Mnrchst Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I read here that the distinction between these two discoveries is that one involves purely identification, while the other involves creation (you've created an idea). I don't think this is true. If I make a philosophical/scientific (i.e. about gravity)/mathematical discovery, I've created an idea that didn't exist before (just like with the discovery of a new type of engine). You could say that this philosophical/etc discovery already existed, so I didn't create it, but, then, the fact that this engine could be made already existed, so I didn't create it. You could argue that I created the new engine by the work in my mind, but, then, I created the philosophical discovery by the work of my mind. You could argue that the engine has never existed before, therefore, that's why it's gets patented, while the discovery about gravity was already going on, but, that would have to mean you could patent a scientific discovery about a situation which has never occurred before (electricity will behave in X way if it is exposed to Y), and, therefore, you have a patent on any invention that makes use of this knowledge even though you can't think of the invention that will make use of it. However, I still think some intellectual property is justified and reconciled with not patenting philosophical/other discoveries on the following grounds: The critical difference between philosophical/scientific discoveries and technological ones is that one discovery, by itself, cannot be acted upon to do anything, while another can. If I discover something new about gravity/electricity, this alone doesn't accomplish anything tangible--it doesn't automatically get us a new invention, so we can't really "do anything" with it, except have new rigorous debates about its implications. This newly discovered property about gravity could end up being exploited with a new invention, but we haven't actually invented it. However, the discovery of the new invention itself does accomplish something tangible--we can build it now. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomer Ravid Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Existence had existed before, and you just abstracted it. Unless you found an original algorithm, which is a tool of dealing with reality. And even then you can charge "intellectual property" for its usage: The means of using such a creation would be thinking, and stopping men from thinking would be purely evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mnrchst Posted October 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could be be more specific? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.