Patents, innovation, and progress

[punk]

I'd say once again the argument I was getting out was weaseled around a bit.

An implicit point in the argument was that Og and Og Enterprises acts *irrationally*. Og enterprises says to Henry Ford: "Its our terms take it or leave, we don't care if we lose money." Ford can opt not to make cars and Og Enterprises can opt to forgo the money. The end.

A society cannot assume everyone in it acts rationally. In fact if society hinges on everyone acting rationally then it is doomed.

Og Enterprises tells Ford "You either take the finite life span contract whereby you can make cars but we retain all our rights, or none of us make money."

What happens when a rational society comes under the leverage of an irrational member? In a law abiding society you can't simply resort to some sort of vigilantism.

A rational society should be structured so that any power accrued to an irrational party naturally dilutes itself over time.

Think of it as a sort of an "error-correction" mechanism.

An irrational person doesn't work the land they own, and naturally it becomes valueless over time.

Similarly an irrational person who owns a patent but doesn't want to put any work into it, but rather make money for nothing should have the power represented in the patent dissolve over time through a patent lifetime.

An aristocracy represents a mechanism that allows irrational persons to maintain power in spite of themselves and without work. A perpetual patent holds the distinct potential to form such an aristocracy.

[DavidOdden]

Well, Kendall's perpetual-patent story is the best one that I have seen, and it might be tenable in the modern world. Part of the problem in evaluating such proposals is that they often involve significant doses of surreal speculation, for example, the consequences of a perpetual patent on the knife, wheel, hammer, saw, ax or screw-driver. The flaw that I see in any such discussion is that it presupposes a significant level of socio-political development such as has existed for less that 600 years. Since the simple concept of "right to tangible property" took such a long time to develop, any talk of cavemen inventing the wheel (NB the development of the wheel postdated man's emergence from the cave by millennia), forming corporations, forming governments and legal systems, inventing writing systems and durable methods of record-keeping is just so surreal that it's hard to take it seriously. So to be more realistic, the telegraph could be patented, but you will presumably have noticed how the telegraph has been superceded completely.

I think the bottom-line question is this: how bad is the worst-case scenario, under plausible assumptions, if we were to change patent law so that patents are held in perpetuity? The answer, I think, lies in the specificity of the claims section. So to take Bell's telephone patent as an example (the claims are at the very end), claim 2 refers to a permanent magnet or other body capable of inductive action... and the latter, I would argue, constitutes an improperly open-ended claim of ownership. His claim is not just a claim about a particular device, but also devices which he could not have made, such as a receiver using a bio-mimetic gel induction pack. Still, I don't think there are any functioning phones except possibly museum pieces which operate according to Bell's original specification. If we strike that clause, then I think the claims are specific enough that they describe a particular method of sound-to-current transduction but not every imaginable method, so from what I can tell, that phone patent should have become worth relatively little a year later when Edison invented the carbon microphone (though, perhaps the 15 year lag in granting the patent had something to do with it).

At any rate, the need for patent-extermination is motivated by a moral concern (the practical), but whether there is an actual moral issue that requires termination of patents after some period is intimately tied to the specificity of the patent. In the modern era, it may be simple enough to get around a particular patent by studying the abstract underlying principles and reinventing the wheel, using e.g. chicken fat instead of mud, or steel rather than wood. One thing that I think does have to change in the law, if patents become perpetual, is a requirement of identifiability of the patent-holder. I've had real-world hassles on the copyright side, where the actual right-holder is not transparent. Although IP has to be registered to be protected, there is no requirement of registering change of ownership. One way to address this problem is to require a periodic and official assertion of right.

[KendallJ]

I'd say once again the argument I was getting out was weaseled around a bit.

An implicit point in the argument was that Og and Og Enterprises acts *irrationally*. Og enterprises says to Henry Ford: "Its our terms take it or leave, we don't care if we lose money." Ford can opt not to make cars and Og Enterprises can opt to forgo the money. The end.

A society cannot assume everyone in it acts rationally. In fact if society hinges on everyone acting rationally then it is doomed.

Og Enterprises tells Ford "You either take the finite life span contract whereby you can make cars but we retain all our rights, or none of us make money."

What happens when a rational society comes under the leverage of an irrational member? In a law abiding society you can't simply resort to some sort of vigilantism.

A rational society should be structured so that any power accrued to an irrational party naturally dilutes itself over time.

Think of it as a sort of an "error-correction" mechanism.

An irrational person doesn't work the land they own, and naturally it becomes valueless over time.

Similarly an irrational person who owns a patent but doesn't want to put any work into it, but rather make money for nothing should have the power represented in the patent dissolve over time through a patent lifetime.

An aristocracy represents a mechanism that allows irrational persons to maintain power in spite of themselves and without work. A perpetual patent holds the distinct potential to form such an aristocracy.

Hi punk,

I though a lot about the issue of irrationality, as you posited.

You are correct that one would think that a rational system would cause irrational choices to in effect be weeded out. My answer is that since the rational is the moral is the practical, reality weeds them out by itself.

We don't get the law involved to take away someone's right to their material property if they choose irrational courses of actions. In fact, this is the very antithesis of a rights in general.

Metaphysically, I think I've extended this to patents as well. If a person is active with his IP wether he chooses rationally or irrationally, his value decays over time. In fact if he chooses irrationally, it decays faster.

Your "What if he doesn't do anything" is taken up by my original argument that the perpetual patent is a fraud, as a hypothetical. The irrational "hermit" will be innovated around, and faster than you might think.

A rational system:

a. treats those who violate patent rights as criminals.

b. let's those who would use their rights irrationally, suffer the metaphysical impact of their own decisions.

c. assures that claims to property are objective, and reality-based.

This is what happens with material property. Why not for IP?

The claim that society is somehow hurt by B is the claim that has allowed tyranny through the ages. Holders of that belief hate capitalism today. "The rich man's money would be better spent helping society. He doesn't need all that money. He's just going to waste it anyway..."

[punk]

I think IP (intellectual property) has a certain global property that MP (material property) lacks.

If I own a plot of land and do whatever I want with it the immediate effect on my neighbor is relatively low. The exceptions would be for instance if my property contained a unique resource (say I held the only water in an otherwise waterless area and outside resources were otherwise unavailable), or if a river ran through the property and I dammed it up this putting farmers downstream out of business.

But again with MP my ability to coerce others is rather limited.

With IP and patents we are saying that once I get the patent, I now have something that no one else can ever have. It has a certain global effect where my patent has an effect on everyone that I think is distinctly different from the case of MP, and should be explored in greater detail.

I've thought of a hypothetical that is slightly less contrived and a little more contemporary:

Let's say we live in a society with perpetual patents. Now the conservative christians who oppose stem cell research get the bright idea to form a corporation and buy up key stem cell patents. They secretly form StemCell Inc. and buy the patents by stealth. They have a decent and increasing pool of money since the flock is willing to tithe money to StemCell Inc. for moral reasons. They then go public and say "Look, we have all the key patents and we are telling you up front that we will never license anything out for stem cells. You can do all the research you want but you will never be able to create a commercial therapeutic product. We've scored the moral victory."

So now stem cell research is effectively dead simply because some group owns the rights to key points in it. No amount of creative thinking and genius can revive the field, not because of lack of intelligence in human beings but because some group has purchased a veto on the entire field.

If my neighbor wants to use his MP of his house to spread the message against stem cell research, that doesn't really effect me in a rational society. If all the conservative christians do the same, that doesn't effect me unless I am persuaded by them. But if they now own the perpetual patent, there is nothing I or any scientist in the field can do about it.

The way I see it all the arguments for patents and a rational society assume the owner of a patent is going to want to profit off it, but the way I see it this is the case of arguing from the best case scenario, the interesting case is the worst case scenario.

So I apologize if my original post sounded a bit "socialistic", but this is what I had in mind by appeals to "society". Should human beings in the above case just shrug and say "Well I guess you own stem cell research, we'll just do research in competing fields and hope we can get comparable results, fingers-crossed." Should a rational society find itself in a position of having to deny itself a promising avenue of scientific research solely because an idealist group has purchased a veto on the field?

[DavidOdden]

We have two very different questions in play in this thread. The logically prior question is, is IP a valid moral/legal concept, i.e. should there be IP recognized under the law. The second question is, assuming a "yes" to the first question, should there be a finite duration to the legal right known as "patent". I'm vastly more movable on the second point than on the first. Now furthermore, I don't think anyone should be (simply) arguing for or against finite duration of patents unless you grant the prior premise. If you dispute the validity of IP in the first place, the right answer would be "Well, you're arguing from the false presumption that patents are valid". So now I conclude that we're in universal agreement that patents are valid, at least at this point.

I agree entirely, whole-heartedly, and vociferously, that the shriekingly obvious difference between the definite reference of physical property and the open-ended reference of intangible property is sufficient to make one think carefully at that particular point. But that difference is exactly on the point that, as a metaphysical fact, the notion of destroying the idea protected by a patent is an impossibility. The benefits arising from claiming an idea as a right can be destroyed, but the idea itself can't be destroyed. This is a quirk not found by physical objects.

I have not heard any argument at all that indicates that there is a flaw in the idea of IP itself, and therefore the only issue is whether IP should have a fixed duration or should be tenable infinitely. Hence I assume we all agree (you know what happens when I assume and you don't rebut) that patents are valid, and duration is the only issue left. So then moving on to the most receont post...

Let's say we live in a society with perpetual patents. Now the conservative christians who oppose stem cell research get the bright idea to form a corporation and buy up key stem cell patents.

Aack! Whazzat? What is a "stem cell patent"? Naturally occurring objects, and facts of nature in general, cannot be properly patented. So I'm imagining that you mean "a particular method of creating a kind of cell", i.e. a method patent. Alright, let's assume the Bushies pool their post-Iraq oil wealth and focus on buying up every known method of making stem cells. (I'm presuming, entirely contrary to fact, that there simply are no bio-tech researchers who have the capacity to recognise what's going on and will exercise their rational right to say "No way, Jose". No leaks? Total secrecy? Get real, have you ever dealt with fundies?? You can smell them a mile away). So now, previous methods of stem cell research are effectively dead. Snooze. Once the Jebite's cat is out of the bag, literally thousands of new methods of stem-cell creation will be discovered, because you can't ever patent "the idea of making stem cells".

You are basing your scenario on the presumption of an intrinsic limit on human ingenuity. And as far as stem cells are concerned, there's a very simple non-patentable method, namely "actually taking from fetal tissues", which yields an unbounded supply. And there is nothing you or any other fundy can do about that fact.

So I apologize if my original post sounded a bit "socialistic", but this is what I had in mind by appeals to "society".

Well, I do actually understand that point. "Society" isn't "socialistic". Men live in civilized society for a reason (I assume you know why), and law is a means of subordinating society to moral principle. So we care about society, in the sense that we work to have a system where each individual's rights are recognized. Your property rights are a limit on my rightful actions in a civilized society. But here, the real issue is not about the hopes of society, it is on what precise claim an individual can make about what is properly his. You cannot possible collect all of the patents on all of the stem-cell extraction/creation methods, any more than you can possibly patent all of the methods of transmitting sound over distances.

[punk]

I had in mind by "stem cell patents" the patenting of technical processes and technologies for working with and manipulating stem cells, the idea being that perhaps there are only certain techniques which can take stem cell "input" and produce appropriate stem cell "output" for therapeutic use.

Let's think of this as a sort of modified "Weimar Republic Scenario" under the (perhaps debatable, but let's not debate it here) understanding that the Nazi's took power in the Weimar Republic entirely by legal means and working within the country's constitutional/legal framework.

What ought we to make of a legal structure which allows within its framework the possibility of a legally instituted tyranny? That is to say a tyranny which erects itself entirely within the realm of the society's laws.

As for the Bush and oil scenario:

-If you can think of a scenario that *can* actually arise within a rational society, then I think it shouldn't be dismissed merely for being *unlikely*, if it is *impossible* that is one thing, but as long as it is possible, then it should be treated as a flaw in the legal structure.

Unlikely does not equal impossible, and the law should rule out intolerable *possibilities*

Edited December 24, 2006 by punk

[DavidOdden]

I had in mind by "stem cell patents" the patenting of technical processes and technologies for working with and manipulating stem cells, the idea being that perhaps there are only certain techniques which can take stem cell "input" and produce appropriate stem cell "output" for therapeutic use.

This is a crucial factual assumption, so we need evidence that it's true. It turns out that there are hundreds of ways of transmitting sound from one place to another, other than the method that Bell first patented, so I'm asking, why do you think that there is the metaphysical possibility of just a small set of patentable methods of, say, creating livers from stem cells? Is there something special about stem cells that you're alluding to?

[KendallJ]

This is a crucial factual assumption, so we need evidence that it's true. It turns out that there are hundreds of ways of transmitting sound from one place to another, other than the method that Bell first patented, so I'm asking, why do you think that there is the metaphysical possibility of just a small set of patentable methods of, say, creating livers from stem cells? Is there something special about stem cells that you're alluding to?

Exactly. This assumption is the fundamental patent assumption behind all of your senarios, punk. I have not claimed that it is possible, but just the opposite. If you're going to keep assuming it, then this is what we have to discuss. Else we're not going to get anywhere.

[mrocktor]

So to take Bell's telephone patent as an example (the claims are at the very end), claim 2 refers to a permanent magnet or other body capable of inductive action... and the latter, I would argue, constitutes an improperly open-ended claim of ownership. His claim is not just a claim about a particular device, but also devices which he could not have made, such as a receiver using a bio-mimetic gel induction pack. (...)

Exactly! It is because of such improper claims that complete IP protection seems untenable and we are left with various arbitrary time limits.

I have to take a deep bow to KendallJ. Your writing has brought complete clarity to a topic where my integration was not yet complete - thank you very much.

[Marc K.]

I would like to correct my previous statement that:

[A]ll intellectual property must exist in physical form in order to be patented or copyrighted. This is important: ideas are not patentable only their physical implementation is patentable.

The first sentence is correct, the second is emphatically not.

An idea must exist in physical form in order to be patented. However it is the unique idea behind the physical form which is patented.

[Marc K.]

Please excuse the lateness of the reply.

I’d like to have your comments.

Please help me understand your line of reasoning by correcting any misunderstandings that follow.

Your central premise seems to be that since intellectual property has a naturally occurring valuable lifetime that this is a reason to have an unlimited license on it. I just don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise.

If there is a natural lifetime to the value of an invention wouldn't it be more logical to have the law reflect that?

Also, I was going to mention the implausibility of the Ford/Og hypothetical but I believe you do it yourself ... no? If so, then why use it as one of your "[f]our key metaphysical and epistemological factors:"?

These last would be my critique of your argumentation. More important though is our philosophical disagreement which, as I see it, boils down to our conceptions of value and valuing.

IP should be treated as any other property.

You and I agree on this point but we mean two different things.

Valuing is a constant process. The definition of "value" is "that which one acts to gain and keep."

Thus when I purchase a house I have acted to gain it but the house will soon start to lose its value unless I further act to keep it, meaning: keep it up.

So when I say IP should be treated as any other property I mean that you cannot expect for it to retain its value over time without acting in some way to keep it, like all other property.

This is exactly what would happen in the case of a fundamental patent such as the wheel. The patent for the first (or most fundamental) wheel would have to be so basic as to allow for every concept conceived thereafter which is based on the wheel -- (this is a definitional statement).

I am going to leave this last paragraph in its rudimentary state, if asked I will be glad to expand upon it.

Other areas of discussion that might be interesting could include:

- Why Og seeking a patent for the first wheel is impossible.

- How the advance of technology might be an argument for shortening the lifetime of patents.

[mrocktor]

Your central premise seems to be that since intellectual property has a naturally occurring valuable lifetime that this is a reason to have an unlimited license on it.

I don't speak to Kendall but my central premise is that intellectual property is created, therefore it is owned. The natural lifetime of the aplication is merely a demonstration of the fact that the protection of unlimited property rights does not cause negative consequences to innovation.

The definition of "value" is "that which one acts to gain and keep."

No, the definition is "that which one acts to gain or keep".

This is exactly what would happen in the case of a fundamental patent such as the wheel.

Kendall's argument defeats exactly this conjecture.

[Marc K.]

No, the definition is "that which one acts to gain or keep".

No. I have two citations from the Lexicon:

"'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep" -- from Galts speech

"Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep" -- ITOE, 44

my central premise is that intellectual property is created, therefore it is owned.

As I said before valuing is a constant process. Once you own something you must continue to value it by acting to keep it, as I tried to show with my house example.

[mrocktor]

"Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep"

And/or means OR. Also, your ultimate value is something you only act to keep - you never acted to gain it.

[Marc K.]

And/or means OR.

I'm sorry to inform you that "and" means: and

Also, your ultimate value is something you only act to keep - you never acted to gain it.

By definition there is only one ultimate value -- without it the concept value and the act of valuing would be impossible. So yes, there are some special qualities of an ultimate value but what are you trying to say by asserting this?

Are you saying that there are other values that you don't have to act to gain or keep? Or are you rejecting Ayn Rand's definition of value altogether?

Think of it this way: value is that which one acts to gain and keep. If you act to gain or keep something, you value it.

You must constantly act to value. If you value your girlfriend, you don't just tell her you love her once and then you are done. You don't buy a house and leave it to rot if you value it. And you can't expect to reap infinite value from one moment of brilliant thought.

[KendallJ]

Sorry, I didn't see this thread had started back up.

Please help me understand your line of reasoning by correcting any misunderstandings that follow.

Your central premise seems to be that since intellectual property has a naturally occurring valuable lifetime that this is a reason to have an unlimited license on it. I just don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise.

If there is a natural lifetime to the value of an invention wouldn't it be more logical to have the law reflect that?

Not when that naturally occuring lifetime is contextual and forward looking. How would the law prescribe the naturally occuring lifetime for inventions which have not yet been invented, and take into account both the new invention and the context in which it was invented? If the natural lifetime is something that is really only known after the fact, then attempting to prescribe it woudl be a disaster, don't you think?

The fact that it does have a natural life would indicate that specifcially trying to state it in the law is unneccessary.

Also, I was going to mention the implausibility of the Ford/Og hypothetical but I believe you do it yourself ... no? If so, then why use it as one of your "[f]our key metaphysical and epistemological factors:"?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Thus when I purchase a house I have acted to gain it but the house will soon start to lose its value unless I further act to keep it, meaning: keep it up.

So when I say IP should be treated as any other property I mean that you cannot expect for it to retain its value over time without acting in some way to keep it, like all other property.

That is exactly how I see it. But also, the fact that even if one acts to keep their IP's value intact, their lack of omniscience will still utlimately lead to a degradation of value.

This is exactly what would happen in the case of a fundamental patent such as the wheel. The patent for the first (or most fundamental) wheel would have to be so basic as to allow for every concept conceived thereafter which is based on the wheel -- (this is a definitional statement).

I am going to leave this last paragraph in its rudimentary state, if asked I will be glad to expand upon it.

I think you'll have to because I don't think I understand how it fits. I agreed with the development up to it, but don't quite see what you're trying to say with this.

[mrocktor]

I'm sorry to inform you that "and" means: and

And does mean and. The expression and/or, however means or - because A, B, A+B all satisfy A or B. And/or is a redundant expression and should never be used.

By definition there is only one ultimate value -- without it the concept value and the act of valuing would be impossible. So yes, there are some special qualities of an ultimate value but what are you trying to say by asserting this?

Merely a self evident example that there are values one does not act to gain, but only to keep.

Are you saying that there are other values that you don't have to act to gain or keep?

No, I'm saying that there are values you don't act to gain and keep. Gain or keep is what I'm defending!

Think of it this way: value is that which one acts to gain and keep. If you act to gain or keep something, you value it.

Are you setting up a dichotomy between what is a value and what one considers a value or do you not see the contradiction in the above phrase?

You must constantly act to value. If you value your girlfriend, you don't just tell her you love her once and then you are done. You don't buy a house and leave it to rot if you value it. And you can't expect to reap infinite value from one moment of brilliant thought.

That objection is easy enough to negate. If I own intellectual property I must constantly watch out for pirates and bring action against them if they exist. But that is irrelevant. It is property because I made it, and that is enough.

[Marc K.]

And/or is a redundant expression and should never be used.

I suppose it's redundant in the same way that "individual rights" is redundant.

Think of it this way: value is that which one acts to gain and keep. If you act to gain or keep something, you value it.

Are you setting up a dichotomy between what is a value and what one considers a value or do you not see the contradiction in the above phrase?

No, no I would never do that. I just thought it was a clever way of illustrating the way "and/or" should be thought of. With respect to one particular value, you can only be acting to gain or keep it in the same instant... BUT... over time you must act to gain and keep your values.

I do not see the contradiction, you'll have to point it out.

Look, I can see that you want to argue about the usage of "and/or" but in so doing you are missing the larger point that in order to value something you must always be acting either to gain it or to keep it.

You must constantly act to value. If you value your girlfriend, you don't just tell her you love her once and then you are done. You don't buy a house and leave it to rot if you value it. And you can't expect to reap infinite value from one moment of brilliant thought.

Do you disagree with any of the first three sentences above? If so then this is what we need to work on because once you agree with the first three sentences the fourth should be a snap.

That objection is easy enough to negate. If I own intellectual property I must constantly watch out for pirates and bring action against them if they exist. But that is irrelevant. It is property because I made it, and that is enough.

Please forgive me if I missed it but I don't see that you negated anything. We are talking about two different things. You are talking about owning and I'm talking about valuing. And as I said above, this is where the problem lies, this is where you should start.

Just because you own a certain piece of property doesn't mean that you value it. I do not value the house that is falling down from disrepair under my ownership.

I can see why you want to talk about owning. Property rights are meant to protect the owners right to use his property. But you see we agree on this point. IP is property.

What we are trying to figure out now is how IP should be valued. Since it is property it should be treated as other property -- that is, it should not retain its value if no one acts to gain or keep it.

[mrocktor]

I suppose it's redundant in the same way that "individual rights" is redundant.

Not quite. "Individual" is required in that expression because of the improper usage of the term "rights" by non-objective people. If everyone knew the only valid rights are individual rights, it would be redundant. The expression and/or, on the other hand, actually means "or". There is no risk in using the correct and suficient term.

I do not see the contradiction, you'll have to point it out.

Here is your phrase:

"value is that which one acts to gain and keep. If you act to gain or keep something, you value it."

If I only act to gain a value, but not to keep it, this satisfies thesecond sentence ("or" means one condition is suficient). Also if I only act to keep a value I gained through no action of mine, this also satisfies the second sentence. Both situations are excluded by the first sentence ("and" demands both action to gain and action to keep).

Intellectual property (arguably) falls under the "act to gain, no need to act to keep" while life itself is an example of "no need to act to gain, must act to keep".

in order to value something you must always be acting either to gain it or to keep it

Whoa! This is begging the question. It is exactly this assertion that I am contesting. I am arguing that something I created is mine, period.

Just because you own a certain piece of property doesn't mean that you value it. I do not value the house that is falling down from disrepair under my ownership.

This is true, but irrelevant. If you buy a house and let it crumble to dust - it still belongs to you! You most definitely don't have to act at all to keep your property rights. Some random bum cannot morally move in and claim your house because you are not maintaining it properly. The root of this fact is that the house is yours because you created it (or bought it, which amounts to the same thing) - whatever you do after the fact is completely irrelevant to your property rights.

Naturally if you value the house you will act to maintain it - because you have to. It is not maintaining it that makes it a value, it is the fact that it is a value (it furthers your life), coupled with the metaphysical fact that it deteriorates that forces you to maintain it, if you want to preserve its value.

EDIT:

in order to value something you must always be acting either to gain it or to keep it

Rereading this, its not so much begging the question as going off on a tangent. I am asserting that property rights do not depend on my valuing something, your whole reasoning is not relevant. If I create something, it is mine.

Also, the reasoning is flawed. Acting to keep a value is a consequence of valuing, not the cause.

Edited February 22, 2007 by mrocktor

[Marc K.]

I really wish you had read my entire post before proceeding to answer every piece of it. Perhaps it is my fault. I really should have limited my remarks to the heart of the matter -- and here it is:

It is not maintaining it that makes it a value, it is the fact that it is a value (it furthers your life),

[...]

Acting to keep a value is a consequence of valuing, not the cause.

No, you have reversed cause and effect here. An individual acting to gain or keep something is what defines it as a value to that individual. The fact that something may further your life does not define it as a value -- this leads to the idea of intrinsic value.

in order to value something you must always be acting either to gain it or to keep it.

I am asserting that property rights do not depend on my valuing something, your whole reasoning is not relevant. If I create something, it is mine.

This is why you really should have read my entire post. I agree that IP is property but as I said before:

What we are trying to figure out now is how IP should be valued. Since it is property it should be treated as other property -- that is, it should not retain its value if no one acts to gain or keep it.

So what value should attach to IP -- that is, how long should someone be allowed exclusive right to the use of an idea that someone else could have come up with? (If you are going to argue with this premise I will simply point to the wheel and if you don't want to give me that one then at least you'll have to grant me the AM radio.)

[[EDIT:

I contend that since physical property does not retain its value without you acting in a certain way neither should IP]]

I think your conception of "value" is flawed so I would like to ask you again: do you disagree with any of the first three sentences below?

You must constantly act to value. If you value your girlfriend, you don't just tell her you love her once and then you are done. You don't buy a house and leave it to rot if you value it. And you can't expect to reap infinite value from one moment of brilliant thought.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Marc K.

[mrocktor]

I really wish you had read my entire post before proceeding to answer every piece of it.

I always do. Its quite condescending to presume otherwise.

An individual acting to gain or keep something is what defines it as a value to that individual. The fact that something may further your life does not define it as a value -- this leads to the idea of intrinsic value.

Why would he act to gain or keep anything if he didn't identify it as life-furthering (i.e. valuable) first? Identifying that something benefits you has absolutely nothing to do with intrinsic value.

So what value should attach to IP -- that is, how long should someone be allowed exclusive right to the use of an idea that someone else could have come up with?

How long should someone be allowed to exclusive right to an automobile that someone else could have bought? How long should someone be allowed exclusive right to a house someone else could have built? You are using a potentiality to destroy an actuality. Property is a right, not something we are allowed to exercise.

I contend that since physical property does not retain its value without you acting in a certain way neither should IP

You are arguing by non-essentials. What makes physical things property is the fact that they are made useful by human effort. The same applies to ideas. The fact that physical property degrades and ideas do not is just their nature - it has absolutely no bearing on what makes them property. This was Ayn Rand's mistake.

I think your conception of "value" is flawed so I would like to ask you again: do you disagree with any of the first three sentences below?

"You must constantly act to value"

I disagree. Valuing is a judgment, once you have judged something as life-furthering, you know it as a potential value. Acting is necessary to obtain the use of or preserve that value. Not necessarily both.

"If you value your girlfriend, you don't just tell her you love her once and then you are done."

A girlfriend is a person. A relationship is a long term exchange of value, this example is the grossest equivocation, which is why I did not respond to it earlier. Just to drive the point home, being immune to Poliomyelitis is a value, you take the shots and you are done.

"You don't buy a house and leave it to rot if you value it."

A house degrades, that is its nature. If you want it to retain its value, you maintain it. The fact that it degrades is not what makes it a value, nor is it what makes it your property!

"And you can't expect to reap infinite value from one moment of brilliant thought."

And you won't, which you would know if you had understood what Kendall wrote in this very thread.

[Marc K.]

This was Ayn Rand's mistake.

It would have been helpful to know this earlier. You see I thought you were arguing with my presentation or understanding of the Objectivist concept of property and rights, now I see that in actuality you disagree with Ayn Rand's concept of rights.

I am going to point you to another thread in the Political Philosophy forum called "Minors: Rights and Children" here. In it I explain the Objectivist concept of rights which directly pertains to this topic. May I suggest you read posts #398, 410, 411, 420 at least and return with questions. I'm really not interested in debating your idea of rights. However, if you are interested, I will try my best to explain and prove the Objectivist view. A brief synopsis below:

The Objectivist concept of rights says that this:

Property is a right,

is false. A thing is not a right. You do not have a right to a thing.

Let me state that most emphatically:

You do not have a right to property

"Rights pertain only to action" -- AR

So what you do have is a right to act to either gain or keep property and then to dispose of it.

Why is it that "rights pertain only to action"?

Because rights are moral principles "defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context".

A code of morality, by defining what is good and bad, tells us how to act in order to survive and thrive.

Rights protect that action in a social context.

All rights are rights to actions only.

Your right to life means the right to take all of the actions required to sustain your life. Your right to liberty means the right to take all of the actions required to secure your freedom. And the right to the pursuit of happiness means you have a right to pursue happiness not a right to be happy.

[mrocktor]

It would have been helpful to know this earlier. You see I thought you were arguing with my presentation or understanding of the Objectivist concept of property and rights, now I see that in actuality you disagree with Ayn Rand's concept of rights.

Uh, no. An emphatic no. I disgree with her application to intellectual property. In fact, I disagree with that application because it is inconsistent with her own derivation of the right to property:

Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

"Man's Rights", VOS, 125

Thought, the production of ideas, requires effort. Either man has a right to the product of his effort or he is permitted to use them. You can't have it both ways.

return with questions

I don't have any questions. I wouldn't presume to disagree with Ayn Rand without thoroughly understanding her ideas. Don't assume I'm ignorant.

A thing is not a right. You do not have a right to a thing.

Yes you most certainly do have a right to a thing - if it is a thing you made. The right to action extends to the results of that action. Re-read the quote above - the right to produce is meaningless if not accompained by the right to the product. The thing.

Your right to life means the right to take all of the actions required to sustain your life. Your right to liberty means the right to take all of the actions required to secure your freedom. And the right to the pursuit of happiness means you have a right to pursue happiness not a right to be happy.

Its ironic that you would presume I don't understand the Objectivist stance on rights while you yourself are so wrong about it.

Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort.

"What is Capitalism?", CUI, 18 (my bold)

The product, is a thing. In this case, an idea.

[Marc K.]

I disgree with her application to intellectual property. In fact, I disagree with that application because it is inconsistent with her own derivation of the right to property:

You know one of the great things about Ayn Rand is that if you ever come across a passage in which she seems to be inconsistent in her application of a moral principle ... don't worry, give her a second, she'll explain herself.

And in fact that is just what she does in the very next paragraph after the one you quoted. In it the full context of her thoughts on property rights is explained. Here it is:

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

How did you manage to miss that?

Also, in the two paragraphs preceding the one you quoted she says:

The concept of "right" pertains only to action

[...]

a right is the moral sanction of a positive -- of his freedom to act

[emphasis added]

How do you reconcile these statements of principle with your view that:

Yes you most certainly do have a right to a thing - if it is a thing you made.

You see, it is that your conception of rights is flawed, not just their application to IP.

What is inconsistent here is your selective quoting. Ayn Rand's writing must be taken as a whole -- you cannot choose the passages that seem to uphold your view while ignoring the ones that directly contradict it.

Don't assume I'm ignorant.

Previously I only suspected you were confused, now I know for certain that you are, in fact, ignorant of the Objectivist view of rights. The only question left is whether you just misunderstand what rights are or are intentionally evading the truth.

[mrocktor]

How did you manage to miss that?

I didn't, you continue to operate on the premise that I'm a moron.

How do you reconcile these statements of principle with your view

The same way she does. Rights are a freedom of action. Freedom of action is irrelevant if the products of the action are not rightfully owned.

The only question left is whether you just misunderstand what rights are or are intentionally evading the truth.

I agree, the only question left is whether you just misunderstand what rights are or are intentionally evading the truth.

Remember, this is your position:

You do not have a right to property

Edited February 27, 2007 by mrocktor