tadmjones

It seems to me if you look at humankind and its history in a meta-view, you can see periods of progress and regress and specially in the developements of culture. Those cultures that work toward embracing reason and its application tend to progress, commerce developes and populations tend to expand. Does the expansion of the population bring unfortunate 'unintended' consequences? The theme of AS expresses this , I think. The moochers and the looters are only possible because of the productiveness of the rational. The 'better' the rational are at what they 'do', ultimately the more unintended moochers will be possible to try and devour the 'goods'. This can apply to different segments of the culture eg the academic world . 'Modern' philosophies come from more rational philosophies generating the environments that crackpots and the like( along with the actual malevolent types) can then invade and flourish.

"you can not own an idea" is a meaningless phrase outside of commerce.

IP violations can only occur in a commercial setting. If an idea or method or product is offered for sale without the permission of the original owner a violation has occured. The only context in which IP and all its derivatives are relevant, are in a division of labor society.(.)

get out ,ex monks, amongst us whodathought

"Others" cause constrination. How does it follow that "others" can elivate same? Wax on Wax off

tad is as charged, mars any thing?

Don Athos Your posts raise some valid points and views on property, wealth, and value. But it seems to me that most of these views and arguements drop the context of a marketplace in a division of labor society. I could use raw materials or fashion together all the requisite premade components of say an Amana microwave, or a Mercedes Benz automobile in my garage, use it and call it my property but not violate any tenets of patent law. The violation would come if I sold or traded it(or them),no?

This example of digestion is soo Victorian, you have got to be naive. Once you name a process or a part of a process it becomes a thing unto itself. As soon as something has a name it becomes the 'meaning' of that name. You then have to show that the thing with a name exists as an entity(out there). Since you can not, logically then it does not exist, until you can point to it, literally. Otherwise you are just constantly backtracking and yammering about , how you can't just consider the 'thing' while dropping the context of it actually being a part of process and any examination of that thing has to always include the idea that the thing under consideration is really always just a part of process yada yada..ect. So naive.

My first experience with Rand was her fiction AS, one of those ad cards fell out describing her nonfiction(!!???) ah yeah I'll take some of that please! Maybe instead of advertising to academic philosophy students, try and organize a showing of one of the films that were made from her works coupled with a discussion group thingy, all the real thinkers at your university may not be in the philo depts.

Let me start by saying that I would like to apologize to Mr B for muddying his thread with my late night pontifications from a wobbly soapbox. Lacking any theoretic knowledge of physics, and stemming from my purely layman perspective, I tend to flinch at the way or manner time seems to be spoken about in physics. As far as I can wrap my head around the concept of time, it seems to refer to a relation between entities(a desciption of a duration as it relates to specific actions of specific entities) and not a substance in and of itself. I have often wondered if the cosmological constant isn't actually a mathematical correction devise to rectify the noncausual aspect of 'time' in the methodology. I think I have a hard time(no pun intended) of separating science and philosophy.

Patterns aren't formed in 'nature', they are described by a sentient being. Codes are created to facilitate communication between sentient beings, in the case of the DNA code what are the sentient agents(plural)?

Shouldn't the main question be: how does the concrete quality-less world of ultimate pme become the abstract quality-filled world we all experience? Or do I have it backwards and centuries misplaced?

Explicit understanding of philosophic axioms is a product of integration. Given what most of us ( other than Rand) started with it ain't no small accomplishment. Keep epiphanating!!

jeez I hope that a personal endorsement of a youtube video doesn't lead to a spontaneous happening attributable to a person of responsibility, keep an ear out for black heliocopters

In the context of this discussion of IP in this thread , I gather you do not believe an idea should be recognized as property. That suggests to me that you think only physical entities should be considered as property. If that assumption on my part is correct, why is a novel( the specific text of a creative work) not to be considered an entity that could be owned?

DA I think that... the reason why IP often seems such a poor fit when applied to those things that Rand generally has to say about force, morality, rights, and property, is because: it does not fit. So Rand would have been ambivalent to Atlas Shrugged by Norman Mailer?

DA I apologize if my poor attempt at humor came across as an insinuation of dishonesty , I certainly did not mean that. In your subsequent posts you have likened copyright/patent infringement to rape and murder. I am not a legal expert, but I believe there is a distinction between laws as it concerns the prosecutorial nature of the state. Meaning the murderers and rapists are charged by the state( acting as an agent for the whole of society against the criminal), while other violations of law have to have the victim come to the state in order for prosecution take place. The state is the ultimate authority in both types , but does not have sole prosecutorial discretion in both types. Prosecution of IP infringement would originate from the novelist/inventor proving their property was stolen, and then only if they wanted to bring suit. Violent crime is prosecuted regardless of the victims desires. If a novelist had their work copyrighted, or a pencil sharpener inventor had the devise patented, they would then decide whether or not they wanted to protect their rights in property that claim someone has infringed on. Their right to property would be enforceable at their sole discretion. The copyright/patent is their claim to a specific idea(as their property) they could then seek restitution if their rights were violated, or they may even not seek such protection in the first place, just simply write a novel/ invent a devise and not care if someone else used their idea.

The reason I wanted to use a novel as an example was precisely because there is a very discernible difference between a physical copy of a text, and the text(the sequence of words) in itself. i wanted to explore if there could exist a principled way to treat these distinctions. It seems almost as if you want to avoid this context.

DA While I appreciate your diction and so forth, I may hazzard a guess that you would be a poor fruit merchant. It seems at times the apples and the oranges are almost purposefuly comingled.

Naive materialism heh , the implication of that phrase is basically that the material universe is not to be used a guide to truth. Mathematic 'laws' are not man made, that too is quite a mouthful. Isn't true that the symbol '2' stands for, corresponds to(whichever ) a perceivable quantity of things? So at base all mathematics is naive materialism, no? The whole of math is either true or not based on the idea of quantity(of things), from arithmetic to calculus or do some just not see it?

I for one can't wrap my head around the particular example of tshirt sloganeering(printing) as falling into the realm of IP, until I have a better handle on the issue. I do not want to play gotcha either. I am trying to understand the idea of IP(which I think , as far as I understand it, I agree IP is a value that in a division of labor society should be protected by property rights). I am not sure if I have a good handle on what particular ideas would fall under such protection. The example I come to in my mind is that of a novel. I think it can be a example to help flush out the principles eg the actual printing and distribution of the physical copies in conjunction with 'what' a novel is. Aside from a physical copy, I think a novel can or should be legally defined as the actual sequence of words, the idea taken as the complete creative work of the author. Would this be a suitable example, to start with?

It it that your objection to IP stems from seeing its proponents using a position similar to the Millsian-esque flawed moral defense of capitalism a la 'to the greater good'?Mixed with a smattering of property only exists in physical matter, since force is the only way to violate rights, property rights can only apply to physical matter?

I will have respond at a different time, but I think it would be helpful for you to investigate the concept of intregration, and how the law of identity applies in this aspect(noncontradiction).

So rightfully possessing and consuming a particular apple is analogous to the vulcanization of rubber?

I do not mean to be rude , but how would you define epistemology?