Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

IP once more, with feeling

Rate this topic


Harrison Danneskjold

Recommended Posts

Suppose I have a bike which creates bikes, ad infinitum- anytime I please I can snap my fingers and cause it to divide into a pair of bikes.

The real question is, if you were to steal one of the copies (which costs me nothing, doesn't affect me at all and deprives me of nothing except POTENTIAL money- from you) then have my rights been violated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Okay; so intellectual property refers to patents and copyrights.  What are patents and copyrights?

 

No, intellectual property refers to the objects of action (the inventions and works of art themselves).  Patents and copyrights are legal forms of protection of the inventor's and artist's right to profit from their creations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, intellectual property refers to the objects of action (the inventions and works of art themselves).  Patents and copyrights are legal forms of protection of the inventor's and artist's right to profit from their creations. 

 Okay; so IP refers to the idea that whatever you invent, you own, even in instances where someone else builds it.  (let's stick to inventions for the moment- I have a feeling that artwork would derail this whole conversation in a split-second)

 

And I'm not saying that an inventor can't build or profit from his own ideas (that would be insane) or that they have to share them with the world, or have any such sort of duties or prohibitions about them at all- you can do whatever you want with whatever you invent, except violate the rights of others.  (Inventing the atom bomb doesn't give you the right to use it)

 

All I'm trying to say is that once other people do know about it, and do understand it for themselves, you can't stop them from acting on that- and that by not stopping them from acting on that idea, you won't be allowing them to hurt you at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theft is what it is because it deprives someone (the property owner) of their rightfully-earned benefits, NOT because it rewards thieves.  That the two nearly invariable correspond is irrelevant; if there is a situation in which some thief can benefit without harming the property owner at all (such as your scenario) then no harm has been done.

Okay, so would you say your rights have not been violated when someone uses your bike without permission even if you weren't there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so would you say your rights have not been violated when someone uses your bike without permission even if you weren't there?

 My rights have not been violated when someone else uses my bike, without my permission, ONLY iff I wasn't there.

 

Look at it this way.

Suppose there was a man who owned a gold mine.  He found the gold himself, started digging it up and didn't tell anyone where he was getting it from.

Now I don't think anyone would dispute that he owns it.

But suppose he died and then, centuries later, someone else (let's say the Goonies) stumble onto his gold mine and immediately start mining the rest for themselves.

 

Have his rights been violated?  (What if he were in a permanent coma?  Marooned on a distant island?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay; so intellectual property refers to patents and copyrights. What are patents and copyrights?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

P.S. IP refers to a couple of other types of exclusive rights, not just patents and copyrights, as explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 No, you can't. . . But who said anything about taking anything?

 

 

That is what this conversation is about.  You may not think of it that way but that is the bottom line and the only point to the argument.  If you did not want access to someone's idea to use then this conversation would be moot since whether they owned it or not would be unimportant. 

 

Like I said, the truth is in the whole.  You have to have union of mind and body, or ideas and materials, or Spock and Bones if you want a classic fun example. 

 

You make one public you make the other one public.  You can't have private materials and public minds.  Since man's mind is his basic tool to thrive above the animal stage this actually sounds worse than the Welfare State the more I think about it. 

 

The original inventor (in this case the company) still knows how to make the drug and is free to produce at will.  And if they don't want to tell anyone else how to make it then they don't have to.

 

All I'm saying is that ONCE an idea is in someone else's head, you no longer own it.  But before that, by all means, monopolize away.

So, yes, at some point someone would reverse-engineer this drug and see how to make their own.  This would create competition where there was none, in which case whoever can make it better will end up selling more of it.

I believe there is a word for this dynamic. .

 Because I think that, if handed the blueprints and schematics for any revolutionary idea, a real man would immediately start wondering how he could improve it- while a parasite would ask you to explain it to them.

 

And I'm actually not saying that anyone has to share their ideas, at all.  I just reject that you can own an idea in someone else's mind- even if you put it there.

 

 

 Secondary; I'm trying to get down to the principles involved, here.

 

BUT, you might be interested to know, I absolutely think that humans could survive without patents or copyrights at all.  Other preexisting mechanisms, such as contractual obligations, could serve exactly the same function without any of the issues I see in IP.

 

 

You are right in that someone cannot "own an idea" in that they cannot make concepts stay  behind a fence and not be learned, nor can they go into someone's mind and take it back.  Although that might make a pretty interesting story.  What they have is what they have with all property rights, and that is the right to dispose of it.  I could reverse engineer the product and hell, if I'm good enough, maybe even replicate it for myself, but I could not trade, sell, or otherwise distribute the drug because now I am disposing of someone else's property.  Nor would I since that would be theft.  I would profit from someone else's labor.

 

I agree on getting to principles, which is why I am so concerned with it.  Man in principle is a rational animal with volition that has to use both of those essentially human attributes to not only live but thrive. Without his rational faculty or volition, man is just another random animal occupying random locations.   Man must  think, then act.  To think and not act is to perish and to act but not think is to not thrive but simply exist like any animal in fear of it's environment.  Man needs both and the principled law protects both in property rights.  Otherwise man has no need to join a society if it can claim to dispose his work for him, which in principle means dispose him since his thinking and acting is open to looting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 My rights have not been violated when someone else uses my bike, without my permission, ONLY iff I wasn't there.

Well, we're talking about normal people in normal circumstances. We can go to borderline cases later. Bear with me here!

 

So, while you're at work, I can enter your house without permission, watch TV while using your wireless internet, and leave when you're back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, while you're at work, I can enter your house without permission, watch TV while using your wireless internet, and leave when you're back?

 If it doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form.  Mission: Impossible.

 

That is what this conversation is about.  You may not think of it that way but that is the bottom line and the only point to the argument.  If you did not want access to someone's idea to use then this conversation would be moot since whether they owned it or not would be unimportant. 

What I want is consistency.

I think I've found a flaw in Objectivism with IP (I've been actively looking for them- and this is all I've found) and furthermore I think I've solved it; I am out to tell everyone about it so that either I will realize that I'm wrong (and consequently reevaluate this) or they will.

 

What I am after is no less than philosophical perfection, which I intend to reach through ruthless scrutiny.

 

I assure you that if I wanted to violate someone's IP rights, I would not be here attempting to justify it to the rest of the internet; I would be figuring out a way to do so, alone.

 

You make one public you make the other one public.  You can't have private materials and public minds.  Since man's mind is his basic tool to thrive above the animal stage this actually sounds worse than the Welfare State the more I think about it. 

 I am NOT advocating any sort of redistribution of ideas; I am ONLY saying that ONCE someone else understands it you CANNOT prevent them from acting on it.

 

If I'm right then any inventor could still protect his ideas from any and all competitors- by preventing them from learning about it!  Like I said, contractual obligations (such as nondisclosure).

 

I am NOT demanding freely publicized and freely given ideas; ONLY the right to ACT on what I ALREADY UNDERSTAND.

 

 

I could reverse engineer the product and hell, if I'm good enough, maybe even replicate it for myself, but I could not trade, sell, or otherwise distribute the drug because now I am disposing of someone else's property.  Nor would I since that would be theft.  I would profit from someone else's labor.

 Why can you replicate it for yourself, then?

 

If one accepts IP as given then that makes no sense; to be consistent you wouldn't be able to reproduce, reverse-engineer or any such thing without the inventor's consent.

Again, since these rights are supposed to predate the government's sanction, how many geniuses must each of us harm on any minute of any day?

 

If one accepts IP in its current form then we are ALL looters and thieves.

 

Man must  think, then act.

 YES!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If it doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form.  Mission: Impossible.

Okay, so I can borrow anything without permission. If no objective harm comes to you, then I can walk into your house at my choosing. What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine. After all, if it doesn't affect you, I am not causing you any kind of loss if you aren't there. You might not "like" me walking into your house, but hey, I'm bored. Why do cops have to kick me out for climbing in through the window? I like equal access to wireless Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I can borrow anything without permission. If no objective harm comes to you, then I can walk into your house at my choosing. What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine. After all, if it doesn't affect you, I am not causing you any kind of loss if you aren't there. You might not "like" me walking into your house, but hey, I'm bored. Why do cops have to kick me out for climbing in through the window? I like equal access to wireless Internet.

 As opposed to what?  If you find a penny on the sidewalk and pocket it, is that theft?

 

And no, so long as no objective harm comes to me or my property, I lose nothing and I'm not affected, then that doesn't hurt me.

 

Are your rights violated when a bunch of neighborhood kids playing cops & robbers chase each other through your yard?

 

I don't think that approach would be very realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try this again.

 

Suppose inventor A works long and hard, for years on end, to invent some new type of metal.  After he's done he runs out and patents it; now he owns this metal.

If anyone else wants this metal they must ask for his permission to make it.

 

WHAT DOES HE ACTUALLY OWN?

 

IP refers to patents and copyrights, which aren't the ownership of ideas but rather another way of phrasing IP; IP refers to IP. . .

 

If you own a PATENT, what DO YOU HAVE?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT DOES HE ACTUALLY OWN?

In Objectivism, property rights are not rights to objects, they are rights to actions. You insisting that someone name "what he actually owns" suggests that you either don't know that, or disagree with it. Which is it?

IP refers to patents and copyrights, which aren't the ownership of ideas but rather another way of phrasing IP;

I linked you to two articles explaining what patents and copyrights are. They don't say that patents and copyrights are another way of phrasing IP, they explain what patents and copyrights are in more concrete terms. You should read them. It's what you asked me for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison in one post you equated patenting fire and a (the) wheel, do you see a difference between what these concepts refer to?

One is a natural phenomenon the other a design. And futher , IP can only be applicable to a division of labor society.(as so most considerations of rights protection) moral justifications of rights is not the same nor should be equated with the metaphysical nature of beings in possession of said rights.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison in one post you equated patenting fire and a (the) wheel, do you see the difference between what these concepts refer to?

 The difference between fire and the wheel?  Yes.  Is there an issue with my usage?

 

In Objectivism, property rights are not rights to objects, they are rights to actions. You insisting that someone name "what he actually owns" suggests that you either don't know that, or disagree with it. Which is it?

 I do agree with it, actually; I don't think it's applicable to IP.  Patents aren't an excersize of someone's right to invent: in the words of Wikipedia:

 "The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention"

 

As for patenting the wheel, why not?  I know you can't patent THE camera or THE car or THE wheel, as such; only your version of it. . . Why?

 

Again; an arbitrary distinction thrown in to alleviate the suffocation of production.  So why not patent fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 As opposed to what?  If you find a penny on the sidewalk and pocket it, is that theft?

 

 

Are your rights violated when a bunch of neighborhood kids playing cops & robbers chase each other through your yard?

Sure, if you don't want them to run through your yard, it is trespassing. What I'm getting at is that property is a right to action, not about whether a person is harmed or not. I'm simply asking if it is just for a person to wander around in your house when you aren't there while you're at work. We can't discuss IP until you point out premises about property in general!

 

Yes, even pocketing money *could be* theft in many contexts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm getting at is that property is a right to action, not about whether a person is harmed or not. I'm simply asking if it is just for a person to wander around in your house when you aren't there while you're at work.

 Alright.  I would have no issue with someone wandering around my house while I was at work if that was the extent of it.

The conditioner is the kicker there.

 

And rephrased as an action, then; my bad.

 

When we say that someone owns a car we mean that they caused the car (built it or bought it from whoever else did) and have the right to use it however they please.

If you own a patent, we'll stipulate that you did cause it- what right do you have to the patent; what IS it?

 

I guess what it gets down to is exclusivity; whether or not someone has the right to exclude others from using their property.

I would say yes, insomuch as others prevent you from using your property (two objects, same place, same time, doesn't work), wreck it or otherwise (in countless minute ways) prevent you from getting your full due out of that property.

 

HOWEVER no, I wouldn't say that you have a right to exclude without reason; exclusion for exclusivity's sake, as in the bike scenario.  If I'm on vacation, and when I come back my bike's been used but is left exactly where it had been, my rights have not been violated.

I'll have to give it slightly more thought as to the specifics but that's the gist of it.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The difference between fire and the wheel?  Yes.  Is there an issue with my usage?

 

 I do agree with it, actually; I don't think it's applicable to IP.  Patents aren't an excersize of someone's right to invent: in the words of Wikipedia:

 "The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention"

 

As for patenting the wheel, why not?  I know you can't patent THE camera or THE car or THE wheel, as such; only your version of it. . . Why?

 

Again; an arbitrary distinction thrown in to alleviate the suffocation of production.  So why not patent fire?

See I don't think you understand the difference between a car , lightening, a camera, fire, gravity and a(the) wheel.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I don't think you understand the difference between a car , lightening, a camera, fire, gravity and a(the) wheel.

 OH.

Sorry; fire's a discovery and not an invention.  Good point.

 

Still. . . The method to obtain fire could've been patented?  I think flint and steel were basically it for the majority of human history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between fire and the wheel?  Yes.  Is there an issue with my usage?

 

 I do agree with it, actually; I don't think it's applicable to IP.  Patents aren't an excersize of someone's right to invent: in the words of Wikipedia:

 "The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention"

 

As for patenting the wheel, why not?  I know you can't patent THE camera or THE car or THE wheel, as such; only your version of it. . . Why?

 

Again; an arbitrary distinction thrown in to alleviate the suffocation of production.  So why not patent fire?

If you really don't see the difference between what is patentable and what isn't, how come you're managing to only pick examples that aren't? You'd think that you'd list at least one example that is actually patentable, by accident.

So you know the difference. You understand that patents are logical and productive, and your examples are dumb and counter-productive. And, for some reason, you decided to pretend that's an arbitrary distinction, and keep asking us what our criteria is.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Alright.  I would have no issue with someone wandering around my house while I was at work if that was the extent of it.

The conditioner is the kicker there.

Would it then be an initiation of force to disallow someone from entering you're house when you are gone? Property seems superfluous here, so I don't see how a discussion about IP could get anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky- I apologize; you're absolutely right on that one and I'd like to rephrase myself.

 

Why not patent fire?  Because it's a natural phenomena; you can't patent it any more than you could patent gravity.

Why not patent the wheel?  By which I mean: if you could patent this wheel or that wheel, why can't you patent this basic component or that; why not this part (THE wheel) or that part (THE axle)?

I maintain that the latter is arbitrary and capricious.

The former, however, is not; the distinction between the manmade and the metaphysically given (natural and artificial), which I had momentarily forgotten (sorry) is logical and sound in every way.

You're right, I was wrong and I have no intention whatsoever of questioning that distinction.

I'd also like to apologize to tadmjones for being slightly snarky, there.

 

Eiuol- I've been thinking about it and I think I can tell you explicitly where I stand on it.

Take force, for example; it's objectively harmful and so it can only be used against those who start it.

 

To say that force is universally evil and may ever be used against anyone would be just as fallacious as to say that it's objectively good and should be encouraged.  There is a reason for the principles behind force, which it depends on; these reasons clearly delineate when it may and may not be used.

I would look at exclusivity in a very similar manner.

Property rights are the right to action- to create value and subsequently to enjoy it and do almost anything you please with it (again, just because you build a nuke with your own two hands doesn't give you the right to use it).

But since values have specific and concrete natures they are finite; they can only be used in so many ways, so many times by so many people.

 

Consequently, I would draw the principle of property-exclusivity from the finite nature of property; it's instrumental to your enjoyment of it. 

 

So, for instance:

"Can I eat your cake?"  "No; if you do then I can't have it, too."

"Can I run through your yard?"  "No; you'll trample my flowers."

"Can I occupy your house while you're at work?"  "Not unless you can do so without a trace and without any measurable impact (contrary to the nature of physical objects; let alone biological organisms); not unless you do so Mission: Impossible style."

"Can I use your bike while you're on vacation?"  . . .

 

So I would uphold exclusivity but not universally or in perpetuity; only inasmuch as it's necessary for all other aspects of using your own property (which are many and far-reaching, but finite).  Analogous to the principle of retaliatory force.

 

Note that ideas, while having their own specific nature (they are, after all, neurological mechanisms) aren't finite in the same sense or the same manner.

 

There is an issue with this line of reasoning, though; specifically how you may or may not enjoy your own property, because that will directly affect your right to its exclusivity.  But I'll figure that out next; this is as far as I've gotten at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not patent the wheel?  By which I mean: if you could patent this wheel or that wheel, why can't you patent this basic component or that; why not this part (THE wheel) or that part (THE axle)?

I maintain that the latter is arbitrary and capricious.

Arbitary means that people pick things at random, and capricious means they pick things on a whim. If it's really arbitrary and capricious, then how did you guess that it can't be patented?

Do you have the ability to predict random events and read people's whims? Or is there actually a criteria, that you know about, but are obtusely refusing to acknowledge, on why the wheel, the axle, and EVERY single one of your other examples, can't be patented?

If it's the former, you should play the lottery. It would be very easy, with your ability to predict arbitrary outcomes.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...