Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Robert Romero

Regulars
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Robert Romero

  1. 1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

    It is only the value of an idea that can be shared with unlimited numbers of men, making all sharers richer at no one's sacrifice or loss.

    The originator determines the value of an idea to himself.  He does not determine its value to others.  Each man decides for himself how valuable something is. The originator is only sharing the idea, not the value.

    Quote

     What is being shared? As stated, it is the value of his own time to come up with the idea considered of value.

    Labor and time have no value; only the product of that time and labor has value.  I could have spent lots of time laboring to be as good at basketball as Michael Jordan, or as good a pianist as Vladimir Horowitz.  It would have produced nothing of value.  I could have (and did) produce something else of value with my labor and time.  When your supervisor asks you to produce a report, you don’t tell him later “I worked hard x number of hours”.  You tell him “here’s the report”.  The Roosevelt administration ignored this principle when it paid farmers to destroy crops, when it paid artists to do nothing productive.

    Quote

    You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner's terms, by trade and by volitional consent.

    The products of a mind cannot be obtained except on the owner's terms, by trade and by volitional consent.

    This is not true.  I used the earlier example of the first guy to build a log cabin.   Do his neighbors need  his consent to obtain the idea of a log cabin by peacefully observing him?  Of course not.   What’s he going to do, forcibly blindfold them and plug their ears before he starts?  No advocate of individual rights would tolerate such a thing.  The same thing applies to steam engines, biotech, software, etc. ad infinitum.  Galt's speech says intelligence cannot be forced to work.  IP says intelligence can be forced NOT to work. Once people have an idea in their minds, who is one man to tell them what they can do on their own property, with their own time, with their own labor?  He already HAS the product of his labor and time, to do with as he wishes.  He is free to share that product on his terms, by trade and by volitional consent.  However, he has NO property right to the value of his idea.   As I said, each man determines for himself how valuable something is.  The value cannot be dictated by anyone, including the creator. 

  2. 29 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

    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.

    The fact is that steam engines improved very little during the period when the Watt patent was in effect.  Once it expired, efficiency and production exploded.   The causal link is obvious.  People were free to innovate without being inhibited by a patent.  They were also free to produce when they were no longer told they couldn’t.   The almost sixfold increase in engine production was hardly due solely to Watt having increased capital.

    I have shown evidence that the biotech and software industries were very innovative prior to the introduction of patents, and that the introduction of them did nothing to spur innovation.  This demolishes the argument that patents are “needed” for innovation to take place.

    I’ll also repeat my previous citation of a research paper which found this:

    Quote

    the political economy of government-operated patent systems indicates that such systems are susceptible to pressures that cause the ill effects of patents to grow over time. The political economy pressures tend to benefit those who own patents and are in a good position to lobby for stronger patent protection, but disadvantage current and future innovators as well as ultimate consumers. This explains why the political demand for stronger patent protection comes from old and stagnant industries and firms, not from new and innovative ones.

    And this:

    Quote

    If we look at patent litigation in practice—and as predicted by theories of first-mover competition (Boldrin and Levine 2004, among others)—it takes place when innovation is low. When an industry matures, innovation is no longer encouraged; instead, it is blocked by the ever-increasing appeal to patent protection on part of the insiders.

    This demonstrates that patents not only are NOT needed for innovation, they actually discourage it.  The kind of deontological perspective that says "I don't care if things are better without IP, I still support it" seems more Kantian than Objectivist to me.

  3. 34 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

    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?

    An inherent characteristic of LFC is free market entry.  Laws that prohibit market entry by competitors are fundamentally anti LFC.

    Uniqueness has nothing to do with the loss of use of something if someone else uses it.  That's the crucial distinction between the beach house and an idea.   A can't use his beach house if B is using it.  If B could make a copy of A's beach house simply by having knowledge of it, then B could use the copy without infringing on A's use of his beach house.  The same applies to ideas.

    Why would A need to be punished for withholding his idea?  He's no under obligation to share it.  However, once the idea is in other people's minds, he cannot take the property of others simply because others use the idea.   An analogy would be someone with an oxygen cylinder.  The owner of the cylinder is under no obligation to share the cylinder with anyone.  However, if the cylinder leaks, and the oxygen escapes into the atmosphere, it would be absurd for him to demand that no one in the vicinity use "his" oxygen.

    Your statement that disputes were settled via “arbitration” sidesteps the fact that Watt’s competitors were forced to respond to the court orders.  Such orders are enforced by the threat of violence.  So yes, the competitors were indeed forced to deal with Watt at the point of a gun.

    The fact is that Watt made more money, steam engines improved, and they became more available after his patent expired.  It defies reason to say that was a bad thing.

  4. 8 minutes ago, 2046 said:

    Then how do you explain Spooner addressing it in 1855?

    You're right that Rand didn't address it in her article, but it's possible she was not the most informed on the topic. We should not make the same mistake in assuming it wasn't raised at all.

    Here he argued that property has its basis not in scarcity or tangiblility of an object, but in man's production. In order to undermine that, you would in effect have to undermine property itself.

    Compare this to Rand's article and we can see some similarities. Spooner, however, arrives at his conclusions by very methodical arguments and considers various objections, and in general had a far less dogmatic tone in his work, I think it forms a far superior defense of IP on a libertarian basis.

    I stand corrected that no one ever addressed it before.  But my point stands--that simply referring to Rand doesn't answer it, because she never addressed it.

  5. 26 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

    I have to presume that was directed toward my reply, and not credited to something tadmjones said.

    More persuasive to me with respect to her position on IP.

    Sorry about the wrong quote attribute.  The system software behaves strangely.    I wasn't asking about your support of Rand's position on IP.  I was asking about your response to the nonscarcity argument, which Rand never addressed, because it wasn't raised in her time.

  6. 2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

     Or could it just be that I happen to find Rand's materials more persuasive?

    More persuasive with respect to what?  AFAIK, Rand never addressed the nonscarcity argument.  I don't think it was even raised in her time.  So you can't say her argument against it is more persuasive.  You would have to show why that argument is invalid with your own reasoning.

  7. 1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

     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.

    Competition is the nature of LFC.  The potential for A to make less money because of the presence of Ax in the market is not a justification for the prohibition of Ax.  To advocate such prohibition is to be opposed to LFC.

    Quote

    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?

    That is not the only way.  A can simply implement the idea better than his competitors, outcompeting them.  Again, this is the nature of LFC.  This is not "mere theory".  It's exactly what happened with the steam engine.  When his patent expired, Watt made more money by emphasizing quality over his competitors.  Also, the fact is that innovation thrived in the biotech and software industries prior to patents being imposed on them, and did NOT increase after they were.  This refutes the claim that IP is "needed" for innovation.

    Quote

    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?

    Because it is theft.  A is taking the property of the others by force, at the point of a gun.  If you take what is in my wallet, I cannot use that money.  This is fundamentally different from using an idea gained via peaceful means, because ideas are not scarce. 

    Quote

    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.

      A’s beach house is a scarce good.  That makes it completely different from an idea, which is nonscarce.

     

  8. 20 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

    Looks like you're just saying "Rand didn't say that!"

    Of course I am, because you said you define virtue in the Objectivist sense.  I was showing that you aren't.  You're coming up with your own ethics that holds that theft is a virtue.   As I previously asked, why then wouldn't you advocate having the most ruthless egoistic thug as head of state instead of a businessman?  For that matter, there is no reason for you to not consider ANY thug initiating ANY kind of force (including murder) to be virtuous.  After all, your only standard is what is useful to the thug.  So you are advocating that men interact with each each other on such a basis.  This is a "surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction."  Also, you're using "nonvirtuous" and "mindless" interchangeably.  I don't think that's valid.

  9. Quote

    When Man A invents Machine A, and puts the invention under the protection of IP by submitting the material evidence of it first, why does ownership of the idea that made it possible become a morally grey area?

    What is granted in principle to the material world about theft being wrong is being denied to the conceptual realm that made it possible.

    As has been stated many times in this thread, ideas are nonscarce.  Use of them cannot deprive anyone else of their use.  That is the difference you refuse to acknowledge.

  10. 2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

    "without bothering to define what is virtuous" -Robert
    The same as the Objectivist sense.

    Absolutely false.  Here are John Galt’s (Rand’s) words from Atlas Shrugged:

    Quote

    Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

    “To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.

    “Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no ‘right’ to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

    “To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

    Rand says NO man may initiate the use of physical force against others.  NOWHERE does it say that the virtuous may engage in theft (“virtuous theft” is an oxymoron).   NOWHERE does it say that a man may steal from the “nonvirtuous”.  You are saying that “your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind” in defiance of reality, as Rand put it.  Don’t bother to claim that it really isn’t theft, that A is not A.  You are taking things from people at the point of a gun.  That is theft, period.  Not only are you advocating theft, you are indeed advocating it on a mass  scale.  So no, you are not advocating virtuous behavior according to Objectivism.  You are advocating, as Rand put it, "death by a process of gradual destruction....when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men."   And if you don’t think  that matters, as you put it, then you are in fundamental opposition to the Objectivist view of virtue.

  11. 54 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

    If we agree that Man B in making Machine B has created material wealth, and owns property, it is worth asking (or reminding ourselves) as to the nature of "property." What does it mean to own something? Doesn't ownership entail the right of use and disposal? Couldn't Man B, insofar as he "owns" Machine B, opt to destroy it? Alter it? Use it as a coffee table?

    Couldn't he give it away? Couldn't he trade it to a friend for some other item? Couldn't he sell it?

    As individuals, we have the right to contract and to associate freely with one another. When we remove force from our dealings, we are called upon to live as producers, and insofar as we participate in "society," to live as traders. Ultimately "society" is just a collection of individuals, and any rights to be found in or among a society or any group is really just the rights of the individuals which comprise that group.

    So it is with "the market," and with "commerce," which truly, when laws are just, are just the aggregate of individuals making agreements with one another and trading their property of their own free will.

    To say that I may create "property," but that I may not trade it, appears to me to be a contradiction and an abrogation of property rights. And I see nothing in the nature of "trade" or "commerce" to consider these uses of such property immoral, or to cast them as an initiation of the use of force (apart perhaps from some lingering cultural baggage which holds it moral to give something away, but immoral to sell it, because money is somehow corrupting). If I build Machine B, creating wealth, creating property, and I trade or sell it for my own benefit, I have profited from my labors, living just as a producer and a trader ought. I have not hurt anyone (no, not even the innovator of the machine). And thus I see no just call for prohibiting me from so doing.

    I agree with this.  What I find interesting is the attitude that copying is ok as long as the copier doesn’t make money from it.  The implied attitude that there’s something base and immoral about making money from a copy (as opposed to the more “pure” motive of personal use) is one that I would expect to come from the anti capitalists, not proponents of LFC.

  12. 4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

    Robert, "taxation is theft" is a conclusion based off of already saying indvidual rights (for all people) are proper or necessary for the best type of society. I'm claiming this is false. It's unvirtuous to not fund the state, so forcefully taking their money is no issue. It wouldn't be wrong then to do what would be wrong against anyone else. Only the already unvirtuous would be coerced. In other words, initiating force on the unvirtuous is good.

    I see circular reasoning here.   You’re saying “theft is virtuous if done by the virtuous”, without bothering to define what is virtuous.  You say the only heads of state should be those with a proven track record in business because you assume they are virtuous.  But you say nothing about why they are virtuous.  No one considers such businessmen virtuous because they engage in mass theft, murder, etc.  (else you would have said you wanted only the most ruthless egoistic thug to be head of state).   They do so because such people are good at creating things of value that people want to voluntarily trade for.   So you are saying “I want these people who are considered virtuous for not engaging in theft to engage in theft.  I want them to be admired for being not A because I admire them for being A.”

    You also state that funding government functions voluntarily would not be a virtue, while simultaneously declaring such voluntary funding by businessmen to be virtuous.  Yet another contradiction.

  13. 2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

    As to patents being attacked, that is precisely what is taking place through much of this thread. In this case it is being attacked using the very concept it portends to defend: ideas. First equivocate the value of an idea with economic scarcity

    This is a false premise (as Rand would say, you need to check it).  Reasoning based on it is faulty.  The fact that ideas are nonscarce is not a statement about how valuable they are or the source of their value.   The point, which you have been unable to refute, is that there can be no loss of use of something that is nonscarce (you have agreed that ideas are nonscarce).  This fact is true regardless of its value, regardless of whether it‘s a design for a better mousetrap (relatively low value) or a cure for cancer (extremely high value).  Do you really think the guys making their own spears after seeing someone else invent one don't think the idea of a spear is valuable?

    Quote

    Use this in conjunction with the fact that ideas can be grasped by anyone without diminishing the value of the idea.

    Grasping an idea does indeed do nothing to diminish its value.  In fact, the grasping of it by someone else opens the door to its value being enhanced by him.  It makes no sense to object to such enhancement. 

    Quote

    Combine that with the rejection that an idea can be property in the sense of intellectual property.

    You haven’t explained why anyone needs to worry about owning something that is nonscarce, since he cannot be deprived of its use.

    Quote

     Feed all of this back into property rights and individual rights, that a man in entitled to the fruits of his physical labor by his hands,

    A man cannot be deprived of the fruits of his labor if those fruits are nonscarce.  They are still there for him to use.

    Quote

    By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value

    The anti IP argument position does not contradict this.  As previously stated, use of a nonscarce idea does not deny the source or degree of its value in any way whatsoever.    However, once it is known by others, its value is independent of the originator.

    Quote

    thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

    The mind that brings an idea into existence still has full possession of it and full use of it regardless of the use of it by others, since it is nonscarce.  It has not been lost by that mind.

  14. Her argument is against commercial reproduction as presented from the same article:

    The patent or copyright notice on a physical object represents a public statement of the conditions on which the inventor or author is willing to sell his product: for the purchaser's use, but not for commercial reproduction.

     

    What if a buyer doesn't engage in commercial reproduction, but simply gives away copies?  After all, he's not profiting monetarily.  I emphasize this point because of the phrase "scrambling to cash-in on the achievements of genius".

  15. Ideas are not scarce.

    Glad you agree.

    Scarcity, however, is not what gives an idea value.

    The point is not that lack of scarcity causes ideas to have no value, or why they have value.  Of course they do.  The point is that a lack of scarcity means the use of an idea cannot deprive anyone else of the use of it.  It therefore becomes meaningless to say that anything has been taken from anyone by its use.

     In a world where the ideas of Descartes, Hegel, Kant and Hume circulate like so much debased currency, the ideas of Aristotle, Aquinas and Ayn have generally been withdrawn from general circulation. Gresham's law observes that bad money drives out good. One of the things that make this possible is monetary ignorance. As a debased currency gains its foothold, the good money is withdrawn from circulation and hoarded.

    Bandying about labels such as Hegelian or Kantian does not address the point.  A label is not an argument.  Enemies of Rand use this illegitimate tactic against her, labeling her a Nietzschean without addressing what she actually said.  There is a certain irony in quoting Gresham’s Law (which comes into play when several types of money have a conversion ratio specified by legal tender laws different from their market price), because very much the same thing happens when patent laws are in force.  In the free market, Jonathan Hornblower’s improved steam engine would have been more valuable than James Watt’s engine.  But the patent laws didn’t allow that.  Instead, improvements were forced out of the market, and weren’t allowed to occur until the patent expired.

    Today, patents are the special target of the collectivists' attacks.

    This is, if you’ll pardon the expression, a patently false implication.  I am an advocate of LFC, not a collectivist, and every opponent of IP I have read is explicitly and militantly an advocate of LFC.  At least one explicitly calls himself an Objectivist.   It is an oxymoron to call someone a collectivist advocate of the free market,  ie LFC.

    Those who observe the spectacle of the progressive collapse of patents—the spectacle of mediocrity scrambling to cash-in on the achievements of genius—and who understand its implications, will understand why in the closing paragraphs of Chapter VII, Part II of Atlas Shrugged, one of the guiltiest men is the passenger who said: "Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?"

    I have cited a research paper that demonstrates that it is patent laws that preserve mediocrity, inhibit innovation, reduce efficiency, reward stagnant firms, and punish innovative ones.  That is hardly the way to reward the achievements of genius.   My response to the last question is, “Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to serve his own life by applying what he has learned?”

  16. 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.

    Comparing an IP lawsuit to filing a report of burglary is begging the question.  You have not established that any property has been taken.  The originator still has full use of his property.  No fraud is committed, no coercion used.  So there is nothing present that can be compared to a burglary.

    As for saying that a lawsuit has nothing to do with a threat of violence, of course it does.  What entity enforces court decisions?  A police force.   The word force isn’t used for nothing.   The police stand ready to use guns, brute force, etc.  against people.  In other words, the threat of violence.  That’s the nature of a police force.  The only question is the justification for the threat of violence, not whether the threat of violence exists.  You have not shown why that threat of violence is justified against someone using what he has learned to further his own life, because you have not shown that he has taken anything.

  17. This is much further than I typically like to boil down such a complex topic, but my anti-IP argument (there is not only one argument anti-IP) is that making "copies" is both a physical and mental ability--the very same ability that allows anyone to make property--and it asserts that learning from others, and using that learning in the service of one's own life, is not only practical, but absolutely moral.

    I would add that preventing someone, via the threat of violence, from using what he has learned in the service of his own life is absolutely immoral.

  18. Unless the original sale contract contains terms for resale.

     

    Of course, not everything is acquired via a sale.  What if the buyer just leaves a sample out for people to take?  Then, of course, there are accidents.  A sample could fall off a vehicle.  It's hard to imagine a contract for every contingency.

  19. 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.

    The analogy of use of a house to use of an idea is a false one, since use of an idea does not prevent the originator from using it.  This is very different from tangible property such as a house.

    Nor would it be considered  that simply becasue my house exists, you have a right to its use. 

    Copying it would not be using it, just as copying a bagel would not be eating it.  If I have the ability to make a copy of your house, leaving your house intact, then it’s certainly common sense that I can use the copy.

    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 ?

     You have no monopoly rights to copies that leave intact your ability to use your property.

    An invention , song, or novel are identifiable discrete entities , no?

    Discrete yes.  Also infinitely copyable.  Copying means they are still usable by the originator.

    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.

    You’re proposing  a tax.  All proponents of LFC and Objectivism recognize taxation as theft.  No proponent of LFC  or Objectivism believes theft is justified.    Your proposal clearly goes against this statement:  “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”  Clearly, those who you are proposing to tax are not just being asked, but being told under threat of violence, to live for another man.

  20. As you were here first, and in the spirit of IP, I shall henceforth refer to you as the original DA. I will also credit you with, what I consider to be, two of the strongest arguments against IP:

    "Would you like the power to tell other people that they may not learn from your example and craft spears of their own, to benefit their own lives? I disagree that you have any right to such a power."

    "I don't believe that property is, or ought to be, awarded on the basis of suffering, or the amount of effort, per se. But that a person performs the effort necessary for the creation of material wealth is what entitles him to the use/ownership of that resultant material wealth."

    And in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas, I intend to run with them at every oppertunity until a more presuasive rebuttal can be forwarded. Also, kudos to Robert for introducing a new bent on a familiar topic.

    Until someone can identify a right to monopoly that flows from a fundamental right to life, I'll consider the practice of IP better aligned with the mixed market we have than the truely free market we ought to have.

    Well stated, and thank you for the kudos.

  21. Let's do something here:

    Bob records a song he originates.  Does he own it?  If no, why not?  If yes, does he own copies of it until they are given away or sold by him?  If no, why not?

    I’ll return to the bagel example:  If I make a copy of your bagel, have you lost the use of it?  No, it’s still sitting on your plate.  If someone copies Bob’s song (by singing it, telling friends about it, etc.), has Bob lost the use of the song?  No.  Of course, it can be made a condition of sale that the song not be copied.  If the argument is that copying by third parties would “steal Bob’s profits”, here’s a quote from Against Intellectual Monopoly that counters that:

    the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) constantly reminds us on their anti-piracy web site, “The thieves [...] go straight to the top and steal the gold” bringing the recording company to economic ruin. This argument may sound smart and “oh-so-commonsense” right when you hear it the first time – but pause for a minute, and you will realize it makes no business sense. Picking only winners means waiting until it is clear who is a winner. Well, try it: try getting somewhere by imitating the leaders only after you are certain they are the leaders. Try ruining the poor pop star by pirating her tunes only once you are certain they are big hits!  Excuse us, we thought that “being a hit” meant “having sold millions of copies.” Try competing in a real industry by imitating the winners only when they have already won and you have left them plenty of time to make huge profits, establish and consolidate their position – and probably not leaving much of a market for you – the sleek imitator.

     

  22. Lobbying and lengthy/costly efforts are exactly what I meant earlier by a "bad system".

    The research paper I cited showed that lobbying efforts regarding patents are an inevitable result of their existence.  It also says:

    If we look at patent litigation in practice—and as predicted by theories of first-mover competition (Boldrin and Levine 2004, among others)—it takes place when innovation is low. When an industry matures, innovation is no longer encouraged; instead, it is blocked by the ever-increasing appeal to patent protection on part of the insiders.

    Also:

    The cost of litigating patents is not insubstantial either. Bessen and Meurer (2008) used stock market event studies to estimate the cost of patent litigation: they estimate that during the 1990s such costs rose substantially until, at the end of the period, they constituted nearly 14 percent of total research and development costs.

    This shows that the issuing of patents is indeed a bad system.  They should not be supported.

×
×
  • Create New...