...what I said is still relevant: you can't steal ideas.

[LeopardPM]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: LeopardPM wrote: an opinion is one thing, but I am providing more than just that - I am building the foundation of an argument: do you disagree that each physical object is unique to itself? Do you disagree that ideas, our very thoughts, cannot be owned by others?
each physical object is uniuqe only becuase each physical object possesses differnt atoms in it.
However, a concept pertains to all entities of its class, and two chairs which are exactly the same (except, of course, they do not posses the same atoms) exist under the concept "chair" (or, to be more specific, tall wooden chair--or such).
You should read sometime on the definition of concepts within epistemology
I have and I understand the 'concept' of a chair, or a tree, or a rock, and how that is different than the material object. But this doesn't matter in our discussion.


Quote: Quote: Quote: he did NOT buid it. It was NOT his ideas which built it, it was yours--and he is coppying and stealing them from you.
Ideas don't build anything - labor does. Technology, knowledge, experience, insight, etc are all things (and thoughts) that direct labor in certain ways, but we cannot influence matter with just our thoughts).
and we cannot meaningfully influence matter without thoughts.
true, so?

Quote: why would someone farm if everything they farmed was to be stolen from them?
Quote: Why would someone build if people were simply going to conquire their home?
they wouldn't... but ideas cannot be stolen! When I steal your farm crop, you are left without a farm crop! When I use knowledge I learned from your actions (invention), you STILL have the knowledge, and you still have your invention- nothing was stolen!


Quote: Why would someone think if people who didn't were going to copy what they did and not allow them the benefit of thier own thoughts?
what? Are you asking why would people continue to invent things if others would benefit 'freely' from such inventions? because the prime motivation to 'invent' is not monetary...

Quote: Quote: Quote: Without you, he would have never been able to construct it, Says who? He obviously could have constructed it in the future if he was able to here!
what?
My sentence was rough, what I mean to say is: there obviously was not anything physical preventing him from constructing the invention, only a matter of figuring out the right formula... and that can happen through their own experience.

Quote: Quote: just as a thief could never be fed without the rich.
a theif steals actual property, physical matter - this is the very difference we are talking about
the difference is what you are mistaken about. There is no difference. In fact, I would consider the theif of intelectual property worse than the thief of matter. [/quote]
what has an 'intellectual thief' stolen? How is the 'victim' harmed?

Quote: Quote: Quote: You opinion is nothing short of evil. It holds that men have the right to iron which they hammer out, but not for [the design] of thier factory.
sure they have a right to the 'design' of their factory - just not to other people's factories. They are free to improve their factory, build it in any way they desire, and they have exclusive use of their property: their factory.
I think you are mistaken on definitions, for here you are contradicting everything that I said before (which I do not think you are intentionally doing) by "design" I mean blueprint. They intelectual base from which the factory is constructed. I mean that nobody has the right to copy your furnace (if you own the rights to your furnace)
I understand what you are saying - but repeating that people have a 'right' to own thoughts and ideas in other people's heads is what we are discussing, so stating that 'its wrong because I own the idea of my furnace' doesn't prove anything)

Quote: Quote: Quote: If I discover the bessemer process, you claim that I do not have the right to be the sole user, you claim others rights to rob me of my intelectual property.
Please don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed that you do not have the right to be 'sole user' of your idea.
actually, you have, multiple times. "
What belongs to you is YOUR steam engine, not his! He used his labor, his materials, and wrapped it all up into HIS steam engine. Are you suggesting that if I tie a stick to another in a particular way that no one else should be allowed to as well without paying me some sort of tribute? If you build a steam engine, then I 'copy' it, do you own the steam engine Ibuilt, with my materials... who owns it (the physical engine I built)?"
You have an ability to be the sole user of your invention, first off, the actual property is yours so the actual invention is yours to do with as you please. If you do not want others to gleen information (and thus try to copy it) then keep it hidden from sight. But if someone else creates the same thing, 'invents' it again, then you have no right to hinder its use by that person.


Quote: Quote: If you live in isolation, then no one can 'copy' it, or, if you choose to live with others, then keep the process to yourself and hide it from others.
so only hermits have the right to think and not be exploited?
exploited? 'right to think'? everyone has the 'right' to not be exploited and to 'think' - I am arguing that using information or knowledge learned, no matter if someone else discovered such knowledge first, is NOT exploitation or 'non-thinking'

Quote: But if someone else also comes up with the exact same 'process' (as witnessed by your Bessemer example: the Chinese) they are free to use THEIR process as well. It doesn't matter if they came up with the same process through their own discovery, or by trying to reverse-engineer yours, or however. No one has robbed you of anything.
sure they have. read above.

Quote: Quote: Quote: If property is determined by the mixing of effort, then there can be no better example than intelectual property--for it is pure mental effort with the mixing of nothing material.
yup, and as long as it stays in the realm of your mind, then it is 'yours' - your thoughts. But if you show others this process, the information they glean from such exposure is theirs. You do not own their thoughts, just as they do not own yours.
but you own the eccomic benefits gained from the invention of the process. You do not own the information in thier mind, that would be just silly.
you own the 'economic benefits' of what you create in the material world - if you make 10 steam engines then sell them, you get the money. If you see a steam engine someone else created and then go and make 10 more yourself, then you get the money.

Quote: Quote: Quote: So, even under classical georgist definitions, where land, etc. belongs to "society", an idea must always belong to the individual who developed it.
what?
are you a georgist?
yuck! never!

Quote: Quote: Quote: An invention is the creation of something out of what was nothing--there can be no better way to demonstrate the "creation of value".
not at all! An invention is not a 'creation' of matter,
i didn't say matter. Don't use strawmen.
its not a strawman, I think you misunderstood me. You claimed that an invention was a creation out of 'nothing' (which implies no matter). Which is not necessarily true. If the invention is a 'good', then it is made of matter and that matter existed previous to the invention. The 'inventing' process just rearranged the matter.

Quote: the idea is the amalgamation of thoughts from a wide variety of other people, possibly mixed in with some new discovery of the natural world, then, this idea is put into the world by transforming matter in ways described by the thought patterns.
all seems good

Quote: The resultant physical object definitely IS property, and all the thoughts behind it reside in the inventors head and are his, but the thoughts which come from another's perception of the 'invention' are HIS.
yep, the thoughts are, but the design (as represented by the physical entity of the engine, etc.) is not

Quote: Quote: Quote: You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong.
wrong...immoral... and impossible
exaclty[/quote]
and yet, you would do this.[/quote]
nope, read above.


Quote: Quote: ...and the copper windings on the motor, the shape of the magnets, the metal used in the housing, even the armature and 'axle' used in 'your' motor are the referent of other people's 'inventions'... knowledge is not a static thing, it has evolved since man began, with each generation building on the progress made by previous generations. It is our human legacy. certainly when someone dies (or rather, twenty or so years after they die), the blueprints would go to what could be considered a "state of nature"--except anybody could use them and in unlimited number.
why is this? Why when someone dies or a given amount of time has passed? This doesn't happen to REAL property: if I own this chair, then I own it until I die and I can pass it on to whomever I wish allowing the ownership to carry on. Why not with so-called 'intellectual' property?

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is what I sell to make a living after I have developed it. It is not logical under natural law that if a man put effort into something which will benifit himself and all those who buy it, that others have the right to steal that something and benefit themselves from his labor.
whether or not you 'sell' an object which you created along certain designs has no matter here. Effort or labor does not equate to value.
how about use? does use equate to value?
use or utility does not equate to value, value is a property in and of itself and is completely subjective and personal

Quote: oh, I know, what if putting my intelectual effort improves something's use without harming anybody? Does that equate value with the use of effort? Does it? does it?
although I am not understanding your point, I would have to say "no"

Quote: Quote: If others value your invention, or the products thereof, then you are free to sell them (you might want to keep the process secret to possibly enhance the time of monopoly like profits).
so if a computer hacker can determine how to steal Movies, then he has the right to? If the same hacker can steal windows software, he has the rights to them?
depends on the contracts involved and the ownership of such things. Let's say I purchased software with a contract which stated that the software purchase was not a complete transfer of ownership, rather, had specific restrictions on the use of the software with penalties prescribed therein. Lets say I was thus bound by contract upon my purchase to not make and/or sell duplicates of the software. That is easy enough. Basically same effect as Patent, yet doesn't require a governmental agency to enforce, only courts. Now, if I saw windows working on a machine, and I then went home and wrote an operating system which looked and felt just like windows, that would be OK.

Quote: Quote: But others are just as free to produce things based on their thoughts as well, even if their thoughts were triggered from gleaning your product. If you don't want others to benefit or be exposed, then hide it away - that is also your right. But once shared, either by sale or training, the object (and hints to its production) are owned by no one.
of course you have the right to hide it. But you also have the right to sell it without others stealing your process.
you keep suggesting that this is some 'right', but have yet to offer any argument regarding where or why this right exists.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Let us look at movies, music, and video games.
All of the above are completely digitized and fully available illegally on the internet for free. They are in unlimited supply (or, rather, near unlimited), since all it takes is the click of any person's button to replicate them and deliver them within seconds. Who is being harmed by these transactions?
no one. I see you choose to use items which have a near-zero production cost, interesting.
video games and movies don't have any production cost?
production cost AFTER the original is developed - the 'copies' have near-zero production costs.

Quote: Quote: Quote: The people who own the intelectual property rights are being harmed.
Only if you consider a person being denied an immoral monopoly over the thoughts and free ability of others as 'harm'!
immoral? you mean the "immoral" rights to your labor and thier result?
I state that everyone has a right to their labor - if you invent a steam engine, THAT steam engine is obviously yours to do with as you please. If you see a steam engine working and then go home and make a steam engine just like it, THAT steam engine is your property. But the maker of the first steam engine has no claim on other steam engines made, whether or not they are based on his design.

Quote: Quote: There are many ways through contract law which can extend the normal length of proprietary time an inventor may retain exclusivity over his process.
ok... what is your point?
meaning that a governmental patent office is not necessary to perform most of the functions that patents and copyright do.

Quote:
Quote: Quote: All that they are reduced to is a pattern of digital 0's and 1's--the same as any "idea"--but that patern is what is unique, and that pattern is what is owned.
no, patterns can't be owned, only physical property - thus the actual media/location where the 1's and 0's are retained.

Quote: Those who developed the movies, wrote the songs, and created the video games should be the only people who can make a profit from such invention.
Says who? There are plenty of ways that these people can earn money from their efforts - live concerts, private engagements, etc.
yep, there are certainly lots of ways to make money. Dont see a point here though...
*looks around corner*
point is - inventors can make money without patents.

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is thier property, and it is being stolen every single day.
If something was stolen, then it would be missing... the only thing 'missing' from a non-IP society would be the legalized and enforced monopoly.
oh, I know whats missing! I know whats missing!

maybe the profit which could have been made off the product of your labor?
so if I am the first to sell lemonade on my block, and someone opens up a competing stand and undercuts me and I then go out of business, can I sue him for 'stealing' my 'potential profits'?

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Let's go to Crusoe Land again:
Two people on an island, one builds a shack to protect from rain. They other sees this nifty invention and builds one as well - is the first person harmed, did he lose something, should he own both shacks? If he didn't want his idea to be a free positive externality to the other then he could have hidden it from view, that is his right as well. If he desired profit from his idea he could charge folks to view it, to be trained in building it, or he could be hired to build replicas of it. Whatever the case is, if the second person gets his idea to build a shack from the first, or from watching one tree fall upon another, the idea in HIS head is unique to him, is not owned by the first, and he is always free to put to use his labor guided by his thoughts in whatever manner he chooses and the resulting products are his property. The fact that the first person thought of, and then proceeded to build, the first instance of a particular product does not convey some sort of obligation upon others to restrict the use of their own labor. THe only thing that it means is a matter of historical recodr - person A was the 'first', for whatever that is worth.

This is all very nice, but you have completely ignored my "for profit" contention.
The second man could build a shack exactly the same, but he could not make a profit off selling shacks which are exaclty the same to others. That right would rest soley with the owner of the first shack.
I don't believe you mention anything about 'profit' in your first post. So, you are saying a man could build a shack, yet split-ownership with the first person for some reason. Being able to sell or destroy a thing is one of the key aspects of ownership
what is this about splitting ownership? I don't know what you are talking about.
'splitting ownership' - like if someone partly owns the bike you ride (say 10%), and you sell it, then you are obligated to reimburse them 10% of the proceeds. You are saying that since one person builds something first, then he gets to be part-owner of all the things like it built by others (like a royalty fee or something). If a person cannot rightly retain all of the proceeds of a sale of an object, then the ownership is split with whomever else gets the remaining portion.

[RueTheDay]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: Rather, you deserve whatever you can get from selling the products of your mind on the market. You do NOT deserve a special privilege from the government that enables you to prevent other people from selling something on the market.
don't be silly Rue, for that to be true, you must prove that intelectual property is not property. Which you have not done. You get a "special privelege" from the government for all your other property.

Well, yes, property rights are fundamentally a construct of society, and enforced by government decree. Nevertheless, there are important differences between tangible objects and ideas. For one, tangible objects are by their very nature exclusive. If one person is using a hammer, no other people can use that hammer at that particular time. The same is not true for an idea. This is a fact of physical reality, independent of any system of property rights or government.

Quote:
Quote: Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something.
'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'

See above.

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: LeopardPM wrote: an opinion is one thing, but I am providing more than just that - I am building the foundation of an argument: do you disagree that each physical object is unique to itself? Do you disagree that ideas, our very thoughts, cannot be owned by others?
each physical object is uniuqe only becuase each physical object possesses differnt atoms in it.
However, a concept pertains to all entities of its class, and two chairs which are exactly the same (except, of course, they do not posses the same atoms) exist under the concept "chair" (or, to be more specific, tall wooden chair--or such).
You should read sometime on the definition of concepts within epistemology
I have and I understand the 'concept' of a chair, or a tree, or a rock, and how that is different than the material object. But this doesn't matter in our discussion.


Quote: Quote: Quote: he did NOT buid it. It was NOT his ideas which built it, it was yours--and he is coppying and stealing them from you.
Ideas don't build anything - labor does. Technology, knowledge, experience, insight, etc are all things (and thoughts) that direct labor in certain ways, but we cannot influence matter with just our thoughts).
and we cannot meaningfully influence matter without thoughts.
true, so? so there is a clear value in having the correct thoughts

Quote: Quote: why would someone farm if everything they farmed was to be stolen from them?
Quote: Why would someone build if people were simply going to conquire their home?
they wouldn't... but ideas cannot be stolen! When I steal your farm crop, you are left without a farm crop! When I use knowledge I learned from your actions (invention), you STILL have the knowledge, and you still have your invention- nothing was stolen! the potentiol gains I had were stolen. Is that not all the farm crop was? The potentiol value it would give you when you brought it to market, or put it in your mouth?

Quote: Quote: Why would someone think if people who didn't were going to copy what they did and not allow them the benefit of thier own thoughts?
what? Are you asking why would people continue to invent things if others would benefit 'freely' from such inventions? because the prime motivation to 'invent' is not monetary... surely people do pursue knowledge for reasons other than personal gain. Heck, people do many things for other reason's than monetary gain--like reading a good book. This does not mean that the author of that book should not have the right to distribute [i.e. sell] ]his material, and nobody deserves to take that right from him. It is his words, the pattern is his own.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Without you, he would have never been able to construct it, Says who? He obviously could have constructed it in the future if he was able to here!
what?
My sentence was rough, what I mean to say is: there obviously was not anything physical preventing him from constructing the invention, only a matter of figuring out the right formula... and that can happen through their own experience. ok. And your point is?

Quote: Quote: Quote: just as a thief could never be fed without the rich.
a theif steals actual property, physical matter - this is the very difference we are talking about
the difference is what you are mistaken about. There is no difference. In fact, I would consider the theif of intelectual property worse than the thief of matter.
what has an 'intellectual thief' stolen? How is the 'victim' harmed?[/quote]he has lost the potentiol wealth that the value of his creation (his 'pattern') would give him were he to put it on market.--a truely enourmous amount.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You opinion is nothing short of evil. It holds that men have the right to iron which they hammer out, but not for [the design] of thier factory.
sure they have a right to the 'design' of their factory - just not to other people's factories. They are free to improve their factory, build it in any way they desire, and they have exclusive use of their property: their factory.
I think you are mistaken on definitions, for here you are contradicting everything that I said before (which I do not think you are intentionally doing) by "design" I mean blueprint. They intelectual base from which the factory is constructed. I mean that nobody has the right to copy your furnace (if you own the rights to your furnace)
I understand what you are saying - but repeating that people have a 'right' to own thoughts and ideas in other people's heads is what we are discussing, so stating that 'its wrong because I own the idea of my furnace' doesn't prove anything) are you accusing me of begging the question? Becuase my original statement was simply a restatement of what I believed, it was not intended to be a logical proof.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If I discover the bessemer process, you claim that I do not have the right to be the sole user, you claim others rights to rob me of my intelectual property.
Please don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed that you do not have the right to be 'sole user' of your idea.
actually, you have, multiple times. "
What belongs to you is YOUR steam engine, not his! He used his labor, his materials, and wrapped it all up into HIS steam engine. Are you suggesting that if I tie a stick to another in a particular way that no one else should be allowed to as well without paying me some sort of tribute? If you build a steam engine, then I 'copy' it, do you own the steam engine Ibuilt, with my materials... who owns it (the physical engine I built)?"
You have an ability to be the sole user of your invention, first off, the actual property is yours so the actual invention is yours to do with as you please. If you do not want others to gleen information (and thus try to copy it) then keep it hidden from sight. But if someone else creates the same thing, 'invents' it again, then you have no right to hinder its use by that person. and you leave it impossible to place something on a market without loosing all rights to it.

And what if someone spied on your invention while you were keeping it "secret"? Would they then have the right to distribute it, even though you never indended them to see it (you took every measure you could to prevent it.)

Quote: Quote: Quote: If you live in isolation, then no one can 'copy' it, or, if you choose to live with others, then keep the process to yourself and hide it from others.
so only hermits have the right to think and not be exploited?
exploited? 'right to think'? everyone has the 'right' to not be exploited and to 'think' - I am arguing that using information or knowledge learned, no matter if someone else discovered such knowledge first, is NOT exploitation or 'non-thinking' there is a difference between knowledge and invention. Knowledge is not man made, invention is. Invention belongs to the inventor. Knowledge is universal and can be claimed by nobody (only the discover can be claimed, but you cannot demand a fee from someone becuase they are using thier ideas in thier reasoning).

Quote: Quote: Quote: An invention is the creation of something out of what was nothing--there can be no better way to demonstrate the "creation of value".
not at all! An invention is not a 'creation' of matter,
i didn't say matter. Don't use strawmen.
its not a strawman, I think you misunderstood me. You claimed that an invention was a creation out of 'nothing' (which implies no matter). Which is not necessarily true. If the invention is a 'good', then it is made of matter and that matter existed previous to the invention. The 'inventing' process just rearranged the matter.[/quote]an invention is a creation of something out of nothing. Originally, the iron you laid your hands on had no value but what it was as iron. If you make an engine out of it, you create value (you bring value from nowhere, you create it out of nothing. Like taking a peble and making a boulder).


Quote: Quote: the idea is the amalgamation of thoughts from a wide variety of other people, possibly mixed in with some new discovery of the natural world, then, this idea is put into the world by transforming matter in ways described by the thought patterns.
all seems good

Quote: The resultant physical object definitely IS property, and all the thoughts behind it reside in the inventors head and are his, but the thoughts which come from another's perception of the 'invention' are HIS.
yep, the thoughts are, but the design (as represented by the physical entity of the engine, etc.) is not

Quote: Quote: Quote: You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong.
wrong...immoral... and impossible
exaclty
and yet, you would do this.[/quote]
nope, read above.


Quote: Quote: ...and the copper windings on the motor, the shape of the magnets, the metal used in the housing, even the armature and 'axle' used in 'your' motor are the referent of other people's 'inventions'... knowledge is not a static thing, it has evolved since man began, with each generation building on the progress made by previous generations. It is our human legacy. certainly when someone dies (or rather, twenty or so years after they die), the blueprints would go to what could be considered a "state of nature"--except anybody could use them and in unlimited number.
why is this? Why when someone dies or a given amount of time has passed?[/quote]after they die, they no longer hold any property. The reason for the time afterwards is so that if a buisness bought the contract, then it would not be worthless.[/quote]

Quote: This doesn't happen to REAL property: if I own this chair, then I own it until I die and I can pass it on to whomever I wish allowing the ownership to carry on. Why not with so-called 'intellectual' property? hmm... interesting question, I will have to think a little longer about it. Give me some time.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: It is what I sell to make a living after I have developed it. It is not logical under natural law that if a man put effort into something which will benifit himself and all those who buy it, that others have the right to steal that something and benefit themselves from his labor.
whether or not you 'sell' an object which you created along certain designs has no matter here. Effort or labor does not equate to value.
how about use? does use equate to value?
use or utility does not equate to value, value is a property in and of itself and is completely subjective and personal no, value is determined by the market. Use is subjective and personal. I believe you have them switched.

Quote: Quote: oh, I know, what if putting my intelectual effort improves something's use without harming anybody? Does that equate value with the use of effort? Does it? does it?
although I am not understanding your point, I would have to say "no" I was saying that I created value--and the value created belongs to me.

Quote: Quote: Quote: If others value your invention, or the products thereof, then you are free to sell them (you might want to keep the process secret to possibly enhance the time of monopoly like profits).
so if a computer hacker can determine how to steal Movies, then he has the right to? If the same hacker can steal windows software, he has the rights to them?
depends on the contracts involved and the ownership of such things. Let's say I purchased software with a contract which stated that the software purchase was not a complete transfer of ownership, rather, had specific restrictions on the use of the software with penalties prescribed therein. Lets say I was thus bound by contract upon my purchase to not make and/or sell duplicates of the software. That is easy enough. Basically same effect as Patent, yet doesn't require a governmental agency to enforce, only courts. Now, if I saw windows working on a machine, and I then went home and wrote an operating system which looked and felt just like windows, that would be OK. this is quite an interesting suggestion. Rather than creating a government agency which deals with such things, they are dealt with by common law. I encourage you to go farther on this point, you may have me drawn into this line of thought.

But, just one question. What if you snuck into microsofts headquarters, broke into thier mainframe, and downloaded thier program and began selling it. Would it be prosecutable? Would you be stealing?

I am pretty sure that we agree now. If you had said your solution to patents earlier, this would have been a much shorter debate. If you had retained a person's right to uphold a contract with the reciever of thier property, then we could have easily come to some agreement.

Also, I believe I see your points more clearly now. I am pretty sure my emotions were getting ahead of me and as I was getting enraged that you were claiming that if I invent a revolutionary new computer, I do not have the right to keep that technology as my own.

[LeopardPM]

Atlas,
Contracts can substitute ALOT of what patent law does, but it is impossible to force people to agree to the contract. As you had an example of a thief sneaking into microsoft and copying the software - sure, they trespassed and committed all manner of crime, but then what? What if they showed some code to another programmer and that programmer got ideas that he incorporated into his software - the programmer didn't sign a contract, the thief can be prosecuted for his criminal activities, but the programmer gets away scott-free.

Quote: and you leave it impossible to place something on a market without loosing all rights to it.
true. But I am suggesting that there are no 'rights' to knowledge, so the inventor loses nothing.

Quote: no, value is determined by the market. Use is subjective and personal. I believe you have them switched.
'market value' is determined by the market, which is an algemation of all the personal values within that market. It all boils down to individual values, which are subjective, which makes the market value subjective as well.

Quote: Quote: Quote: oh, I know, what if putting my intelectual effort improves something's use without harming anybody? Does that equate value with the use of effort? Does it? does it?
although I am not understanding your point, I would have to say "no"
I was saying that I created value--and the value created belongs to me.
Do I own the value that I create to my neighbors by making my lawn nicer? Sure, my property value may improve, but theirs may as well, and sure as heck can not lay claim to getting a check from them when they sell their house, right? 'Value' is an idea, a mental creation, it is subjective and individual to each of us... and is 'unownable'.

Quote: this is quite an interesting suggestion. Rather than creating a government agency which deals with such things, they are dealt with by common law. I encourage you to go farther on this point, you may have me drawn into this line of thought.
Contract protection is something I believe in, yet, I haven't spent much time delving into the guts of it.

Quote: But, just one question. What if you snuck into microsofts headquarters, broke into thier mainframe, and downloaded thier program and began selling it. Would it be prosecutable? Would you be stealing?
I would have trespassed, possibly vandalized, but stealing? No, because nothing was stolen, Microsoft still retains all of its property and has no claim to future possible sales or 'value'.

There is a rather large debate going on in Libertarian/propertarian circles regarding IP, I am sure this point is addressed yet I do not know the current state of the debate.

A question: What if two people totally independent of each other developed the same, or nearly identical inventions - which one 'owns' this intellectual property? The first one? Why? The second one spent just as much thought, time, whatever as the first.


Quote: Quote: what has an 'intellectual thief' stolen? How is the 'victim' harmed? he has lost the potentiol wealth that the value of his creation (his 'pattern') would give him were he to put it on market.--a truely enourmous amount.

knowledge is worthless without production, and it is from production which people reap profits. An invention accomplishes some task, right? And that task can always be accomplished using multiple methods, or variations in method - each of which have pros and cons. Does an inventor have rights to profit? Only the profit he can obtain from the sale of his knowledge - not of the production of goods by people he hasn't contracted with. Does this mean that this strips out all profit motive from inventing? Not at all! How many shovel makers are there out there, cup makers, table makers, car makers, computer makers, Accounting software, etc. Each business desires to find a better way to out compete their competitor and thus have incentive to research and discover (and possibly make it harder for others to reverse engineer their designs, but that is truly a hard task) and they will gain an initial advantage over others when their product is first brought to market, in addition to having the reputation of being the first discoverer (which implies a greater knowledge about the invention and the processes that surround it). Now, from the consumer point of view, killing IP would be a great boon - there would be less time (and money) spent 're-inventing' the wheel: for instance, software - each software maker creates their own subroutines to handle specific tasks, like displaying graphics, dealing with input, or accessing databases, etc... without IP, the best routines would tend to be used industry wide which might even tend to make software more compatible on the whole. On one hand, the operating systems have taken on this task of standardization, like microsofts 'direct x' routines which are available for other developers to use and save time from recreation, but, if no IP existed, then the best parts of direct x would tend to be used, and the parts of direct x which may not be so good would be substituted by competing routines. The result would be faster development cycles, accelerated gains in efficiency, and would greatly chang the landscape of how software and computers interacted. As far as money-making possibilities (I don't know if you are familiar with the computer gaming industry), game makers now create 'super manuals', guides to using their games with tricks and hints. These manuals are created along side of the game itself and sell for another 50% of the games price in stores. These manuals are virtually indispensible to playing the game, especially online games in which you compete against other players. This is a way for a company to capitalize on its 'discovery' - the sale of the specific knowledge regarding the discovery.

I think I have digressed, or possibly even ranted here. I will stop now.