tadmjones

hmm , first give definitions of some terms of your own 'here', 'challenge', 'accurate' and 'anybody' and then 'DOES'

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/chicago-anti-trump-protester-safety-was-first-concern-643012675800 An interview from one of the organizers of the protest in Chicago. It sounds like leftist violence to me. Disregarding police orders, planning to disrupt a private event, all in an effort to 'shut down' opposing views, perhaps not necessarily leftist but certainly civil disobedience tinged with the threat of violence or the planning thereof. There in Chicago , but I don't remember seeing any WWVMD tshirts(what would von Mises do). Stopping the event , even if it worked to Trump's favor in the following media hype was probably the best decision of the day.

I read it a long time ago , probably have to revisit it. Darwinism, neodarwirism and all things scientific re evolution would better be integrated with cognative science , no? Philosophy can lead you to better science and more so probably with a better philosophy, but we need to be very careful minding the p's and q's , yes ?,for keeping them in their appropriate boxes.

I am finding Spooner's arguments to be very interesting and credible, especially how far he extends and follows his implications to their logical conclusions. Thanks to those in these threads who have brought exposure to his ideas.

Watt made more money post 1800 , and you claim the cause was the expiration of the patent? Nothing to do with the capital accumulation and therefore more capital available in the aggregate to provide more customers,for his machines, the growth of the industrial revolution wasn't a link in the causal chain? You know the one that grew leaps and bounds from the efficiencies gained from improved steam engines? You have claimed innovations in the biotech industries haven't grown since the 'impositions' of IP to that industry, have they slowed because of it ? Not that I believe IP validity rests on an utilitarian premise, just questioning your logic and analogies.

I believe private property is more fundamental to the nature of LFC and competition a consequence of trade/markets between/among owners of property. A's idea and its implementation via Machine A are as unique and concrete as his beach house, they are equally scare. If B paying A for use of A's idea is theft, then A withholding his idea would be a punishable act committed by A on B and the rest of humanity? My understanding of Watt's patent for the steam condenser is that he improved on an existing technology , applied and received a patent for the improvement and began selling and installing his machines. His customers eventually began withholding payments after others infringed on the patent and began selling and constructing similar machines calling the validity of the patent into question. He sued and the court found for Watt, though his "competitors" were not forced at gun point to reimburse stolen or misappropriated royalties the disputes were settled through arbitration between the parties involved. It also seems efficiencies and improvements to his designs came from Watt not wanting to participate in partnerships or co-license agreements eg sun and planet gearing, so innovation sparked by purposeful non infringement.

The only harm relevant to Man A in use of his Machine A as a service to his life by the trade he can garner in the market for Machine A is Machine B, or more rightly labelled, Machine Ab. To say that Man B can take Man A's idea then incorporate and manufacture it into a machine and leave Man A still in possesson of his idea for the Machine A due to the 'copyableness' of ideas, may be true. But it is also true that when B brings the Machine Ab to market it becomes a harm/threat in the form of competition to the trade of Machine A, as would any Machine Ax. It would seem the only way for Man A to protect himself from such threat would be to not bring Machine(s) A to market because so doing would allow B(and C, D ect.) to take and incorporate his idea and use it against his use of the idea as a service to his life in the trade of his Machine. Without protection of his property in his marketable idea, what other than recreation or curiousity would make it worthwhile to create innovation? What harm has come to Man B if IP requires that Man B pay A for use of A's idea incorporated into anything B brings to market? or C or D ect? Is it that the gift of innovation was supposed to given freely by A to all comers, because without A's idea B or anyone else would be able to garner no trade in Machine Ax , without A there is no Machine A let alone an Ab, Ac or Ad. The copiers are not being punished , harmed or being put at any disadvantage by having to pay for use of A's property on A's terms any more than if they were paying him rent for use of his beach house. Anti- IP certainly seems to want to have the view for free.(and the towels)

hyperbole IP , at least how I understand the principles involved, is not about granting special protections "in the marketplace" as much as trying to develope a system that recognizes and protects rights to property " in the marketplace". As stated it is a very complex topic and trying to keep or identify the proper context proves to be difficult. How could suing over patent infringements be tantamount to the threat of violence? It's akin to saying that filing a police report about a burglary is an act of vigilante justice.

To me the anti IP argument usually boils down to the physical ability to make "copies" and equating the practical with the moral.

I fail to see paying a royalty to an inventor as being forced to live for the inventor's sake. Copiers should have ,at least , the decency to ask before enjoying benefits conferred on them by those who create.

Repairman , but what about Lincoln or Obama? I assume Lincoln views on slavery were known prior to his being elected, and Obama had been trumpeting the passage of the ACA in two election cycles.

Egoism is also not challenged by identification of objective facts. The acts of identifiying and recognizing discrete, unique and concrete entities are products of rational thought. If I build a house there is no reason to suppose I could force you to use it and charge you a fee for it. But every common sense expectation that if I allow you access to its use that I would not be prohibited from charging a price. Nor would it be considered that simply becasue my house exists, you have a right to its use. The fact my house exists is no threat to your ability to build a house and use it as you see fit: rent it out, live in it or simply give it away, heck my house in no way interferes with your ability to build as many houses as you can or want. Does the idea that a LFC society would recognize my ' house monopoly rights' and incorporate a legal sytem that works to protect and provide a mechanism for settling grievances and possible compensation for any infringement of my 'monopoly' , mean that that monopoly was created or granted to me by the legal system ? Or is it a recognition of rights I possess, notwithstanding the system? I don't think 'monopoly' is actually the best term to describe the rights in property I hold in regard my house(an actual house), let alone what rights it may be termed I ' have' in acting to precur any potential houses. An invention , song, or novel are identifiable discrete entities , no? In the largest picture , an LFC society would be an 'artifical' and to whatever degree or more or less arbitrary construct. With a foremest emphasise on being grounded in and founded on moral principles, yes? So when the commitee meeting is called to draw up the one bestest LFC handbook, I 'm going to propose the legal recognition of the right of the inventor to 1% , in perpituity or death whichever comes first, of the gross sales of his/her legally validiated patented widget, and lets say 97% of gross sales for the copyright holders of novels and songs for 8 years and 1% thereafter in perpituity or death of the first generation of the holders of those rights.

How is 'patentless' capitalism any less artificial? Or capitalism for that matter.

re watts example So it wasn't really Watts' gaining a patent that harmed himself and society at large , economically, just his enforcement of it ?

Wright's , Count To A Trillion was great, have yet to get any more of his , but plan to. Neal Stephenson is fantastic.