IP once more, with feeling

Ethics
, ,
21

. . . the phrase “to own an idea” is nonsense. An idea is a thought. You don’t own it, it’s an attribute of a person’s conscious mind.

 Exactly my point.

 

. . . patents and copyrights allow for free trade in intellectual values without the person who wishes to share them with the world fearing being ripped off.

 

 How would the world rip him off?  Honestly; let’s analyze it.

Because with a tangible piece of property, if I take it from you, I have literally stolen your time and energy because you no longer have their product.

With IP, if I copy your idea you’ve lost nothing; I’ve gained and you’re exactly the same.  So how is this being ripped off?

Potential sales.  Once we’ve accepted that you MUST ask someone else’s permission before using their idea, then if you DON’T ask for their permission it’s theft- because they never received their due.

 

Therefore, if we accept this, an absence of value is the same as the destruction of value.

 

 

The drug is the materials created (production) as well as the thoughts (trial and error of ideas) of those that conceived of it. 

 Absolutely.

 

 

You cannot take one without taking the other.

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

 

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

 

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

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

I believe there is a word for this dynamic. . .

 

 

Why work for something when a real man will do the thinking for you?

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

 

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

 

 

Humans cannot thrive under such a system in the same way they cannot thrive in a Welfare State that takes the creations of thoughts. 

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

 

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

22

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578543250466974398.html

 This directly relates to the exact problems I’m talking about.

23

 Exactly my point.

Then please stop arguing against the premise that IP is literally and only owning an idea. IP is neither a pure idea nor a purely material thing. IP existing is dependent upon a realizable product as well as the idea and means to make/produce/create that specific product. A mind exists, and a body exists, but it’s nonsense to talk about either separately. Similarly, the intellectual end of property exists just as much as a tangible end of property, for all property.  That’s not just a metaphor, though. I really mean that there isn’t an idea to touch, but it does not mean that it’s just some illusion that results from the use of property. I hoped Nicky pre-empted all this on post #5.

 

To consider being “ripped off”, start with this. Say you’re on vacation for a week and leave your bike at home. Someone uses your bike without permission while you are gone; you are being deprived of nothing, since you’re on vacation. Suppose further that your bike is taken care of. You return home, find a sign on your bike that says “thanks for the joy ride”. Were you ripped off? Why or why not?

24

Exactly my point.

What’s your point? That saying that ideas are property is nonsense? You’re the only one who’s saying it.

Sure, you’re claiming that Ayn Rand is also saying it, but that’s a blatant lie. She never said that ideas are property.

How would the world rip him off?  Honestly; let’s analyze it.

Let’s not. Let’s deal with issues one at a time. You asked what IP is, I told you. Let’s focus on the difference between what I told you and what you’re claiming IP is (ownership of ideas).

Let’s not analyze anything else, until we cleared up that difference. Then, and only then, we can discuss whether IP is a good idea or a bad one.

Or, if we fail to clear up that difference, let’s not have a pointless conversation go any further than it already has.

25

You asked what IP is, I told you. Let’s focus on the difference between what I told you and what you’re claiming IP is (ownership of ideas).

Let’s not analyze anything else, until we cleared up that difference.

 Fine.

WHAT, then, does intellectual property refer to?  It would help if you could identify the distinguishing characteristic for me.

 

 

IP existing is dependent upon a realizable product as well as the idea and means to make/produce/create that specific product.

 If you want to make some new type of shoe but lack a factory (realizable product I’ll take as synonymous with idea; ‘realizable’ refers to the end results but not the method).  If you ask someone to use their factory (probably propose some sort of contractual arrangement) and they say no, you can go find another factory.

If you have a factory and want to use someone’s shoe idea, and they say no, that’s it; you cannot engage in that activity at all.

So the question is if those are identical; I would say no.  Sure, you can find another idea- but what if someone were to patent fire or the wheel?

 

Considering government isn’t supposed to grant patents, but merely secure the preexisting right, how many rights must each of us violate on any given day?

 

 

IP is neither a pure idea nor a purely material thing. IP existing is dependent upon a realizable product as well as the idea and means to make/produce/create that specific product.

If someone else owns the means to create a product, but you own the patent, what exactly do you own. . . ?

 

To consider being “ripped off”, start with this. Say you’re on vacation for a week and leave your bike at home. Someone uses your bike without permission while you are gone; you are being deprived of nothing, since you’re on vacation. Suppose further that your bike is taken care of. You return home, find a sign on your bike that says “thanks for the joy ride”. Were you ripped off? Why or why not?

 Nope.

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

However, if anything were to happen to the bike or the owner were to be inconvenienced in any way by it, then he’s been wronged- meaning that any thief attempting such in reality would have to be omniscient in order to morally “borrow” the bike.

Not so with IP.

26

Fine.

WHAT, then, does intellectual property refer to?

The ownership of patents and copyrights.

27

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

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

28

The ownership of patents and copyrights.

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

29

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

 

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

30

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

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

 

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

 

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

31

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

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

32

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

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

 

Look at it this way.

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

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

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

 

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

33

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

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

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

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

34

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

I believe there is a word for this dynamic. .

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

35

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

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

 

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

36

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

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

 

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

What I want is consistency.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 Why can you replicate it for yourself, then?

 

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

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

 

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

 

Man must  think, then act.

 YES!

37

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

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

38

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

39

Let’s try this again.

 

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

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

 

WHAT DOES HE ACTUALLY OWN?

 

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

 

If you own a PATENT, what DO YOU HAVE?

40

WHAT DOES HE ACTUALLY OWN?

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

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

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