Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Patents, innovation, and progress

Rate this topic


punk

Recommended Posts

I had an epiphany, maybe I figured out the misunderstanding and can help you to figure it out. I think you are misunderstanding the section where Ayn Rand is explaining that the right to property is not a right to get stuff, but a right not have stuff you get taken by others. I think you are misinterpreting the part about rights being freedoms of action and not entitlements to mean that the results of actions are not rightfully owned (this is supported by your assertion that one needs to constantly act in order to maintain property right over something - the basis for your rejection of IP rights in perpetuity).

Do you understand that the right to property, the right to a thing, is a right to action? Specifically, the right to act uppon that thing in any way you choose? Also, that the right to act uppon an object that is your property is not an obligation to act?

This is the way it is: if something is created by me (I acted to gain it), it is mine (I have property right to it). This means I'm free to act on it as I see fit, which includes doing nothing.

Given your "you don't have a right to property" statement I've concluded that perhaps you are reading the "rights are freedoms of action" and concluding that the right to property is not actually a right to that thing but only a right to act to keep it. In other words, I don't really own my car - but I can act to keep it.

Under this view, there is really nothing wrong if someone takes my stuff - I should of acted harder to keep it. This view is completely wrong. If I own a gold coin, it is mine even if I leave it on my porch. It is a crime to take it, even if I leave it there for days. It is a crime to take it and put it back later. My property right is not dependent on acting on that coin - property is the freedom to act on it as I choose to, which includes not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy to hear a change in tone, I will try to reciprocate.

I think our disagreement lies here:

rightfully owned

What this means to me is that you took the moral action which is protected by right in order to gain, keep, use or dispose of a value.

I can go with "rightfully owned" as long as this is what it means.

You do not have the right to own any particular value. You have a right to act morally in order to own some particular value.

"Rights pertain only to action." Rights protect moral action. They protect the action you must take in order to gain values and they protect against the immoral actions of criminals who try to steal your values.

Rights must always be thought of and described as a right to some action. To own is not an action. You took action, protected by right, in order to own the things you do.

Think of a material value right now, I'm thinking of a house. I cannot say I have a right to own that house. I only have a right to take the action required in order to own that house, I may succeed or I may fail in acquiring it. Once I own it, I own it -- no one else has the right to act to steal it. They can act and make me an offer, which I may decline.

The reason rights can only be described as rights to action is because from where they are derived. Rights are moral principles and a proper morality tells us how to act in order to live. Rights protect that action. Rights are derived from moral action so they cannot be divorced from that action -- else they be not rights.

The point I am trying to stress is that rights pertain only to action and that rights are rights to action only, there is no right to an object.

Please don't read any of this as "talking down to". It is mostly a list of moral principles mixed with explanation and illustration, it is the way I write when there is some confusion. The way forward, I suggest, is for you to quote any of the moral principles above with which you disagree and tell me why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy to hear a change in tone

I applied towards you that which I was demanding you apply to me, i.e. that I'm not an ignorant idiot. Took me long enough to realize my inconsistency :)

What this means to me is that you took the moral action which is protected by right in order to gain, keep, use or dispose of a value.

This properly describes how one aquires ownership, our disagreement is about what ownership is.

You do not have the right to own any particular value. You have a right to act morally in order to own some particular value.

"Rights pertain only to action." Rights protect moral action. They protect the action you must take in order to gain values

This far we are in complete agreement.

and they protect against the immoral actions of criminals who try to steal your values.

And here is the rub.

What makes it immoral to steal your values (i.e. values you own)? What makes such an action criminal? The fact that it is a violation of rights - the right to property, your right to that specific value you obtained via moral action. Your right to that thing.

I agree that there is no right to have values, one can't demand values be given to him. There is an unalienable right to those values you do produce by your own action. This is the position I'm defending.

Rights must always be thought of and described as a right to some action.

As I have said before, I disagree. Rights extend to the results of action.

Think of a material value right now, I'm thinking of a house. I cannot say I have a right to own that house. I only have a right to take the action required in order to own that house, I may succeed or I may fail in acquiring it. Once I own it, I own it -- no one else has the right to act to steal it. They can act and make me an offer, which I may decline.

My emphasis. What is "steal"? If you are saying you don't have a right to the specific house you obtained by your action, exactly to what does the concept "steal" refer to?

Rights are moral principles and a proper morality tells us how to act in order to live.

Man requires material values to live, that is what the right to property derives from.

The point I am trying to stress is that rights pertain only to action and that rights are rights to action only, there is no right to an object.

And this is what you are wrong about. You yourself use the right to property, the right to things, by stealing the concept of theft, as I pointed out above. You just have to take a step back and look at the whole context of Ayn Rand's derivation of the right to property or the appropriate section of OPAR (much as you urged me to do).

The way forward, I suggest, is for you to quote any of the moral principles above with which you disagree and tell me why.

I disagree with the statement that rights are only rights to action. I assert that they are rights to action and include the results of the action, because action devoid of results is insufficient for human life. This is the Objectivist argument, as can be seen by the quotes in my earlier post.

Rand's admonishment about rights not being rights to a "thing" are clearly targetting the belief that there can be a right to have some value, without going through the necessary action to produce it. This is clear in the context. It does not mean that there cannot be rights to "things" (i.e. property rights), only that they are aquired through action.

Please don't read any of this as "talking down to".

Likewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is something to be said here about the novelty of any particular intellectual property.

What makes something patentable is the fact that it is novel, not the fact that one merely thought it up. Because of the basis of novelty in patents, a first-come-first-serve system makes sense, based not on the date of FILING the claim but the instant the idea becomes completely useable. It's the only way to be sure that someone doesn't just copy the person who invented it and place the burden on the first to invent but place the fruits of such burdon on anyone who knew how to copy inventions.

As for the termination of patents, would it make sense for an idea which is a part of everyday life to remain patented beyond the point where it ceased to be novel? I say it wouldn't. Because novelty is a prerequisite for a patent it makes sense that when it is no longer novel it expires. Since things only remain novel for a limited amount of time, it therefore follows that the patent would exist for only a limited amount of time.

Novelty is the basis behind patenting inventions. As I understand it, any idea that is novel and which has an essentially concrete existence should be patentable, not just inventions. This means specific foods and labor procedures would also be patentable, so long as they were novel. If drugs and surgical procedures can be patented, then why not food and labor procedures?

I hope this clears things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, novelty is only a means to determine that the applicant is really the inventor. The fact that the invention is the fruit of its creator's work is the basis for patenting inventions.

Yes, but how about the fact that patents expire? It's because they cease to be novel at some point. That's a far better alternative explanation than either the 'society needs technology' explanation OR the 'patents lose value over time' explanation, because the first explanation is overtly altruistic, and the second example is false egotism, IE the altruism of forcing someone to do whatever is decided to be in their interest. However, if the reasons patents expire is because novelty is a condition for maintaining the patent, it means that patents expire due to the nature of intellectual property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patents expire because current law says they do. I have been arguing that they shouldn't, because novelty is not the basis for them in the first place - work is.

So if work is, why not treat them like trade secrets? You get to keep trade secrets forever as long as you take the necessary precautions. If work and work alone was the only condition, then several people who put in the same kind of work would be able to have a patent on the same kind of thing done in the same way. It wouldn't matter how novel something was, and thus there wouldn't be so much patents as there would be trade secrets.

Novelty is a requirement because of what inventing is. You are creating something NEW. It is NOT like a normal property right. Regular property is tangeable. Intellectual property is not. While it makes sense for regular property to be owned exclusively, since for someone else to use it would decrease your usage of it, intellectual property only operates this way BECAUSE of the novelty requirement. So when saying that novelty isn't a factor and that only work is, you are basically eliminating the concept of a patent.

A similar argument can be made for copyrights. Admittedly, due to the relative uniqueness of that which falls under copyright, it would make sense for it to last much longer. If you want, I could give a lot of explanation as to why intellectual property is the way it is. It will take a lot more reasearch than I have been doing but the end result is the same. Intellectual property, because it is so broad in scope, and is justified exclusively by the fact that we have to trade, is ultimately something different than regular property. Don't try to draw analogies between regular property and intellectual property, because they are NOT the same thing. Intellectual property is a right to withold information in a sense, and is more akin to privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if work is, why not treat them like trade secrets? You get to keep trade secrets forever as long as you take the necessary precautions.

Why stop there? Lets make it so you can only keep your house as long as you can fight off thieves! Property is a right, protecting rights is what the government is for.

If work and work alone was the only condition, then several people who put in the same kind of work would be able to have a patent on the same kind of thing done in the same way.

Did the second person to "invent" the same thing create it? Creating something new is very different from working towards a solution you already know exists. The creator bears all the risk, the copycat knows a solution exists before he even starts. But this is only the consequence. The principle is that what one creates is rightfully owned.

If you are not able to think in principles, this and any other discussion of politics will be a hopeless muddle.

While it makes sense for regular property to be owned exclusively, since for someone else to use it would decrease your usage of it

I have heard this many times, from many people. Libertarians and Austrian Economists in particular. This is pragmatism. Property is not exclusive because "for someone else to use it would decrease your usage of it" - property is exclusive because it is created by individuals and belongs to them, individually, by right. Whether someone elses usage would even be noticed by the owner is irrelevant.

That stated, theft of intellectual property does reduce the owner's usage of it. He might sell his idea to somoene interested in using it for good money - with inadequate protection of his property rights, someone can at some point just copy the design. The result is that his idea is worth less on the marketplace.

If you want, I could give a lot of explanation as to why intellectual property is the way it is.

I don't care about why it is the way it is. I know it is wrong the way it is.

Intellectual property is a right to withold information in a sense, and is more akin to privacy.

Intellectual property is a right to freely dispose of the fruits of one's effort. Privacy is nothing like that.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why stop there? Lets make it so you can only keep your house as long as you can fight off thieves! Property is a right, protecting rights is what the government is for.

Do you understand what a trade secret is?

Did the second person to "invent" the same thing create it? Creating something new is very different from working towards a solution you already know exists. The creator bears all the risk, the copycat knows a solution exists before he even starts. But this is only the consequence. The principle is that what one creates is rightfully owned.

Does it matter? If work, and not novelty, is the basis behind patents, then it shouldn't matter who creates it first. If you put in the work toward figuring it out it should be yours to use and keep secret from others.

If you are not able to think in principles, this and any other discussion of politics will be a hopeless muddle.

I happen to think in principles. Maybe you should adopt the principle of "Don't talk down to others when you're obviously wrong.".

I have heard this many times, from many people. Libertarians and Austrian Economists in particular. This is pragmatism. Property is not exclusive because "for someone else to use it would decrease your usage of it" - property is exclusive because it is created by individuals and belongs to them, individually, by right. Whether someone elses usage would even be noticed by the owner is irrelevant.

You do realize that I'm not talking about spying on someone and then using their trade secrets. I'm talking about putting the same exact effort into something as another person and therefore having the same right to their result as the first person to patent something. Without the requirement of novelty, saying that your hard work in inventing something should lead to a patent is a non sequitor.

That stated, theft of intellectual property does reduce the owner's usage of it. He might sell his idea to somoene interested in using it for good money - with inadequate protection of his property rights, someone can at some point just copy the design. The result is that his idea is worth less on the marketplace.

That's called competition. If there is no basis for calling something intellectual property, as with your "work but not novelty" assessment, then the free market takes over.

I don't care about why it is the way it is. I know it is wrong the way it is.

Certainly our patent system has problems, but it's rediculous to make it your way. I know that for a FACT.

Intellectual property is a right to freely dispose of the fruits of one's effort. Privacy is nothing like that.

Intellectual property is a right to own and use information. Privacy - or I guess I should say, secrecy - is very much the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand what a trade secret is?

I would define it as information known, but not owned, that is valuable to a given productive process. In my vision of Intellectual Property, facts about existence cannot be patented (only physical implementation of ideas). If a company maps the human genome, it can't patent that (the human genome is metaphysically given) - but it can hold it as a trade secret. The design of the machine they used for DNA sequencing, on the other hand, they could patent. And the code to any analysis software they used could be copyrighted.

Does it matter? If work, and not novelty, is the basis behind patents, then it shouldn't matter who creates it first.

The copycat does not do the same work as the inventor. That is written in the very section you quoted.

I happen to think in principles.

It does not seem that way, since you always use the consequences of some policy in support of it, instead of the facts of reality that lead to it being right. Also of note is your trying to derive a principle (patents are based on novelty) from something man-made (current patent law).

If there is no basis for calling something intellectual property, as with your "work but not novelty" assessment, then the free market takes over.

You seem to have missed my argument's important points. I'll restate them and you can see if your objection is founded.

  1. Man has a right to the products of his effort (this is the right to property as understood in Objectivism and is the starting principle in this argument, if you need validation it is available in Ayn Rand's and Dr. Peikoffs writings)
  2. Invention is the result of human effort, specifically mental effort (this is a fact and is perceptually evident by introspection)
  3. Man, therefore, has a right to his invention - he owns it

This is the basis of Intellectual Property rights. It says nothing about how to protect them; only that they exist and, therefore, should be respected by rational men and should be protected under a rational government. Next we have:

  1. The government should protect Intellectual Property rights (this is the conclusion of the previous reasoning)
  2. To do so, the government must know who created each invention (fact)
  3. One way to do this is to require inventors to register their inventions (i.e. file a patent application)
  4. To protect rights, the government must know that the individual filing the application is the actual inventor (fact)
  5. One way to do this is to require novelty in applications

In other words, novelty is a requirement because it is evidence that the individual filing the application did not imitate another. It is proof that the idea is his. I never proposed doing away with the novelty requirement - I'm trying to explain that it is not the basis of intellectual property.

Certainly our patent system has problems, but it's rediculous to make it your way. I know that for a FACT.

Perhaps, in your context, that is the best judgment you can make.

Intellectual property is a right to own and use information. Privacy - or I guess I should say, secrecy - is very much the same thing.

Privacy is an atempt to own facts of reality (i.e. someone wanting to own the fact that they have some disease, for example). Intellectual property is a right to own something man-made, namely knowledge of means to change the metaphysically given to benefit man. They are different and the difference is essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would define it as information known, but not owned, that is valuable to a given productive process. In my vision of Intellectual Property, facts about existence cannot be patented (only physical implementation of ideas). If a company maps the human genome, it can't patent that (the human genome is metaphysically given) - but it can hold it as a trade secret. The design of the machine they used for DNA sequencing, on the other hand, they could patent. And the code to any analysis software they used could be copyrighted.

The copycat does not do the same work as the inventor. That is written in the very section you quoted.

It does not seem that way, since you always use the consequences of some policy in support of it, instead of the facts of reality that lead to it being right. Also of note is your trying to derive a principle (patents are based on novelty) from something man-made (current patent law).

Here's a fact of reality, if you so insist. Inventions, as they are man-made, can not be invented anywhere and everywhere the moment of invention. Nothing man-made can travel instantaneously, or beyond the speed of light even. So unless there's something special about intellectual property, specifically patents, that makes them different from ordinary property, they shouldn't be treated as universal at the "moment of invention".

Furthermore, how is someone a copy-cat for inventing something independently of another and simply finishing second-place? They have done the same amount of work that the one who gets the patent does. If it was only the work done that justified patents, then shouldn't independent inventors have to share the patent?

You seem to have missed my argument's important points. I'll restate them and you can see if your objection is founded.
  1. Man has a right to the products of his effort (this is the right to property as understood in Objectivism and is the starting principle in this argument, if you need validation it is available in Ayn Rand's and Dr. Peikoffs writings)
  2. Invention is the result of human effort, specifically mental effort (this is a fact and is perceptually evident by introspection)
  3. Man, therefore, has a right to his invention - he owns it

This is the basis of Intellectual Property rights. It says nothing about how to protect them; only that they exist and, therefore, should be respected by rational men and should be protected under a rational government. Next we have:

  1. The government should protect Intellectual Property rights (this is the conclusion of the previous reasoning)
  2. To do so, the government must know who created each invention (fact)
  3. One way to do this is to require inventors to register their inventions (i.e. file a patent application)
  4. To protect rights, the government must know that the individual filing the application is the actual inventor (fact)
  5. One way to do this is to require novelty in applications

In other words, novelty is a requirement because it is evidence that the individual filing the application did not imitate another. It is proof that the idea is his. I never proposed doing away with the novelty requirement - I'm trying to explain that it is not the basis of intellectual property.

Perhaps, in your context, that is the best judgment you can make.

Yet you fail to explain what happens if two people invent something at the same time.

Privacy is an atempt to own facts of reality (i.e. someone wanting to own the fact that they have some disease, for example). Intellectual property is a right to own something man-made, namely knowledge of means to change the metaphysically given to benefit man. They are different and the difference is essential.

It's also true that said knowledge is true reguardless of who invents it, and the fact that someone has a disease and the fact that you can cure the disease with a certain chemical combination are the same type of fact. You can't create a fact. You can create knowledge, but knowledge is only a reflection of fact. What do you think secrecy is? It's not a protection of fact. It's a protection of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a fact of reality, if you so insist. Inventions, as they are man-made, can not be invented anywhere and everywhere the moment of invention. Nothing man-made can travel instantaneously, or beyond the speed of light even. So unless there's something special about intellectual property, specifically patents, that makes them different from ordinary property, they shouldn't be treated as universal at the "moment of invention".

Total non-sequitur. Once the invention is created, it exists - speed of light limitations are completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, how is someone a copy-cat for inventing something independently of another and simply finishing second-place? They have done the same amount of work that the one who gets the patent does. If it was only the work done that justified patents, then shouldn't independent inventors have to share the patent?

It should. If the second applicant can prove he created the same thing independently (and this means he never heard the first existed at all, not only that he didn't copy it) he should certainly own his work. I don't know how he could prove it though.

Yet you fail to explain what happens if two people invent something at the same time.

The first one to register the idea is the owner. The burden of proof falls on the second guy to prove he did not imitate - and as I mentioned above, I don't see how this burden could be met.

the fact that someone has a disease and the fact that you can cure the disease with a certain chemical combination are the same type of fact.

No, they are not. The first is only a fact about existence ("water freezes at 0 deg. C", "salt water freezes below 0 deg. C", "some bacteria die when exposed to penicillin"), the second is knowlege about how to *act* in order to achieve a desireable outcome ("using salt to prevent water from freezing on roads", "ministering penicillin to patients with disease X to cure them").

In a proper Intellectual Property system one cannot patent the freezing point of water nor the fact that penicillin kills bacteria. One should be able to patent the use of salt to de-ice roads and the use of penicillin to combat a specific disease (or a whole list of them) - assuming one invented those uses.

Notice that one cannot patent "the use of salt to prevent water from freezing" - you have to actually describe the purpose of it (in practice, list all the uses you can imagine). If someone finds another application where salt is a good way to prevent water from freezing, he can patent it.

Notice you can't patent "penicillin" nor "the use of penicillin to combat disease" - you can patent the use of it to combat specific diseases (and will be expected to demonstrate its effectiveness in each case). You could also patent your means of producing the drug (i.e. "the use of a filtrate of a broth culture of the Penicillium mold to extract penicillin"). Of course some guy can come along and find other ways to extract the drug - or synthesize it. You patent only covers your idea.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total non-sequitur. Once the invention is created, it exists - speed of light limitations are completely irrelevant.

Actually, it's not irrelevant. The fact that someone invented something is not a metaphysical given. It's an event. 1. How relevant an event is to someone depends on their ability to be affected by it, even if it is simply perceiving it. 2. Patenting something does not automatically affect people. Rather, there is information in the patent, which is the very first thing to be conveyed to people. 3. Information takes time to travel, and it travels at a maximum of c, the speed of light. Therefore, 4. Until the future light cone of the information of the patent, with the patent at the center, hits or encompasses someone, that patent cannot be valid for said person.

It should. If the second applicant can prove he created the same thing independently (and this means he never heard the first existed at all, not only that he didn't copy it) he should certainly own his work. I don't know how he could prove it though.

The first one to register the idea is the owner. The burden of proof falls on the second guy to prove he did not imitate - and as I mentioned above, I don't see how this burden could be met.

The speed at which information travels in the various forms of media should be considered.

No, they are not. The first is only a fact about existence ("water freezes at 0 deg. C", "salt water freezes below 0 deg. C", "some bacteria die when exposed to penicillin"), the second is knowlege about how to *act* in order to achieve a desireable outcome ("using salt to prevent water from freezing on roads", "ministering penicillin to patients with disease X to cure them").

In a proper Intellectual Property system one cannot patent the freezing point of water nor the fact that penicillin kills bacteria. One should be able to patent the use of salt to de-ice roads and the use of penicillin to combat a specific disease (or a whole list of them) - assuming one invented those uses.

Notice that one cannot patent "the use of salt to prevent water from freezing" - you have to actually describe the purpose of it (in practice, list all the uses you can imagine). If someone finds another application where salt is a good way to prevent water from freezing, he can patent it.

Notice you can't patent "penicillin" nor "the use of penicillin to combat disease" - you can patent the use of it to combat specific diseases (and will be expected to demonstrate its effectiveness in each case). You could also patent your means of producing the drug (i.e. "the use of a filtrate of a broth culture of the Penicillium mold to extract penicillin"). Of course some guy can come along and find other ways to extract the drug - or synthesize it. You patent only covers your idea.

So one is a value-free fact and another is a value-full fact. I admit, you are right that they are different. However, I don't see why you abandon secrecy as a right. If secrecy were a right, and not just a right if you can keep it a secret, but a right if someone spies on you and spreads it to halt the flow of information for the sake of the secret, through court injunctions not legislative decree, then the whole issue of intellectual property could be resolved, and things such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks would be completely unnecessary. And indeed, they would last forever as you wish, but would not burden anybody unnecessarily, since they could simply refuse to gain that information from a given agent and gain it from a different creator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. How relevant an event is to someone depends on their ability to be affected by it, even if it is simply perceiving it. 2. Patenting something does not automatically affect people (...)

Here you go presenting consequences again. The right to property does not depend on "how things affect other people". It is a principle derived from the nature of property itself and how it is created. If I create something now, it matters not a whit if someone in Tuvalu will only hear of it in a week - I have a right to it now. Which leads us to:

The speed at which information travels in the various forms of media should be considered.

This is certainly one way to approach the problem. If the "second independent inventor" can prove he had no access to any information from the original creator due to some limitation (for instance, he is on Proxima Centauri and news can only reach him after one year) - that would certainly be enough to gain ownership of his work.

In this internet linked world, I think such cases would be very, very rare.

I don't see why you abandon secrecy as a right.

Because secrecy is not a right. Demanding secrecy is demanding that your fellow man not know about reality - and using force against him if he does learn something, even if he did not violate anyones property, freedom or life to learn it. Demanding ignorance is diametrically oposed to the requirements of man's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Rand's admonishment about rights not being rights to a "thing" [...] does not mean that there cannot be rights to "things" (i.e. property rights), only that they are aquired through action.

Here again is the beginning of the paragraph which explains what she meant by the one which precedes it (the one you quoted).

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all others: it is not the right to an object,

There is alot packed in here. When she says "bear in mind" she is saying "keep in mind, when I talk about rights, what I mean is ...". Then she says flat out "the right to property is a right to action". And just so there is no confusion she says "like all others" which groups property rights with all other rights in reference to what all rights describe. For added clarity she then describes what the right to property is not.

So from this seemingly simple sentence fragment we arrive at several definitive statements about rights for which there is no alternative explanation:

- all rights are rights to action

- the right to property is a right to action

- the right to property is not the right to an object

You can accept it or deny it but this is what Ayn Rand means by "the right to property".

You just have to take a step back and look at the whole context of Ayn Rand's derivation of the right to property

I am quite familiar with Ayn Rand's derivation of the right to property and this isn't it:

Man requires material values to live, that is what the right to property derives from.

That man requires material values to live is a metaphysical fact but you must go thru a few more steps in order to derive rights. First you must apply reason in order to determine what the ethical thing to do is, given this fact. That is: given the fact that man requires material values to live, how should he act to acquire those values. Then finally we can conclude that whatever action is good for the individual is right for him to take in society. A proper ethics is required in order to derive rights, this is what most libertarians don't understand.

And this is what you are wrong about. You yourself use the right to property, the right to things, by stealing the concept of theft, as I pointed out above.

I have stolen no concept and it should be an easy matter for you to quote me and show that I have denied a more fundamental concept while asserting one dependent on it. If you cannot then I demand that you retract this statement.

In fact since rights are applicable only in a social context they must not only take into account your actions but also the actions of others. Your rights impose no obligations on others except that they do nothing. When someone steals your property they are taking an action which is not protected by right. They are violating your moral sanction to be left alone and they are interfering with your right to keep your property.

Another way to confirm that rights pertain only to action is to identify the fact that if no action is taking place (by you or others) then there is nothing that needs protecting. Your right to be free from force is only infringed if someone is acting against it.

Also I find it interesting that you accuse me of stealing the same concept that you accept from Ayn Rand here (illustrated with added emphasis):

I think you are misunderstanding the section where Ayn Rand is explaining that the right to property is not a right to get stuff, but a right not have stuff you get taken by others.

So are you accusing Ayn Rand of stealing the concept also?

The real reason you are accusing me and Ayn Rand of stealing the concept is not because we have reversed the hierarchy but because you have, as shown here:

What makes it immoral to steal your values [...]? [...] The fact that it is a violation of rights - the right to property, [...]

Talk about stolen concept!!! Don't you see how your question and answer here show a reversal of the hierarchy of concepts? ...

... Morality isn't derived from what is right. Rights are moral principles, they are derived from what is moral. You must know what is moral before you can know what is right.

(this is supported by your assertion that one needs to constantly act in order to maintain property right over something - the basis for your rejection of IP rights in perpetuity).

I have asserted no such thing so please retract this statement. What I said was that you must constantly act in order to value. And please, do not misrepresent my position.

If you are going to continue on in this vein then you really must explain your understanding of the concept value illustrated below:

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.

Valuing is a judgment,

All of these statements contradict Ayn Rand's definition of value.

As another hint let me point out one of the quotes you cited in which you emphasized "the product" in order to demonstrate your view. I have changed that emphasis in order to demonstrate the Objectivist viewpoint in which action is protected by right.

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.

There is enough evidence here to determine that you not only disagree with Ayn Rand about IP but also with her conception of rights and value and how they are derived.

One problem I see in addition to the others I have pointed out is that you seem to be deriving principles in reverse. An often overlooked property of Objectivism which is crucial to its understanding and integration is its structure. Metaphysics and Epistemology are the basic branches, Ethics is the central branch and Politics and Esthetics are the derivative branches. So given the base a certain Ethics is necessitated and given the Ethics a certain Politics and Esthetics is necessitated. You may want to start your reintegration there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Marc, I am clearly expressing myself extremely poorly or you are interpreting what I write with extreme prejudice. You attribute so many errors to me that I do not commit that I almost feel like we are speaking different languages. In the same spirit of good intent we established in our previous posts, I'll try to address your points.

Here again is the beginning of the paragraph which explains what she meant by the one which precedes it (the one you quoted).

(snip)

So from this seemingly simple sentence fragment we arrive at several definitive statements about rights for which there is no alternative explanation:

- all rights are rights to action

- the right to property is a right to action

- the right to property is not the right to an object

I know the text and I agree with it. All rights are rights to action, the right to property is a right to action - namely the right to act uppon the object in any way you choose to. This is what I call a "right to the object", in fact there is no other sane interpretation. Perhaps this is what makes you think I disagree or do not understand Ayn Rand's idea of rights.

I have a right to the product of my efforts. The right to act uppon them as I choose to. That is the right to property, and it is a right to act uppon a specific object. That is what I mean when I say "you have a right to your car" - you have a right to do with it as you please. I can see how my previous expression could lead you to interpret me otherwise.

I am quite familiar with Ayn Rand's derivation of the right to property and this isn't it:

That man requires material values to live is a metaphysical fact (...)

I did not say that it was the full deduction, only that it is where the reasoning beggins. Not coincidentally, that is where you started in your own description of how the concept is derived.

I have stolen no concept and it should be an easy matter for you to quote me and show that I have denied a more fundamental concept while asserting one dependent on it.

I'll try to explain. I quote from the paragraph that follows your challenge:

When someone steals your property they are taking an action which is not protected by right. They are violating your moral sanction to be left alone and they are interfering with your right to keep your property.

The concept "steal", highlighted in your text, means: to take that which is owned by another without their consent. Ownership is a concept dependent on the right to property, the right of one individual to a specific object (where the right to the object means the right to act uppon it as one chooses to - including not at all).

In your previous posts you stated that you don't have a right to your property, only a right to act to keep it. Thus, the use of the word "steal" is a stolen concept, since trying to take the object from you does not keep you from acting to keep it (you can still act to prevent me from taking it).

In light of the misunderstanding about what ownership is that I addressed in the first part of this post, I don't think you are actually concept stealing. I think you do understand the right to property with some issues to be addressed. The problem with theft is not that it is "an action which is not protected by right". The issue is that in removing the object you are incapable of acting uppon it to further your life - the act violates your right.

Also I find it interesting that you accuse me of stealing the same concept that you accept from Ayn Rand (...)

As I mentioned above, it would be concept stealing to use the concept "theft" when denying that man has a right to have his property left alone by others even if he does absolutely nothing to protect it, which is how we got into this argument in the first place.

I'm not sure you are holding this position, now. The right to property is the right to act uppon something when I choose, how I choose, and if I choose to act at all. Do you agree? I was responding to you as if you, in your insistence that property is a right to action, were implying that property is only rightful as long as you are acting to keep it (remember, this was your initial argument).

What I'm trying to show is that once established, the right to property includes the right to do nothing - to let the house rot, to let the food go stale, to not build a single working copy of the patented invention.

Morality isn't derived from what is right. Rights are moral principles, they are derived from what is moral. You must know what is moral before you can know what is right.

I have asserted no such thing so please retract this statement. What I said was that you must constantly act in order to value. And please, do not misrepresent my position.

You are right about the hierarchy of ethics and rights. And I regret misrepresenting you, I don't intend to do it. All I can say is that I seem to have misunderstood you and possibly the converse is true as well.

If you are going to continue on in this vein then you really must explain your understanding of the concept value illustrated below

I understand why you misinterpreted those quotes, and take responsibility for not being clear enough. For the record:

* Man's life has specific requirements, due to his nature

* Some things further man's life, others destroy it

* Man is capable of identifying that which furthers his life by the use of reason

* Man acts (or should) to achieve those things he judges will further his life and acts to keep those he already has achieved

* Those life-furthering things man pursues or keeps are values

Please point out anything you disagree with or want to discuss.

One problem I see in addition to the others I have pointed out is that you seem to be deriving principles in reverse.

Yes, I know this well and expressed myself poorly. I do understand the proper hierarchy of knowledge within philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why having intellectual property, which applies to mean that anyone who wants to invent indepentantly can't be left alone, is a violation of rights, but having the right to a secret, something which protects your privacy and any manifestation of information you create yourself, and to have that secret enforced unless you willingly give it away without acquiring proper consent from them to respect it qua secret, IE to have a secret of any sort which is not another person's right to know, and to have the courts enforce secrecy if someone 'steals' the information, is bad.

If you own something then anything it causes is yours too. Right and responsibility. Information is embodied in a source of information, otherwise it is too abstract to own. Why is it that if, say, you were having an argument with someone and they agreed and signed a contract not to release that argument, and it got out, you can't make an injunction against the public transfer of the argument, but yet if someone millions of miles away makes a new kind of rock then you are automatically stuck with not being able to do research on your own even though you didn't acquire it from them and just want to be left alone.

To have the right... to be left alone. That is the esscence of rights, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
This is what I call a "right to the object", in fact there is no other sane interpretation. Perhaps this is what makes you think I disagree or do not understand Ayn Rand's idea of rights.

When you say that you have a right to an object and Ayn Rand says specifically that you don't have a right to an object then, yes, I think you disagree with her. And I find it a particularly poor choice of words.

Be that as it may, it is very important to understand that rights pertain only to action and that all rights are rights to action. If this is what you are endorsing then I salute you. I think you can understand my confusion when you have previously said that you "disagree that rights are only rights to action".

Ownership is a concept dependent on the right to property, the right of one individual to a specific object (where the right to the object means the right to act uppon it as one chooses to - including not at all).

Doesn't this say the same thing as this?

When someone steals your property [...] they are interfering with your right to keep your property.

In your previous posts you stated that you don't have a right to your property, only a right to act to keep it. Thus, the use of the word "steal" is a stolen concept, since trying to take the object from you does not keep you from acting to keep it (you can still act to prevent me from taking it).

You really need to be careful, this is not what I stated. I said you don't have a "right to property" and then I explained what I meant by that. And didn't you just concede, in the previous quote above, that you do only have a right to act to keep your property?

I'm glad that you retracted the accusation of using a stolen concept since this does not prove it. If someone actually steals my property, not just tries, they do prevent me from acting on it.

The problem with theft is not that it is "an action which is not protected by right". The issue is that in removing the object you are incapable of acting uppon it to further your life - the act violates your right.

As I mentioned above, it would be concept stealing to use the concept "theft" when denying that man has a right to have his property left alone by others even if he does absolutely nothing to protect it, which is how we got into this argument in the first place.

It sounds as though you are disagreeing with me about this when actually we agree. Here is what I said:

Your rights impose no obligations on others except that they do nothing. When someone steals your property they are taking an action which is not protected by right. They are violating your moral sanction to be left alone and they are interfering with your right to keep your property.

What I'm trying to show is that once established, the right to property includes the right to do nothing - to let the house rot, to let the food go stale, to not build a single working copy of the patented invention.

This is very important. Rights pertain only to action. If you are doing nothing, then you are doing nothing that needs to be protected by right. If you are doing nothing, then the only action we need be concerned with is that of others. They may take no action that interferes with your right to keep, use or dispose of your property. (In a discussion of this kind where we are trying to accurately describe the nature of rights I find it infinitely more precise to say that you have a right to dispose of your property; which describes an action, than to say the right to do nothing; which describes no action.)

I was responding to you as if you, in your insistence that property is a right to action, were implying that property is only rightful as long as you are acting to keep it (remember, this was your initial argument).

You continue to misrepresent me. My argument was that you only value your property as long as you are acting to keep it.

And you are right, this is where the argument started, with the issues of property rights, ownership, value and action. So let me present my argument again and bring Kendall back into the discussion:

IP should be treated like all other property.

I own my house. I can do with it what I will do and no one has a right to take it from me. I own my IP. I can do with it what I will do and no one has a right to take it from me.

If I do not keep up my house, it will lose value. If I do not improve upon my IP, it will lose value. This value, I would say, corresponds to Kendall's (or my paraphrase): "natural valuable lifetime". But there is more value to consider in the case of IP: the exclusive use of an idea.

My house is unique. My IP is not necessarily so. The rights of men do not conflict, so how long should I be allowed exclusive use of an idea which may have been thought of by somebody else? (The wheel is an idealized example).

My IP was certainly unique when I patented it. However, if you acknowledge that someone else would have thought of the wheel, then the argument about stifling innovation and progress is very convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall,

I apologize profusely for keeping you on hold for so long.

The discussion has been good, I hope you have been listening to it. Because while none of what I said to mrocktor was meant to implicate you, the principles enumerated are sound, and some of them may apply to your argument. I will be glad to go back and answer all of your specific questions, however I was hoping we could start here by first agreeing to some propositions.

Can you agree with the last five paragraphs of my latest reply to mrocktor? In particular do you agree that what we are talking about -- the length of time you will be allowed exclusive use of an idea -- helps determine the value of IP? Or, is one determining factor in considering the value of IP? And that granting an unlimited patent lifetime would bestow infinite value without work having to be done? (Please excuse this last since it is what you are arguing against, however does it not follow from the aforementioned?)

Can we also agree that patentable ideas are not necessarily unique?

If so and since the rights of men don't conflict doesn't it follow that an unlimited patent lifetime would violate rights?

EDIT: added parenthetical remark

Edited by Marc K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And didn't you just concede, in the previous quote above, that you do only have a right to act to keep your property?

No, and this is really the crux of our disagreement, if we disagree at all. I am arguing that one has a right to "continue to have" (trying to avoid using an active verb here) the object even if they never again act on it (i.e. protect it, use it, value it).

Of course, if by "only have a right to act on the object" you mean "a right to act on the object at any time in the future independent of intervening action", that is exactly what I meant by "right to the object". In other words, it is yours to act on when and if you want to even if you never move a hair to keep it.

I'm glad that you retracted the accusation of using a stolen concept since this does not prove it. If someone actually steals my property, not just tries, they do prevent me from acting on it.

Yes, I understand what you meant now.

If you are doing nothing, then you are doing nothing that needs to be protected by right.

If you have some property, you did something in the past that produced it. From that point on, if you do nothing further, your right to act on that property is in no way diminished. Do you agree?

You continue to misrepresent me. My argument was that you only value your property as long as you are acting to keep it.

While this is true, in that instance you framed the argument in such a way that it appeared that you only have a right to property if you value it. I wanted to contest that part of the argument, not the statement about valuation. Again, poor wording on my part.

IP should be treated like all other property.

Agreed.

I own my house. I can do with it what I will do and no one has a right to take it from me. I own my IP. I can do with it what I will do and no one has a right to take it from me.

If I do not keep up my house, it will lose value. If I do not improve upon my IP, it will lose value. This value, I would say, corresponds to Kendall's (or my paraphrase): "natural valuable lifetime".

Agreed.

My house is unique. My IP is not necessarily so. The rights of men do not conflict, so how long should I be allowed exclusive use of an idea which may have been thought of by somebody else? (The wheel is an idealized example).

My IP was certainly unique when I patented it. However, if you acknowledge that someone else would have thought of the wheel, then the argument about stifling innovation and progress is very convincing.

This is where the problem lies.

1. The right to property is not derived from scarcity. Stealing is not wrong because if I take your stuff you can no longer use it. Stealing is wrong because material values must be created and to live as a rational being one must create the material values needed to sustain one's life. If we apply the same reasoning to ideas, copying ideas without the creator's permission is not wrong because he can no longer use the idea (in this case, he even can), it is wrong because to live as a rational being one must think in order to make possible the creation of wealth.

2. The right to property does not exist by permission. You are not "allowed" to use your house exclusively because you created it - you have a right to do so. If we are truly treating IP like all other property, you are not "allowed" to use your idea exclusively - you have a right to do so.

3. If you didn't build your house where you did, someone would eventually built a house there. That is no claim on your property and is no justification to put a time limit on your right. That would be claming rights for the potential, while destroying the rights of the actual. If we are treating IP like all other property, the potential that someone could eventually have the same idea is no claim against the fact that you did have the idea.

I hope these arguments are better worded than my previous posts to you. I am sorry our discussion became so confrontational due to my lack of clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering... is it wrong to spy? I think that if you believe someone may be a threat to you in the future, spying on them is the best way to be able to determine their intent, and thus you may either obtain proof that they are out to get you, or you may fail to obtain proof that they are out to get you. National security definately works like this. However, aside from that, you don't have any right at all to spy on someone. Acquiring information from someone should only be done by their consent. We need privacy in order to protect ourselves. If someone spies on us, they could learn a weakness. Therefore, I think that intellectual property theft must be determined to exist when one engages in an act to spy.

On the other hand, when you do give someone consent to information that is in your posession (not the universal of the information, but the concrete. Information exists as a concrete, since to own a universal would be absurd) that right becomes a shared right. When you set the terms and conditions, you establish a contract either explicitly or implicitly. You may do whatever you want with information that is either yours alone or shared between a group with you in it provided that you did not consent to conditions on the information beforehand. In this sense, if I tell you you must keep something a secret, you are violating my rights by telling that secret. Likewise, if you spy on me in order to obtain information, you are also violating my right.

The right to privacy is the ultimate expression of property as it pertains to the intellectual. So why don't we replace patents, copyrights, and trademarks (or service marks) and other forms of intellectual property with the right to withhold information and contain its release should its release violate a condition you set with someone in order that they may partake of it? Wouldn't that be the most logical, and 'free market' way of dealing with IP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really another thread, maybe it can be split?

I was wondering... is it wrong to spy?

Why would it be wrong? If you don't use force, your action is legitimate.

Breaking into someone's home or office to listen in on a conversation is a crime: trespass. Installing a microcamera in someone's hotel room is a contractual violation (it is at least implicit in taking a hotel room that it is for your private use, it should probably be explicit though). Likewise for tapping someone's phone line.

On the other hand, if someone is doing something in a place you have access to (secretly meeting a lover in a park, for instance) and you film them - no rights have been violated. Even if you follow the person all day long, no rights are violated (assuming you don't trespass on property you don't have permission to enter). Furthermore, if you ask for money in exchange for the incriminating tape no rights have been violated.

There is no right to force others to ignore reality.

However, aside from that, you don't have any right at all to spy on someone. Acquiring information from someone should only be done by their consent. We need privacy in order to protect ourselves. If someone spies on us, they could learn a weakness.

You have a right to do anything that does not violate others' life, freedom or property. Spying does none of those. We don't need privacy in order to protect ourselves. Being moral is all the protection you need against blackmail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really another thread, maybe it can be split?

Why would it be wrong? If you don't use force, your action is legitimate.

Breaking into someone's home or office to listen in on a conversation is a crime: trespass. Installing a microcamera in someone's hotel room is a contractual violation (it is at least implicit in taking a hotel room that it is for your private use, it should probably be explicit though). Likewise for tapping someone's phone line.

On the other hand, if someone is doing something in a place you have access to (secretly meeting a lover in a park, for instance) and you film them - no rights have been violated. Even if you follow the person all day long, no rights are violated (assuming you don't trespass on property you don't have permission to enter). Furthermore, if you ask for money in exchange for the incriminating tape no rights have been violated.

There is no right to force others to ignore reality.

Yet you have a right to keep others from using reality through property?

Why not make it so that information can be kept as property? Now obviously if you tell people your name you can't then AFTERWORD tell them not to use that information. However, if I am off on the hills having sex with a member of the opposite sex, on my own property because I own the hills, and someone uses a device to see what we're doing from off the property, why can't we reguard that as a violation of rights?

You have a right to do anything that does not violate others' life, freedom or property. Spying does none of those. We don't need privacy in order to protect ourselves. Being moral is all the protection you need against blackmail.

The way I see it, information is property. We have only the right to know nature. Nature is the only way rights derive. They do not derive from humanity except through humanity's nature. Therefore, information that exists only as a consequence of our own doing is rightfully theirs.

Of course, there would be easements and restrictions. If I do something on your property, it is your right to know. If I do something in public, and you find out about it through someone else, it is your right to know. Perhaps I should clarify my position.

You have a right to privacy zones. Privacy zones exist soley within your property, but not to its surface. Does that make more sense? Furthermore, you may ask another person to opt to maintain the integrity of information dissemination restriction within their own field of privacy, and you may make this a condition of the release of the information soley to them.

BTW, information as a universal cannot be owned. Only information as an existential. Something that is universal such as a law of nature cannot be restricted to one person, except in the case that you have a document and you wish that nobody else use it except for those you specify. To use something is to be within the causal field not simply of its potential dissemination, but its actual dissemination.

What I have done here is to say three things: One, information is free if it is public. Two, information is owned if it is private. Three, information applies only to actual instances of something that represents it and that which is caused by those instances that is traceable back to the source.

This will unify intellectual property with causality and unify our assumtions of privacy with an actual principle.

I hope this clarifies things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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