Intellectual property

[DonAthos]

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Err, you're reading into it.

I'm at that point of frustration where I must step away for a bit.

[Devil's Advocate]

I think much has been gained in terms of establishing, and exposing, the roots of the disagreement about IP.  I'm grateful for the patient feedback obtained thus far, but agree that it may be time to take a step back and reflect on what has been presented thus far to avoid the frustration that often arrives with an apparent impasse.

There is a genuine disagreement on the extent to which the action of copying is an invasion of the privacy of property.  Much depends on whether the implementation of a right to life allows for (or does not) the ability to copy without permission.  I believe that it does...

[New Buddha]

11 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

And the primary reason is to secure a return (by monopoly) on the innovator's time and effort creating something novel.

Our disagreement has to do with why.  Specifically why suspend the implementation of a right to life of a competitor whose only "vice" is knowing what you know?

The use of the term "monopoly" wrt to Patents is incorrect.  It's like saying increasing government spending is an "investment" or cutting taxes is "too expensive".

For instance, in the course of developing the Sennheiser HD800, Sennheiser developed three (3) components that merited Patenting.  The other 20 or so could not be Patented.  Some may have patents held by others.  To say that Sennheiser, because of these three Patents, some how has a "monopoly" is to abuse the term.  Ma Bell was a government enforced monopoly.  The US Post Office, was for a long time a monopoly (and I still believe it is a monopoly wrt First Class Mail).  And it was right to tear them down.

Reardon Steel is not a monopoly.  Windows is not a monopoly, even though Clinton went after it as such and tried to break it up.  And Sennheiser doesn't have a "monopoly" on headphones - they still have to compete with numerous headphone manufactures.

Most of the anti-IP arguments in this post see barriers and monopolies where none exist, and use terms such as inventing, creating, copying and monopoly in ways that I just don't agree with - and neither does the Patent Office.

And, respectively, a phrase such as , "...why suspend the implementation of a right to life...." wouldn't even make it past a middle-school debating coach.  This is rhetoric, and I won't respond to such statements.  This is equivalent to asking a political opponent, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  Or claiming that anyone who supports the IP laws the US currently has is all for "Corporate Fascism".

Can you provide a real example, where a Patent has so completely corned a segment of the market such that there is no competition?  I've specified bucket loads of patented products in designing buildings and I've never reached a dead-end where I was forced to use a single proprietary product.  There are many solutions to problems.  You can own a solution, but you can't own the problem.

[Devil's Advocate]

Look, any item by patent that prevents another individual from duplicating it with the intention of bringing it to market, provides the real example you're looking for by suspending the would be competitor's right to create property, i.e. implement their right to life, with that item.  It is done expressly to recover the innovator's investment of time and effort at the expense of recognizing a competitor's time and effort, and it is done by creating an artificial monopoly* within a supposedly laissez-faire marketplace.

IP only allows an innovator to own a solution, for a period of time, and calls that property; it isn't.  It's equivalent to claiming that only innovators can break a sweat, therefore innovators are entitled to own the marketplace free from competition for a period of time, which means that laissez-faire is suspended for that same period of time.  Claiming, as you are, that IP doesn't really effect a free market in terms of others being able to compete with patented products, or that their right to create property by their own effort isn't impeded, simply isn't supported by the current practice of IP.

I can't make it clearer than that at this time - we just disagree on this issue.  However I remain in agreement with what you expressed earlier, that an individual must be allowed the choice to respect the intellectual property of others.  I think your following comments suggest you aren't fully committed to that view, but it remains a starting position we shared and have drifted away from.

--

* "Governments sometimes create artificial monopolies for limited periods by mandating entry restrictions. Patents are a principal example of this. A patent confers a monopoly upon the patent holder until its expiry."

http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/monopoly-social-science/

see also, natural monopoly: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/natural-monopoly.html

Edited February 8, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
cleanup

[New Buddha]

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

However I remain in agreement with what you expressed earlier, that an individual must be allowed the choice to respect the intellectual property of others.  I think your following comments suggest you aren't fully committed to that view, but it remains a starting position we shared and have drifted away from.

I'm not splitting hairs, but I did not say that an individual must be allowed.

What I said, to Gio, was:

"The Ghost of Ayn Rand is not going to come down from the heavens and smite anyone for not respecting IP.  Respecting IP is a choice that each individual must make for himself.  And respecting the IP of others is in the self-interest of a productive human being."

(If you want to download pirated music and make illegal copies of video games, that is your choice.  Others may disagree with you, and try and throw you in jail, but it is your choice to obey laws or not.  But that's another post!)

Gio's argument was that property can only be something "tangible" without explaining why.  To him it is unquestioned, its a given.  This is a form of intrinicism.  But all property -- Real, Chattel or Intellectual -- is Property because we human beings say it is.  The Ghost of Ayn Rand was meant (perhaps confusingly) to say that there is nothing supernatural or "from beyond" that says what can and cannot be property. Gio also said that "property" has always "existed" and went on with a "primitive man just knows" and "society corrupts" line of reasoning.  Pure Rousseau nonsense.

This is not how we got our laws

 

 

We (especially in Britain and the US) have learned through many bloody centuries, uprisings and revolutions that societies function best when individuals live in a a society that respect Real, Chattel and Intellectual Property.  We learned to abandon violence, slavery, rape, pillaging and murder not because it's "right" in any a priori or supernatural sense, but because it works with our nature.  Our laws will also change over time.

Edited February 8, 2016 by New Buddha

[New Buddha]

In reply to Devils top most link:

" Monopoly power is a broad term that refers to the ability of sellers to hike prices above costs. For instance, although the seller of a famous clothing label is not considered to be a pure monopolist, it has monopoly power to charge prices above those of less popular labels".

I swear, I think I'm being trolled.  This is the same thing as a Ma Bell or the Post Office?  Expensive clothing is only "expensive" because there is an alternative - less expensive clothing.  And is there anywhere an expensive line of clothes that doesn't have SOME competition?

From AR Lexicon Monopoly

"The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises."

No where does she say Patents, Trademarks or Copyrights.  She didn't just forget to include IP - she did not see IP as "barring of all competing producers from a given field" because it does not.  Unless you redefine what "barring" means.

Ownership of Reardon Metal was such a central part of Atlas Shrugged....

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

Thanks for the clarification.  Nonetheless, the right to property is made credible not because we humans say so, but because the law of identity says so.

As to trolling, phui!  The passage I cited (not the one you referred to) was presented in response to your assertion that opponents of IP, "see barriers and monopolies where none exist".  Such barriers and monopolies actually do exist regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge them.  Such casual dismissal of what actually is indicates a break is in order.

[Eiuol]

On 2/8/2016 at 9:30 AM, DonAthos said:

I'm at that point of frustration where I must step away for a bit.

No problem, sometimes an impasse needed to figure out some new ideas. I'm just looking to do an inventory of creation. That is, to see and present -all- the labor, even mental labor, mixed into production, and who is responsible for each piece. Here, we can skip to mental labors, and if a thing needs to be tangible to be called "created". Copying is only one kind of mental labor.

[Devil's Advocate]

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... Copying is only one kind of mental labor.

Then we agree that it is labor, which combined with something tangible, becomes property.  But is it the labor of a thief?  I would like to understand how copying is theft.

If a burglar finds something you have hidden away, and duplicates it leaving the original intact, is the crime a theft or a trespass (or both)? I think all can agree to the trespass and even to forgery, but in what way is a duplication of property a theft of property?

Set aside the context of trespass (not hidden), and forgery (not misrepresented), and what remains is a second piece of property that belongs to the individual who worked to produce it.  If anything, the original becomes even more valuable and unique by the action of duplication.

[Eiuol]

1 minute ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Then we agree that it is labor, which combined with something tangible, becomes property.  But is it the labor of a thief?  I would like to understand how copying is theft.

The part that matters if your labor used stolen materials. So if you used stolen materials, you'd be stealing. I already talked about it in my last 2 posts.

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes, if my labor uses stolen materials then whatever action follows is that of a thief.  Now just convince me that material in public view/use is private and well be closer to resolution.

If I see your car in a parking lot, I at least know it's not mine, and the same would be true of an idea (I think).  I wouldn't presume to drive off with it and not get punished.  But IP (as practiced) would allow me to take it for the purpose of learning how to drive but not for going to market.  That's very different than (or inconsistent with) all other applications of private property isn't it?

[Devil's Advocate]

Here's an exercise that will help me understand the pro IP argument better...

I create a new vehicle, name it the Devil's Ride, and want to limit its use to my benefit.

1) A patent allows me to prohibit anyone from duplicating* it for commercial purposes for a period of time.

2) A copyright allows me to prohibit anyone from duplicating* it for commercial purposes.

3) A trademark allows me to prohibit anyone from duplicating my logo on the hood (a fallen angel) , its color (ebony), or fragrance of emission (sulfur) for commercial purposes.

4) A trade secret allows me to prohibit anyone from reverse engineering it for commercial purposes.

I have italicized "for commercial purposes" to highlight what I see as the bone of contention in this discussion.  Is there any personal/educational prohibition of use beyond commercial purposes, and is this an accurate description of the terms we are using?

If I see you driving a duplication of the Devil's Ride without my express permission, but not trying to sell the duplicate, can I send you to Hell, or at least tell God on you??
--
* meaning an exact copy in every detail

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The part that matters if your labor used stolen materials. So if you used stolen materials, you'd be stealing.

Using stolen materials? Yes, that's theft. Ideas are not material. Using the ideas of others is not theft.

[Eiuol]

So you just said not tangible = not materials of production. That is, ideas aren't produced nor are they used as a piece of production. And yes, I imagine it sounds absurd. That's the point. You spoke of how important it is to use particular ideas of others. This at least makes some ideas material for production, since without them, your car wouldn't get made. Just like how without an engine, your car won't get made either.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Eiuol

[New Buddha]

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I have italicized "for commercial purposes" to highlight what I see as the bone of contention in this discussion.  Is there any personal/educational prohibition of use beyond commercial purposes, and is this an accurate description of the terms we are using?

If I see you driving a duplication of the Devil's Ride without my express permission, but not trying to sell the duplicate, can I send you to Hell, or at least tell God on you??
--
* meaning an exact copy in every detail

http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/articles/5428/automobile-designs-protecting-investment-legend-intellectual-property

I found this about the distinctive design elements of a Ford Mustang.  I originally didn't think that Copyrights would apply to anything but the copying of design documents and specifications for use in building a reproduction.  But apparently Copyrights can be extended to physical design elements as well.  I've never heard this applied to buildings, probably because most parts of a building are "functional" (in addition to aesthetic).  But, I've also never encountered any IP issues related to Design.

My understanding is that any duplication for use is an infringement on IP.  This would prohibit you from building a duplicate of a protected property for every day use.  Even if you have no intent to sell or manufacturer it.  You can reverse engineer items for research/testing, but to use a product it would need to differ from the original patented one.  This would apply to the proverbial unique, patented hammer built by a carpenter and used to build a tree house in his back yard.

Regarding a patent for a "car".  Per the article, a Design Patent (and other IP types) can protect the "look", such as the distinctive look and parts (horse logo) of a Ford Mustang.  But the "car" itself, is composed of a multitude of both patented and non-patentable items.  Most cars (like buildings) are assembled from many Third Party parts, who may also retain IP protection for the products sold to companies such as Ford.  And Ford may own some IP directly.

Six years after I got my B Arch, I took the LSAT exams.  I should have followed my sister into the Law...

Edited February 11, 2016 by New Buddha

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

So you just said not tangible = not materials of production. That is, ideas aren't produced nor are they used as a piece of production. And yes, I imagine it sounds absurd. That's the point. You spoke of how important it is to use particular ideas of others. This at least makes some ideas material for production, since without them, your car wouldn't get made. Just like how without an engine, your car won't get made either.

I said that ideas are not material, not that a person must not have some idea in mind when he creates property (wherever that idea comes from). This does not make ideas "material."

You're attempting to play word games in lieu of dealing with the facts of reality. Not that I blame you, exactly; there is no rational defense of IP (or at least, the Objectivist theory fails). But this accounts for at least some of my frustration.

[Eiuol]

It's not word games, it's just that you are only acknowledging one sense of the word of "material", one being tangible things (i.e. the material that is wood and its atoms) as opposed to what you use to construct something (i.e. you created a plan in your mind in order to put together steel beams for a skyscraper). These are two different words. Indeed, there is no rational defense of IP if you only consider the first word. And yes, it will look like word games if you see no principled reason for my distinction. Again, you never did answer if it is possible to -create- mental things. I'd assume not, since it sounds like you're saying a thing is only called -created- if it is tangible. If created things could be immaterial, and those creations are needed to make something further, then yes, certain types of ideas are materials. At this point though I'll stop, because we can't progress until you explain at least first what elements are used in creating.

[Devil's Advocate]

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

... My understanding is that any duplication for use is an infringement on IP.  This would prohibit you from building a duplicate of a protected property for every day use.  Even if you have no intent to sell or manufacturer it.  You can reverse engineer items for research/testing, but to use a product it would need to differ from the original patented one.  This would apply to the proverbial unique, patented hammer built by a carpenter and used to build a tree house in his back yard...

Yes, this seems to be the case.  Commercial use appears to me to be the primary concern, but there also seems to be some leeway regarding use for research.  It also appears to me that the onus is on the patent holder to initiate legal action against infringement, which may account for some ambiguity in the regulation of IP for noncommercial use.

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

... If created things could be immaterial, and those creations are needed to make something further, then yes, certain types of ideas are materials...

You're not going to like this but to paraphrase the lady, if that which you claim to think about does not exist (yet), what you possess is not property.  Can something really exist as property prior to being brought into existence as a material thing? How exactly does one validate the existence of an idea prior to any physical manifestation or prototype?

I suppose if you're desperate to claim all property is intellectual this is the direction you'd need to go, but it appears dangerously close to reversing the POE...

[dream_weaver]

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I said that ideas are not material, not that a person must not have some idea in mind when he creates property (wherever that idea comes from). This does not make ideas "material."

You're attempting to play word games in lieu of dealing with the facts of reality. Not that I blame you, exactly; there is no rational defense of IP (or at least, the Objectivist theory fails). But this accounts for at least some of my frustration.

In her patent and copyright article, she does indicate that the idea has to be put forth in a material manifestation to either apply a patent or copyright to.

As to the Objectivist theory, could it just be that it is not more easily understood, as opposed to having simply failed?

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

From the Patents and Copyrights Lexicon:

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed.

A point that I've tried to stress is that a Patent is for the invention only as shown in drawings and specifications.  If, in the course of mass manufacturing or due to customer feedback, it is determined that the design needs to change, then (I believe) an amendment to the Patent would need to be pursued.  This is why the threshold to reaching a Point of Novelty for a competitor to get a patent for something similar is so low, and why no market is ever "cornered" or exempt from competition due to IP.

Edited February 12, 2016 by New Buddha

[DonAthos]

28 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

In her patent and copyright article, she does indicate that the idea has to be put forth in a material manifestation to either apply a patent or copyright to.

As to the Objectivist theory, could it just be that it is not more easily understood, as opposed to having simply failed?

I invite every individual to come to his own conclusion (as we must), but no, my own conclusion thus far is that the Objectivist theory of IP fails completely, for the reasons given in this thread and elsewhere. If it can be established to my satisfaction that I'm wrong in this, then so be it, I'll change my stance and happily acknowledge it. But even though it would be much more convenient for me to simply agree with Rand on this matter (by far), I cannot pretend to be agnostic or to knowingly contradict the conclusions of my best use of my rational faculty.

I think Rand was occasionally mistaken in her arguments, as in the case of her essay on a female President, and here.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It's not word games, it's just that you are only acknowledging one sense of the word of "material"

Well... only one sense of the word applies to any specific usage/line of argumentation, or else it's equivocation. You'd asked about some item built with "stolen materials," and my response was that ideas are not material, because that's what I took you to mean, in that you were arguing by way of analogy (and I expect that the other DA also envisioned "stolen materials" to mean things like illicitly gained bricks, steel, etc., though he may clarify his own thoughts, if necessary).

If you'd meant "materials" literally to mean "the non-material," well, okay, I guess I can't stop you from such a vague, counterintuitive, and (I would argue) meaningless usage of the term... but then you're begging the question, in asserting that ideas can be stolen, because this presumes that ideas are owned/ownable, which is the very thing up for debate.

Look, take it back to the beginning, take it back to reality (I implore you). Why do we have a concept of "theft" and why is it accounted bad in the first place? If you steal someone's bacon, so what? Who cares?

The "so what," the "who cares," is that the person you've stolen from is hurt. Deprived. Injured. He worked to acquire bacon and now, thanks to you, he doesn't have it. Which means he cannot eat it. Which means (in a general, yet literal way) that he may die, on account of starvation. Your theft is anti-life. It strips a man of the fruit of his labor, yet we all must be able to enjoy the fruits of our labor if we are to survive and thrive.

Contrast this to the so-called "theft" of the non-material; of ideas. If Man A builds a plow, or a car, or a SteakSabre, or whatever, and you "steal" the idea by building one of your own, then none of the above paragraph is true of this "theft." Man A is not hurt. He is not deprived. He is not injured. He worked to acquire his plow and... he still has it. Which means he may still use it to till his fields, which means he may still reap his crops, which means he may yet eat. Your "theft" is not anti-life, but pro-life. It does not strip a man of the fruit of his labor, but doubles the extant fruit, accounting each to the man who has labored to build it. It is an example of productiveness. It is the creation of a new material value by means of the virtue of learning (which you would account "copying").

Forget all the rest, Eiuol. If you mean to demonstrate to me that IP is a right, then show me the harm its violation is meant to cause. Man A builds a plow and uses it to till his fields; Man B copies the plow and uses this new plow to till his own fields. What precisely is the harm done to Man A?

[Devil's Advocate]

4 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

...(and I expect that the other DA also envisioned "stolen materials" to mean things like illicitly gained bricks, steel, etc., though he may clarify his own thoughts, if necessary)...

He did; there is no other credible meaning to be had.

If thoughts, efforts and products are property, then we are simply left with, "property is property".  I mean what else is there when the ends is also the means.  Apparently the way to end up with a brick as property, is to begin with that brick as property?

[Eiuol]

49 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Well... only one sense of the word applies to any specific usage/line of argumentation, or else it's equivocation. You'd asked about some item built with "stolen materials," and my response was that ideas are not material, because that's what I took you to mean, in that you were arguing by way of analogy (and I expect that the other DA also envisioned "stolen materials" to mean things like illicitly gained bricks, steel, etc., though he may clarify his own thoughts, if necessary)

I didn't yet assert there that ideas can be stolen, I only asked if ideas can count as creations. I didn't ask about an item built from stolen materials, I asked about what materials were used to make an item while also explaining why I was asking. We need to know what something is made from first. I wasn't making an analogy, I really was counting ideas as part of your materials in the sense of "what you used to make it possible".

There will be no satisfactory argument about any possible harm or violation of rights if we don't agree on what the products of one's labors actually are. It would just sound like pure rationalization.

EDIT: In my materials thing, I didn't assume all the materials were property even.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Eiuol

[DonAthos]

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I didn't yet assert there that ideas can be stolen, I only asked if ideas can count as creations.

"Can count as"?

When I say that you're attempting to play word games, here is a fine example. If we're discussing the term "creation," hell, we can use it any which way you'd like. Sure, ideas can count as "creations," if we choose to use that term to refer to both the material and the non-material... so long as we thereafter hold in our minds what we've agreed to, and what it entails. We can't then try to switch our meaning mid-argument, or use the term inappropriately. For instance, if we agree that ideas are "creations," then property does not apply to "creations" as a group, because "creations" fails to distinguish between the material and the non-material, in our current usage. "Creations," I fear, then becomes somewhat useless to us, because it fails to address those features of reality which are themselves (if you'll excuse me) material to our further concepts of "property," "theft," and etc.

But instead of all of playing all of these sorts of games, wouldn't you rather just talk about things as they actually are? It is potentially so much more rewarding.

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I didn't ask about an item built from stolen materials, I asked about what materials were used to make an item while also explaining why I was asking.

If "materials" includes the non-material, then sure, one can consider an idea a "material" used in building some item, just like bricks, so long as this is understood metaphorically... for, in actuality, ideas are rather unlike bricks. ("Stolen materials," where "materials" extends to the non-material as just now agreed to, then becomes an inappropriate construction, for the reasons I've recently discussed -- it is either equivocation or begging the question to do so, depending on the specific intent/usage.)

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

We need to know what something is made from first.

If all of this is to say that one must have an idea in order to build something, it seems a point that... has never been in dispute? Like, at all. So it's hard to understand what any of your argument is meant to get at, except for the possibility of redefining "material" to include the non-material, relying upon equivocation to then be able to say "well see, and now you're building plows with stolen materials, because you're using someone else's idea without permission" and hoping that no one was paying sufficient attention to observe the misuse of this newly redefined term. (Or hoping that they're too tired of tracking down every misuse of logic to bother with this one... which is actually where you nearly have me, so take heart! )

But the reason I want to discuss reality instead of playing these games with you (apart from the fact that they get us nowhere, and are intellectually exhausting), is because reality cannot be tricked. It really doesn't ultimately matter what we consider to be a "creation" or "material"; what is theft is theft, and what is not theft is not theft; ideas remain ideas and things remain things, and the latter can be stolen whereas the former cannot, for reasons which account to the nature of both ideas and things, and which cannot be argued around (though we can surely suffer in the attempt).

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

There will be no satisfactory argument about any possible harm or violation of rights if we don't agree on what the products of one's labors actually are. It would just sound like pure rationalization.

I imagine it would.

When you're at the point where you refuse to answer direct questions, because you recognize that your answers to those questions will "sound" irrational, then I think it's a fine time to begin the process of "checking your premises."

In the meantime, look, we don't have conceptions of "harm" or "violations of right" (let alone care about them) because we have defined things into being "harmful" or "violations," or etc. We have these conceptions and we care so much about them because (ideally) we are responding to the reality of the situation. The approach of saying "well, violations of right are harmful; we choose to define this thing as a violation of right; ipso facto, it is harmful" is circular, is rationalization (as you have noted), and it will not serve our purposes in reaching the truth, because it is unmoored. Unrooted in reality.

We must establish whether something is or is not actually harmful by pointing to... well, the harm it causes, or is meant to cause, in reality. We must demonstrate how it acts against man's life and his flourishing, not because we have defined it as a violation of some supposed right -- and we know from subsequent inference that all violations of right have the effect of working against man's life -- but because we can observe a man suffering in some meaningful and relatable fashion as a consequence of these actions, whether this is in real life cases or in our hypothetical examples.

With respect to actual property, I hold that I can do so, and that I did so, when I observed the consequences of stealing a man's bacon, and how this may lead to literal death, due to sundering from a man the fruit of his labor. That's harm. I then challenged you to demonstrate the harm done to Man A when Man B builds his own plow to till his own fields, on which account we award Man A the right to bar Man B from doing so.

I challenge you to do this still.

[Devil's Advocate]

3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

... I challenge you to do this still.

It's difficult to get any traction with your opponent if he doesn't accept your presupposition that copying innovation is a theft of property.  You ask, what's the harm?  If I take your bacon, you can't eat it.  If I copy your bacon... ???  Well, it wasn't yours to copy, was it?  There!  I caught you, you nasty little bacon thief!!

Except that now there's twice as much bacon... Here want some back??