Intellectual property

[StrictlyLogical]

15 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

When you said "starting with", I presumed you meant an order of operations.  Obviously there would be something you are interested in recreating; an original.  Without it you wouldn't need materials.

Not trying to be snarky, but did you mean to jump to "doing what"?  I'm letting you set the pace and I want to avoid having to go back later to fill in tacit (but misunderstood on my part) directions.

Let's get this perfect:

1A) Starting with: the original object itself, or recorded observations (results of reverse engineering or memory) of the object, or a design known to correspond to the original object, and materials or matter similar to that of the original object
1B) Acts: Constructing, assembling, forming from the materials or matter similar to that of the original, according to the observations or design
1C) Result: A second object which is a replication or duplicate object which is substantially the same as the original object.

Any tweaks to suggest?

 

Edit:

Post Script:  Incidentally, I am not presupposing a right to "re-creation", only investigating what it is.

Edited April 8, 2016 by StrictlyLogical

[Devil's Advocate]

This looks like a good division of process into fields of analysis, assembly and product.  The actual steps probably aren't linear, i.e. an actual duplication process might go something like: 1A > 1B > 1A > 1B > 1C > 1B > 1C

Re edit:  My premise is, a right to create implies a right to recreate.

My edit:  My 2nd context responses remain the same thus far...

Edited April 8, 2016 by Devil's Advocate

[StrictlyLogical]

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

This looks like a good division of process into fields of analysis, assembly and product.  The actual steps probably aren't linear, i.e. an actual duplication process might go something like: 1A > 1B > 1A > 1B > 1C > 1B > 1C

Re edit:  My premise is, a right to create implies a right to recreate.

My edit:  My 2nd context responses remain the same thus far...

Do we agree on 1?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

13 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

1. Recreating an observed "physical object"

2. Recreating an "idea in the form of an invention/design/book"

 

What is the purpose of distinguishing between these?

[Devil's Advocate]

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Do we agree on 1?

Yes - I'm giving you some leeway on materials and matter because I might limit that to identification of in the analysis phase, but I think we can proceed.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

What is the purpose of distinguishing between these?

I read this as an attempt to distinguish between physical property and an idea as property, but StrictlyLogical may need to clarify this.

[StrictlyLogical]

16 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

What is the purpose of distinguishing between these?

DA asserts importance of recreation. So recreation is being analyzed in terms of both of the contexts.  

[StrictlyLogical]

14 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Yes - I'm giving you some leeway on materials and matter because I might limit that to identification of in the analysis phase, but I think we can proceed.

 

Ok.  I suggest you take a first shot at 2.  I will comment , suggest tweaks or agree.  Try to be as detailed as what we agree on for 1.

[Devil's Advocate]

What's the big idea?

As mentioned, I think the initial steps are essentially the same with the difference in result being knowledge as opposed to product.  More specifically, steps 1 lead to an expansion of products and steps 2 lead to an expansion of knowledge.  In detailed form:

2A) Starting with: the original idea, or recorded observations (results of reverse engineering or memory) of the idea, or a design known to correspond to the original idea, and materials or matter similar to that of the original idea.

2B) Acts: Constructing, assembling, forming from the materials or matter similar to that of the idea, according to the observations or design.

2C) Result: A second idea which is a replication or duplicate idea which is substantially the same as the original idea.

[StrictlyLogical]

18 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

What's the big idea?

As mentioned, I think the initial steps are essentially the same with the difference in result being knowledge as opposed to product.  More specifically, steps 1 lead to an expansion of products and steps 2 lead to an expansion of knowledge.  In detailed form:

2A) Starting with: the original idea, or recorded observations (results of reverse engineering or memory) of the idea, or a design known to correspond to the original idea, and materials or matter similar to that of the original idea.

2B) Acts: Constructing, assembling, forming from the materials or matter similar to that of the idea, according to the observations or design.

2C) Result: A second idea which is a replication or duplicate idea which is substantially the same as the original idea.

You've parroted many words from the example in 1 but I cannot make sense of them.  I asked for something in "as much" detail, not something which does not make sense.

All that seems to make sense so far is "2A), Starting with: the original idea"

If you start with the original idea, presumably you "have it" completely, not partially.  There is no need to "observe" an idea... and I am not certain about what you mean by "observing an idea".  Let's assume you understand it fully and entirely i.e. you have it somehow as your starting point.  Perhaps you obtain the idea from a conversation, or a book... but once you have the idea in your mind... there is no act of "observation" needed.. such a purported act is contrived and superfluous.

Also what are "materials or matter" similar to that of the original idea?  This makes no sense.  It looks like you want to parrot the language applicable to 1... unfortunately it is nonsensical.  The context for 2 must not be ignored.

So far we have

2A) Starting with: the original idea

2B) ??

2C) ??

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You are made aware that I have an idea and a prototype for stopping a car with a gadget called a "disc brake cylinder".  Do you now have everything you need to duplicate my idea or the product that comes from it?

2A begins with analysis of the original idea as observed, e.g., what did I hear/see? who did I hear it from?? how much description did I obtain???  does this idea sound like anything I am familiar with in design or composition????

My point is the idea leads to the product and vice versa.  You can start with either one to obtain the other, and the steps are essentially the same: analyze > assemble > product/knowledge

I suppose another way of presenting it would be as:  concept > proof of concept > fact, but again, the steps are essentially the same.  Shall we move on to 2B, or are we done here?

[StrictlyLogical]

We are not talking about "things" or "products" in this context.  That is, if we are having the same conversation...

In any case:

2A) Start with: original idea

The idea is what it is and assuming one has obtained it, then it could be said one "starts" with it.

Agreed? 

You can move onto 2B.

[Devil's Advocate]

OK, well my concern here is if you're simply attempting to define starting with an idea (or product) as equivalent to receiving a use without effort of someone's property.  That would be consistent with a pro-IP argument, and you seem to be going to some length to make that point.  Is that how you see it??

Edit: What I'm questioning is you're statement, "If you start with the original idea, presumably you 'have it' completely, not partially.  There is no need to 'observe' an idea..."

Having access to an idea and understanding it are separate levels of possession.  To use your reference to parroting, the bird has an ability to repeat English (and in that sense possesses the sound), but does the bird have an understanding of English?

Edited April 11, 2016 by Devil's Advocate

[StrictlyLogical]

I'm not attempting anything.  There is a discussion to be had whether property can be in "tangible stuff" as well as in intangibles and ideas specifically (because they are essentially the subject of IP).

You asserted something you deemed important, namely rights to "re-creation".  In order to facilitate discussion I embarked on entertaining your idea of such rights and for sake of relevancy proposed and began discussing it in the two contexts : "stuff" and "ideas".

Why are you "concerned" about investigating the issues, namely, identifying and defining what "re-creation" is in the two contexts?  If you don't want to talk about re-creation I think I know why.  But it matters not.

 

As for "attempting" something... I am "attempting" to frankly and honestly analyze this without evasion or prejudgment.  If you are willing to adopt the same approach I think it would be worth it to continue the discussion.  If you cannot or will not do so I wish you well.

[Devil's Advocate]

Interesting...

So we can agree on the steps to a physical product of duplication but not to an idea being duplicated because if you start with an idea you already have it (but no so with a physical object?).  Why not revise your 1st context steps to be:

1A) Starting with: the original object itself.

1B) N/A

1C) N/A

??

The creation of a physical object requires materials and mater and effort.  The recreation of that object by another person requires the same.  The creation of a mental object requires something combined with effort too, as does the recreation by another person of that same mental object.  If this weren't the case we could simply send one person to school and his education would cover the rest, somehow...

Not sure where progress can be made at this point.  I'll take some time to pause and reflect and get back to you...

 

[StrictlyLogical]

22 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

as does the recreation by another person of that same mental object

THIS is what we have yet to analyze.  We can do it or not.  Your choice.

[Devil's Advocate]

Oh I'm in, I just need to work out the distinction you see between the creation of "stuff" and "ideas".  Do you accept the term re-create as defined by Merriam-Webster: "to create again; especially :  to form anew in the imagination" ?

[StrictlyLogical]

1.  Show me the link to the definition, however, the bit about imagination is not particularly relevant

2.  Imagination is a specific kind of mental process which is tangential to our discussion of ideas.  Imagination encompasses a broad range of mental processes including experiential and non-cognitive functioning: feelings, perception - ambience, nostalgia, colors, smells, fear, excitement, etc.  It is in this area of experiential imagination that the term re-creation is applicable.  One can "cause" a re-creation of a feeling in your mind with words which describe a feeling.  Why is it re-creation?  Because experiences are experienced in time, presumably you had the feeling before (it was created), the feeling then ceased, and the reading of words caused i.e. created the feeling again, i.e. a re-creation of the feeling. 

This is not what we are talking about and discussion of this is mostly useless.

 

Any claim to a right of "re-creation" of ideas is invalid and meaningless unless it is based on a valid conception of what "re-creation" of an idea means.

 

Like I said, we can do this or not. 

Come up with a 2B which you believe is rationally valid and I will comment, tweak, or agree.  Alternatively, if you do NOT agree with 2A, feel free to come up with a rationally valid 2A, 2B, and 2C on your own.  If you believe a division into 2A, 2B, or 2C are inapplicable to the process of re-creation, i.e. if you believe it cannot be summarized as "givens", "acts", "results", please feel free to make your case for "re-creation" being something different.  Please just tell me in detail what re-creation of an idea actually means to you.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by StrictlyLogical

[Devil's Advocate]

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/re%20creatable

Presuming you accept the definition, I’m uncertain why you’d allow that stuff can be formed anew, but ideas cannot.  I have been using the terms re-create and duplicate interchangeably, so my premise that a right to create implies a right to re-create can also be stated as a right to make an original implies a right to duplicate that original.  In both cases the original necessarily precedes the duplicate/re-creation such that without the original, duplication/re-creation wouldn’t occur.  I will continue to use the term re-create in that context.

Stuff as property is fairly well understood in terms of objects in possession. I think ideas as property is more contentious because of the difficulty of using those terms.  I can possess an idea, but can I be dispossessed of it?  Clearly I cannot violate your property so long as it remains in your possession as a pebble on your beach. Violations only occur by forcing a possession from a proper owner to an improper one.

Having said that, 2A remains essentially the same as 1A, starting with original stuff/idea and analyzing that stuff/idea.  2A/B is the assembly phase and 3A/B is the realization of re-created stuff/idea by someone other than the originator.  The alternative to re-creation would be that original ideas share headspace which would establish a very peculiar form of property indeed.  I hope that we can proceed without becoming mired down in an argument over terminology.

[StrictlyLogical]

14 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Presuming you accept the definition, I’m uncertain why you’d allow that stuff can be formed anew, but ideas cannot

Why are you playing at being in my head in your attempt at thinking for yourself????

 

14 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I will continue to use the term re-create in that context.

I have no problem with the term duplication.

 

14 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

2A/B is the assembly phase

You've identified "the original idea" in 2A. 

In the assembly phase "what" are you assembling, and from "what" are you assembling it?

 

14 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

3A/B is the realization of re-created stuff/idea by someone other than the originator

Assuming "assembly" is complete in 2B, what do you mean by "realization" of an idea?  The someone started with the original idea in 2A, assembled "something" in 2B, what constitutes "realization" of what in 2C?  Is it realization of the original idea or are you saying it is realization of a different idea? 

 

Again your terms  "assembly", and "realization" parrot meanings which may be valid in other contexts but until you define them here they are meaningless, and "re-creation or duplication of an idea" is a floating abstraction, an anti-concept, or gibberish. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by StrictlyLogical

[Devil's Advocate]

43 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

... I have no problem with the term duplication...

If you also have no problem with, "a right to make an original implies a right to duplicate* that original", then we can move on and welcome you to the opposition

If not, let's take a break from this "stuff and ideas" exercise to give you an opportunity to explain how a right to property implies a right to prohibit duplication* by others.  You may start with the right to life and proceed from there.

--

* duplication is not supported by the opposition as an action of theft, forgery or fraud.

edit: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplication

Edited April 12, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
added link to definition

[StrictlyLogical]

3 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

If you also have no problem with, "a right to make an original implies a right to duplicate* that original", then we can move on and welcome you to the opposition

If not, let's take a break from this "stuff and ideas" exercise to give you an opportunity to explain how a right to property implies a right to prohibit duplication* by others.  You may start with the right to life and proceed from there.

--

* duplication is not supported by the opposition as an action of theft, forgery or fraud.

edit: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplication

I have no problem with the term "duplication" in your assertion, not that I agree with the truth of your assertion.

 

I'm not letting you off the hook.  You maintain a right to duplication or re-creation of ideas exists.  You don't get to evade thinking it though because you are afraid of the answer.

 

Why wont you just tell me what you mean!!!!?????  How CAN you duplicate an idea?

You start with an original idea (and possibly something else), you do WHAT with it (them)?

What do you end up with? The original idea? A different idea?

[Devil's Advocate]

LOL, it's difficult to respond when you don't understand the question.  I appreciate your effort to work this through, so please don't let me off the hook.

The duplication of an idea results in an expansion of knowledge, i.e. two or more people having a similar understanding.  There remains an original source with duplication in separate headspaces, each with an independent means of implementing a right to life.  Independent implementations implies some differences in process, although those processes still involve analysis and assembling steps that work in order to achieve the same kind of property (duplicated). That's about as clear as I can present this to you, and I acknowledge that it may be insufficient to satisfy your request (or avoid your frustration).

I maintain the implementation of a right to life doesn't prohibit duplication, in fact it relies on duplication to be of any value.  Entitling one without the other creates a contradiction because the actions necessary to live require both creation and duplication; no one prohibits a creator from duplication of his property. Why prohibit anyone else?  Think that through and much will follow.

If you determine that property (as an implementation of the right to life) is violated in duplication by others, share your reasoning.  That is what has been missing from 27 pages of discussion.

[Devil's Advocate]

On 4/7/2016 at 3:18 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

...  Believe it or not, this ultimately revolves around the nature of communication.

It is sad that force is so often used to punctuate unpersuasive arguments about the blessings of IP...

"Of course this is a free market society"

"Great, I want to make one of those cool new things for myself"

"I'm sorry, the product owner doesn't allow you to do that"

"But I never agreed to his terms"

"Somebody call Security!"

"Forget it, I'll go somewhere else"

"Not with that idea you won't.  Shoot him!!"

--

Interesting link BTW, thanks for sharing.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Devil's Advocate

[dream_weaver]

9 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

"Not with that idea you won't.  Shoot him!!"

I didn't read the communication, but "Shoot him!"? Is that a little bit of overkill?

Edited April 12, 2016 by dream_weaver