TuringAI

In a way, yes. Of course, if it could be shown that it creates a false impression you might do well to create a public disclaimer and explain the difference between your Microsoft and the first Microsoft. IIRC there are two Apples going around, one for computers and one for music. They dealt with it privately and without government involvement until one of them broke a contract with the other.

So you find nothing ironic, biting, or bitter about the fact that I basically USED a stolen concept, when I knew better about the issue of slavery, in the same form as you used your argument? Funny, because that fits the definition of irony completely. I guess you must be right though because you cited Wikipedia and I didn't. I'm not questioning that there are patent laws. I am questioning that they are just. It doesn't require reading people's minds to figure out if someone copied another, simply an assessment of the circumstances that would lead each person to develop their own intellectual property. A creative work may happen in the mind but the mind itself has a nature. Also I find it quite difficult not to see the contradiction in that objectivity reduces to the material in property law even though intellectual property is not protected as other material things are. Again, you are arguing WHAT the government does rather than arguing the case of whether or not it SHOULD be this way. Why should patents and copyrights have the assumption of validity when every other kind of property doesn't? Not why do they, why SHOULD they? It appears you are making circular arguments. How is that objective?

Inability to detect sarcasm. Next! Well prior art is not a valid MORAL basis UNLESS by 'prior' they mean 'known and used'. You are equivocating meanings of the word Objective, focusing on the pragmatic issue of whether or not it is easy to enforce the law. Objective does NOT mean exclusively materially practical. Morals such as "it is wrong to violate the rights of the innocent" are also Objective. Not only that but such laws ARE enforceable without an omniscient perspective. You forget that facts of reality cannot be destroyed. Someone will find them if they exist and if the appropriate methods are used. Yes it would involve a lot of money and a lot of training, but the burden should be on the prosecution, not the defendant, to provide this, in the same way that enforcement of any other law works.

So if I want to own a slave, and I buy one, it's my right? After all, property rights lead to property laws. Next! ... You have to explain more than that. Why is it a property right for the first-to-invent and not for the second-to-invent and so on? I will read through it. Personally, I think it's an arbitrary line drawn around SOME things to make THEM property and not others. I will read through it to see which arguments were being missed, and which arguments were fallacious. Yes, exactly. Copyright is not a monopoly on the song itself, it is simply a protection against copying.

Why should they have the status of laws? You have never explained that. Rights come before laws, and you have, in demonstrating the validity of patents, gone to law first rather than explain why the natural right exists in the first place. Man may have made the product, but the fact that the product works is not man-made, nor is the fact that IF the product is put together the way it is it will work. WHY it works isn't man-made, and the only man-made aspect is simply that things like that don't arrange themselves, but this is true of even discovery, because the facts of nature are being put together in people's minds. You aren't explaining enough.

First-come first-serve is NOT the only objective basis. In fact it's only objective in situations where there only exists a limited number of possible results regardless of how much effort is put into it. Documenting your personal creation process is a perfectly valid method to prove that you actually invented it on your own. There are also such things as business espionage laws, and those have their own methods of enforcement. A person can be caught doing certain things and this would prove guilt. Just because you can't think of a way to do something doesn't mean that such a way can't exist. Likewise, just because you think there is a flaw in something doesn't mean that the flaw makes the situation impossible. As for who has the burden of proof, patents would be guided by civil law, and both sides stand to have their property rights violated if arbitration is not done objectively. There should be no special privilege of altering the burden of proof just because someone was the first in time to invent someone. It sounds to me like you're reading something out of a book. Can you explain what 'qua facts' and 'only because someone created them' mean and why those two are not contradictory?

So what are the defining characteristics of Discovery vs Invention? Would a new procedure for surgical operation be a discovery or an invention? More importantly, why is preventing other people from doing the same as you do so important? Sure you shouldn't want them to copy you, but I define copy as this: A method whereby a person or group of persons acquire a replica BY MEANS OF INTERACTING WITH THE ORIGINAL AS OPPOSED TO INTERACTING WITH NATURE. You can see that if we both are on opposite ends of the world and we both invent a new kind of car, it is not essential that they are the same type of thing, only whether or not your product is acquired from the effort you put into nature or acquired from another person's effort. The 'from' is an important part, and is why I refer to causality as being an essential prerequisite for valid intellectual property theft claims.

I would have to say that it would take an especially rediculous approach to parenting to warrant taking a child away from parents. For example, if I lived in a town where every action, save those and my peers, were staged and I was continuously threatened with things which I know now to be ridiculous that would appear to happen to my neighbors and which were at least horrible enough to make me fear for my own sanity, that would justify government involvement. Remember, fraud is just as potent as force.

I suspect you are the one playing games, by not giving an exact clarification of what you mean by 'new'. How is independently inventing something stealing?

Are you'assuming a definition of new that means 'new in the context of the physical events on earth' or 'new in the context of a person's individual knowledge'? Basically, do you mean 'new to the world' or 'new to me'? If something is not new to you then you shouldn't be able to claim that you created it, and thus don't have the rights for it. Also, I won't respond to your straw man in the second paragraph unless you can rephrase what you said in a manner not so presumptuous. Like I care about the rest of the world. All I want to do is be able to develop things of my own without other people who had nothing to do with my creative process being able to stop me.

What I mean is that IP protects a type of thing. Yet the fact is that a type of thing cannot be owned. Instances of things manifest in the physically concrete can be protected from certain kinds of influences, and that includes acquiring enough interaction with it to produce a copy FROM the original when said interaction occurred without the consent of who owns the physical concrete. This is why I stress causalty. Two people on opposite sides of the planet who have not influenced one another were both the cause of IP. A thing's similarity to something else is not a basis for determining protection. Rather, it's whether or not there was a causal relationship between the creator and the creation that determines whether or not it is protected. If I'm in Canada and you're in Australia, and we both come up with a gravitational manipulator that works the same way, save for details, your inventing of the gravitational manipulator in Australia did not exert a causal influence on me inventing the gravitational manipulator in Canada. Furthermore if I read a book, and then I get in a serious accident which made me get amnesia, then I write a book which is not the same but has a lot of similarity, I own the book that I created just as the original author owns theirs, because there was a break in the causal chains of connection from me getting amnesia that caused me to write something entirely of my own effort without any influence of the original book I read all that time ago. This is why I emphasize CAUSALTY. While the law doesn't respect IP my way, it should, because what matters is a causal relationship between creator and creation, not simply that the type of creation was first created by its particular creator.

I've reported you to the mods, troll. Haste Law Visa, Baby. ;P

The way I see it, the Big Bang wasn't about the creation of the universe as a whole, merely about the creation of some type of causal chain. The sum of all which was before, but not any particular part alone, can be taken to be the cause of this single event. After that event parts can still continue to influence the future from the past but only in a manner that's allowable given this prime event, for it too is a cause. Imagine that a whole universe existed before the Big Bang, but that at one point something changed. That change occured because of a critical point in the prior existence. At that point SOMETHING (but I'm not sure what, nor is anybody at this point in time sure what) changed. Space and Time did not exist THE SAME as they do now, though they necessarily existed in SOME form. Now about Existence. IF you accept causality you MUST accept existence, and that identity is a corrolary of it. Furthermore, to speak of nonexistence is not to speak of anything, for to speak of the universe as nonexistence is to imply a universe in the first place, and in fact to speak of the nonexistance of anything you must speak of the nonexistance of that thing as if that thing and existence, or the lack thereof, referred to something. But at the root of that thing, and in particular that you refer to it, is just an assertion of existence. In fact, when people say the universe doesn't exist, they mean that the state of the universe is that it doesn't exist, which is a contradiction in terms. You can't have identity without existence, and you can't have it the other way around either.

That's not what I said. Reread what I wrote. I said that being the CAUSAL derivative of another person's work is a necessary precondition for being property. I look at it this way. Suppose two people simultaneously create a house. Not just a house, but they both agree together that they are going to build a house, and they both work on the SAME house, and by same I am using the ostensive definition of same. Who gets to live there?

Well simply referring to an issued patent doesn't prove copying. It could simply mean that two different people came up with the same idea. I am going to open my mind to the possibility that SOME kinds of intellectual property exist, but just none that make the fallacy of assuming that if two things are similar that one copied the other. Furthermore, I find it curious that intellectual property would, for instance, exist for a limited period of time AND that how it was created, how much effort was put into it, would determine whether or not it was protectable, yet neither of these conditions exist for physical property. If property is property, and that's all there is to it, IE if not for some kind of distinction to be made between the intellectual and existential, what could possibly account for these differences?

Therefore, any A is any other A? If this is what you mean to imply, let me explain to you a similar argument. So a siberian husky type dog is the same as a rhodesian ridgeback type dog? It makes no difference whatsoever how many different physical features are in the dog, dog is dog. Therefore, any dog is any other dog. You see how absurd that is. Perhaps I should not have used the word identity, but some other word, but that's a word-usage, IE semantics, debate that I do not wish to have.

Wait, by excluding patents do you mean that members can't patent things or that they can patent things but just can't use them? Well that happens in the academic world with ideas all the time. The correct way to deal with them is similar to the correct way to deal with those who market bad ideas that are versions of good ideas and is simply to require that retailers give factually correct information about who produced them. Then the producers of this faulty camera would actually HAVE to make the same product or market their improvements independently.

This is why I believe patents to be invalid. It requires no PROOF that 'this is a copy of that', no PROOF of the requisite causal association of the two things. That 'this is a copy of that' is an intrincisist notion. What makes something property is indeed the work you put into it, but unlike the word 'it', which is vague and can refer to any element of existence, work is something about the CAUSAL nature of man. And CAUSAL is in caps for good reason. The word CAUSAL provides the necessary context for that 'it' part, signifying that we are talking about something tangable, meaning that one could decide to create it and it would be, or decide not to create it and it would not be.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was unreal. In fact, while it requires us to do MORE than to point and grunt, therefore is more prone to error when making judgments, that's not even what I said. What I said is that we can't treat the two as if they are the same thing. Also, thanks for snipping the context of my post. D:

I think it would've made more sense if the boy/man had been the one to give the tree nutrients. That would make more sense. A tree can't just magically produce all of the things man needs. It must be treated according to man's knowledge about its nature. So the boy/man gives something to the tree and in return reaps the benefits. Then it could be The Capitalist Tree. XD

That is a Fraud issue. Intending to give a false impression is a form of fraud, and in most contexts (at least within the scope of actions related to this discussion) calling your gadget an iPhone would, in and of itself, be an attempt to deceive. Not only that, but iPhone could simply explain what the difference between their iPhone and yours is. If you made any claim that you were related to them, that could also be considered a form of slander or libel. That in itself is an interesting issue, how slander and libel violate rights, and certain kinds of expressions ARE slanderous or libelous, but not matters of opinion. The difference between defamation and opinion runs parallel to the difference between violating intellectual property and simply using a concept derived from another person because the main difficulty is the same: Where do we draw the line?

This is a false analogy. Cars can actually be rendered unusable to other people. Patented Material cannot. Furthermore, things like cars are ostensively identifiable, whereas things like patented material are only derivatively identifiable. There is a difference between THAT dog and A dog. While both "that" dog and "a" dog have identity, they have it in different ways. To blur this distinction is the same as elevating consciousness to the level of existence, and violates the primacy of existence over consciousness, a primary in how nature works.

A tank is a bit excessive. While in war civilian casualties cannot be stopped, in civil contexts we have government for the exact purpose of making sure people are treated as individuals in all possible ways. If government starts reacting against all members of the group for what some of the members do, why bother having government in the first place?

Just because something has been 'proven' doesn't mean it can't be disproved. Just because you don't like QM and similar such theories doesn't mean it's wrong.

It appears for me too and I'm using Firefox.