Intellectual property

[StrictlyLogical]

Just now, Devil's Advocate said:

You cannot feel his pain, but you can understand and share it.

Actually no.

The "squirrel in me" can "squirrel-understand... (qua squirrel?)" and "squirrel-share" it.

[Devil's Advocate]

Actually yes.

First off, there is no squirrel in you qua man; shared biology doesn't make you a man-squirrel.  Secondly, empathy is a vicarious experience.  Thirdly, let's not wander so far afield as to leave the realm of rights.

5) Squirrel nuts are not intellectual property.

 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

... if we honestly want to genuinely investigate whether there is property in intangibles, we cannot start off in a direction presupposing that property is only in tangibles.

While I can see how I may have given that impression, I don't believe I was.

18 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I think that my capacity to consume the values I produce is important because it's necessary for long-term planning, which is necessary for just about everything else.

A man's "capacity to consume whatever he produces" is another way of referring to his "property rights". 

However, I have not specified the nature of such "values" (whether tangible or not) nor made any suppositions about anybody's "rights" to them, beyond the identification that whoever produces should* also be able to consume.

*in order to live rationally

 

5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

So far this is a very narrow discussion of particular examples of property which does not rise to the level of breadth required to understand the reasons for property rights as such.

Precisely so.

 

If we jump straight into what kinds of things can be considered "property" then I'll declare that only tangibles count, because intangibles can be shared among an unlimited number of people without any loss to anybody, to which you'll say that it robs an inventor of the money he'd make from selling his permission to use his idea, to which I'll say that you can't lose what never belonged to you in the first place, at which point we'll be caught in a viscious cycle of "yuh-uh/nuh-uh".

 

So you're absolutely right; this is a very narrow discussion of the particular concretes which give rise to the concept of "property" (which, like any concept, begins with observations about concrete entities). We're starting small and working our way up to the heavy stuff.

 

4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Since for the moment in this discussion we want to abstract away property rights from the particular kinds of things in which property resides which we use as examples to investigate property rights, I think the main focus for now should not be the kinds of things subject to property rights but what differentiates the contexts where property rights do arise in various things and those contexts (with the very same kinds of various things) where rights do not arise. 

OK. I think that "property" stems from the moral principle that whoever produces X should be the one to "consume" X.

 

Also, at this point, I've also left "consumption" open-ended. Even with regards to concretes like houses and furniture, it doesn't mean literally stuffing X into one's face-hole; it's an extremely broad term.

 

Do you see any problems so far (either in subject matter or accuracy)?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Actually, I would like to refer to X1 and X2 in the abstract when possible.

I wouldn't.

 

I suspect that Rand's defense of IP suffered from a floating abstraction (or perhaps a reification; I've gotten rusty) that she failed to properly ground in reality. I'm fairly certain it was the idea of "communication".

She spoke at length about certain ideas, while omitting the details of who held them. This was fine (in fact, necessary) for any coherent discussion of things like "altruism" and "mysticism". However, at certain key integrations she would've needed to reintroduce those measurements (the fact that there is no such thing as an idea, outside of the mind that holds it) in order to form the proper conclusions, and it seems she forgot to.

 

I see this misconception of "communication" as central to her defense of IP, her dismissal of anarchism as "overoptimistic" and the entire Peikoff/Kelley issue (in which Peikoff so valiantly defended that error in "Fact and Value" and Kelley criticized it in "Truth and Toleration").

 

What I find so striking about it (and what I pointed out earlier, in this thread - I think it was to New Buddha?) is that this is an error one finds exclusively in her nonfiction work; every single one of Rand's fictional heroes portrays, through their words and actions, the proper way to treat ideas. If you look closely, in every single event that involves IP, she hedged the issue with other factors (from the Courtland contract to "Miracle Metal"); alternative justifications for her heroes' actions.

 

So, if you're willing to help me investigate, I believe a thorough concretization will be the key to resolving it once and for all.

 

PS:

 

Before anyone reading this concludes that I just hate Rand (or I just want unearned ideas or I'm just a secret Marxist or anything like that), let me point out that the view I'm advocating is the one that's consistent with Rand's fiction (which was her primary concern in her own life).

 

That's a verifiable assertion.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Harrison Danneskjold
Preemptive rebuttal

[Devil's Advocate]

6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

... So X1 subject to property rights and X2 not subject to property rights where X1 and X2 are the same "but for" what happened differently in the contexts to give rise to the property right in one case and not give rise to a property right in the other.

Actually, I would like to refer to X1 and X2 in the abstract when possible.

 

38 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I wouldn't...

Actually, I think StrictlyLogical's approach is worth engaging (as something new), provided there is some agreement to avoid:

1) obligations prior to contract,

2) rewards prior to sale, and

3) exemptions to laissez-faire capitalism.

[StrictlyLogical]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

OK. I think that "property" stems from the moral principle that whoever produces X should be the one to "consume" X.

 

Also, at this point, I've also left "consumption" open-ended. Even with regards to concretes like houses and furniture, it doesn't mean literally stuffing X into one's face-hole; it's an extremely broad term.

 

Do you see any problems so far (either in subject matter or accuracy)?

In English "consumption" is not a broad term and you cannot make it so.  Maybe it is different in your native language.

"Produces" also has a connotation but technically it can suffice, if we agree it means "creation or causation through some human agency, work, or effort".

 

Both of your messages are concerning.  I cannot know why you would want to shy away from abstract X1 and X2.  So I propose we dispense at first entirely with anything which property rights could attach to, but instead the right to life and the right to action, which PRECEDES X1 and X2 and the differences between them.  We should be able to directly formulate rights which "show up" as property rights to X1. 

 

Start with the right to life and why it implies a right to pursue and realize values?

[Devil's Advocate]

Whoa!  A right to realize values?!  Life, Liberty and the Realization of Happiness?

Sounds a little Bernie Sanders to me...  How about just starting with the right to life and why it implies a right to pursue and realize values?

[New Buddha]

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Actually, I think StrictlyLogical's approach is worth engaging (as something new), provided there is some agreement to avoid:

1) obligations prior to contract,

But the concept property (exclusive ownership/use) must exist prior to the execution a contract transferring ownership.  And the prior existence -- and respect of -- property is an obligation on all members of society.  The contract itself does not bring property into existence.

A contract only spells out the conditions under which the transfer of Title is to take place.

Edited April 6, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

In the case of patents, an obligation not to duplicate property exists prior to any opportunity to contract for ownership. Where does this obligation come from?

EDIT: We can agree that a concept of property must precede a concept of transferring property, and that a concept of duplicating property fits somewhere in between.  A concept to own something that implies others cannot own something by similar means is a contradiction.  This is an example of an obligation that exists prior to contracting for ownership, and I don’t see how a right to life supports it.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
elaboration

[New Buddha]

Where I'm not sure we are on the same page is agreeing that all types of property (Real, Chattel and Intellectual) are Concepts of Method.

Edited April 7, 2016 by New Buddha

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

In English "consumption" is not a broad term and you cannot make it so.  Maybe it is different in your native language.

According to Google:

Quote

con·sume

kənˈso͞om

verb

1. eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink).

    

   buy (goods or services).

   use up (a resource).

 

As to my native language, both of my grandmothers were English teachers.

 

6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I cannot know why you would want to shy away from abstract X1 and X2.

Normally, no; I'm sure it must seem baffling and slightly suspect, to observers such as yourself. That's why I thought it prudent to provide my reasons up-front, despite their somewhat incendiary nature (believe it or not, I usually don't try to be incendiary; it just comes naturally).

I'd be happy to clarify any particular part of that post, but I'm hesitant to restate it.

 

6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Start with the right to life and why it implies a right to pursue and realize values?

Sure. I'm game.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

10 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

 

Actually, I think StrictlyLogical's approach is worth engaging (as something new), provided there is some agreement to avoid:

1) obligations prior to contract,

2) rewards prior to sale, and

3) exemptions to laissez-faire capitalism.

 

There's no need to specify some frame of reference. We already have common ground to work from; it consists of Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

 

My problem is with referring to these things "in the abstract, when possible". It's analogous to when someone declares that "Capitalism is evil" and then, when pressed for concrete examples of "Capitalism", they point to various mixed economies. You couldn't convince that person of anything "in the abstract" because you're pointing to different things.

So too must we tackle IP with an eye on the concrete and literal meanings of these principles.

 

The rest of his suggestion was sound.

[StrictlyLogical]

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

According to Google:

Quote

con·sume

kənˈso͞om

verb

1. eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink).

    

   buy (goods or services).

   use up (a resource).

It is moot now, but you do see how narrow this is right?

I'm not going to list everything, that would be tedious.  Notice consume does not mean "use" which is broader than "use up".  You can use a diamond necklace after you make it, but you do not consume it, or use it up.  Also, note none of the alternative meanings of consume include "give away", or "modify", or "sell", or "rent", or "lend".... as such a right to consume X is much narrower than a proper bundle of rights to property.

 

I'm detecting an intellectual tone in our recent exchanges.  I have to think about what it signifies.  Just to be clear this process MUST be collaborative if I am to participate.  If that is not possible, then there is no point.

I'll come back to this... sometime.

[Devil's Advocate]

However you define it, the pursuit of property and the possession of it are separate actions and should be treated as such.  Whatever faults the Founding Fathers wrote into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, their intentional limitation of security to a Pursuit of Happiness was masterful.  Happiness isn't a possession that can be secured.  It's a personal pleasure that can only be achieved and maintained by the efficacy of self governing action.

EDIT:  The distinction of pursuit from acquisition is essential to understanding the counterargument for IP.

With regard to a right to pursue happiness (property), it's important to realize that a liberty to enslave is a contradiction in terms, so a freedom of action to pursue property cannot include coercion; man is a contractual animal, not an entitled beast.  Just as man is NOT free to take the property of others, he isn't free to impede their pursuit of property.  Doing so for any reason places him outside the sphere of a right to life and the just security of it.

As a member of the opposition to IP monopolies that impede the (re)creation of property by independent actions, I'm waiting for a proper defense of IP that doesn't require manipulation of a free market or a unilateral (contradictory) application of the Right to Life.  It's fine to say, "Inventors are a special breed of man that ought to be treated with unique privileges."  Just understand that special breeds fall outside the scope of justice and a right to life.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Devil's Advocate

[New Buddha]

2 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

man is a contractual animal, not an entitled beast.

But my ownership of my bicycle is not contingent upon my entering into a separate contract with you and/or every other member of Society by either a separate written agreement or, more generally, by the existence of a written Constitution.  It exists prior to any voluntary agreement I might choose to enter into with others.  The same goes for all my Rights.  They don't exist based on a Social Contract Theory.  I mean, there are some schools of thought that believe this to be the case, but that's not Objectivism's position.

Man is not a contractual animal.  Man SHOULD be a trading animal, because it is in his best interest.  And trading also presupposes ownership.

Edited April 7, 2016 by New Buddha

[Harrison Danneskjold]

8 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

It is moot now, but you do see how narrow this is right?

I'm not going to list everything, that would be tedious.  Notice consume does not mean "use" which is broader than "use up".  ...  Also, note none of the alternative meanings of consume include "give away", or "modify", or "sell", or "rent", or "lend".... as such a right to consume X is much narrower than a proper bundle of rights to property.

Yes; I do see that.

 

I asked what it means to take a value away from someone. You pointed that out as a derivative which failed to address the nature of "property rights" themselves - correctly.

I responded with a sketch of the role of "consumption" in long-term planning (and, by extension, human life) because, while it's a much narrower principle, I believe it conceptually precedes and serves as part of the basis for the Objectivist view of "property rights". At least that's how I've integrated it (so it stands to reason that it's the right place to start, especially if I'm wrong).

 

I would posit that " consumption" is broad enough for such a sketch, although not nearly broad enough to serve as any kind of substitute for "property rights".

 

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

The distinction of pursuit from acquisition is essential to understanding the counterargument for IP.

I think you're making the same mistake I made when I asked SL to define "taking value away".

 

The argument for IP doesn't involve taking values away from anybody. The way they see it, anything an inventor demands of his beneficiaries is rightfully his. He isn't taking anything from anybody - they are, if they fail to comply with any demand he might make.

 

That's not the right question to ask, here.

 

Believe it or not, this ultimately revolves around the nature of communication.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

8 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I'm detecting an intellectual tone in our recent exchanges.  I have to think about what it signifies.

2 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Believe it or not, this ultimately revolves around the nature of communication.

 

The irony is spectacular.

[Devil's Advocate]

23 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

...

The argument for IP doesn't involve taking values away from anybody. The way they see it, anything an inventor demands of his beneficiaries is rightfully his. He isn't taking anything from anybody - they are, if they fail to comply with any demand he might make.

...

Yes, but I'd describe that as counting your chickens before they hatch, and then counting everyone else's as your own.

[Devil's Advocate]

6 hours ago, New Buddha said:

...

Man is not a contractual animal.  Man SHOULD be a trading animal, because it is in his best interest.  And trading also presupposes ownership.

"Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)." ~ ARL, Individual Rights

--

This description of man, along with her position on altruism, is primarily what drew me to Objectivism in the first place.  I read your statement not as contradictory, but as essentially restating the obvious.  Yes, he is an animal that survives by trade and flourishes in a free market society.  Does that not imply a contractual animal to you?

And you can drop the references to social contract theory.  No one here is arguing for that.

[StrictlyLogical]

16 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

impede the (re)creation of property by independent actions

What is the meaning of actual recreation: A. starting from what? B. doing what C. to result in what?

in the following contexts:

1. Recreating an observed "physical object"

2. Recreating an "idea in the form of an invention/design/book"

[Devil's Advocate]

1A) The object itself, or recorded observations (or memory) of the object
1B) Reverse engineering the object (if available), or design based on observations (or memory)
1C) Duplication of the object

2A) Same as 1A
2B) Same as 1B
2C) Knowledge

[StrictlyLogical]

17 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

1A) The object itself, or recorded observations (or memory) of the object
1B) Reverse engineering the object (if available), or design based on observations (or memory)
1C) Duplication of the object

1A  - I see no matter or material in your "starting with" answer. 

1B - No "act" of forming the object  according to the design (you got that) from matter (still missing)?

1C - I assume you mean "a duplication of the object" or a second object having the same form. After all it IS a second object.

 

Let's nail down the answers to 1 before discussing 2.

[Devil's Advocate]

In your 1st context we can only start with the physical object, if available, or observation of it.

[StrictlyLogical]

That's only the half of it.. in order to create or recreate a physical object you need to start with materials like those of the original, before you do the acts to make the thing.  Without it you cant make a recreation.

[Devil's Advocate]

When you said "starting with", I presumed you meant an order of operations.  Obviously there would be something you are interested in recreating; an original.  Without it you wouldn't need materials.

Not trying to be snarky, but did you mean to jump to "doing what"?  I'm letting you set the pace and I want to avoid having to go back later to fill in tacit (but misunderstood on my part) directions.