Discussion of the legitimacy of Intellectual Property

[rambone]

I have never really heard both sides of this debate.

What reasons, if any, should Intellectual Property rights be considered Government Interventionism? Why should it not be included as a necessary part of Capitalism?

 

[Fletch]

My post from the other thread:

Reason has some great articles about IP, and one of the worst abusers of IP laws: Disney.

Disney's War Against the Counterculture - Reason Magazine

Mickey Mouse Clubbed - Reason Magazine

I whacked my head really hard yesterday (almost knocked myself out), so right now I'm not in shape to get into this, but I'll be reading. I find this topic fascinating and honestly can see both sides of it.

 

[smoking357]

The hard-core Libertarians do not believe in intellectual property and believe that the intellectual essence of anything you've created can be freely used by anyone else the moment you manufacture it or express it on paper.

If you design a new fuel-injection system that lets cars get 5,000 miles, per gallon, you are only entitled to make a profit on your design if you can manufacture it cheaper than anyone else. You say you're in inventor who designs for a living? They say "too bad." It's now everyone's.

I view that position as the outright theft of the economic output of an entire occupation in the division of labor.

 

[steveh_131]

If you design a new fuel-injection system that lets cars get 5,000 miles, per gallon, you are only entitled to make a profit on your design if you can manufacture it cheaper than anyone else.

The problem with this is the word "entitled". In a true free market, you are not entitled to anything. The product of your efforts will only have the value that someone is willing to pay for it.

We have a system where the government creates a fake demand for the "inventor" job market by holding back the supply in the supply/demand equation. This is done to spur more growth, research and development.

I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. But I can understand why proponents of liberty would be opposed to the government holding back the supply of a certain product in order to artificially raise its market value.

I think this leaves two questions.

Does this artificial demand actually help us to advance technologically?

If so, is the sacrifice of liberty worth it?

 

[smoking357]

The problem with this is the word "entitled". In a true free market, you are not entitled to anything.

The problem with your argument is that it proceeds from a context shift of the word "entitled."

 

[Ogre]

(pretty much my thoughts copied from another thread...)

I am pro-capitalism/free market(and libertarian), Without Govt. intervention in not allowing others to merely copy a product, innovation would suffer greatly. If corporation "A" spends several million in research, and developement, should Corp. "B" be allowed to make an exact duplicate of the product while only using a miniscule fraction of money for their own development of said product? Corp. "B" would then be able to offer this product for significantly less because they would not have to recoup for the initial enormous investment Corp "A" had in the research and developement. This would allow Corp. "B" to excell in the market and unlitmately Corp. "A" would never recover. And thats assuming there is only one other competitor. If there was a price war amongst 2 or 3 Corp. who made copies, this would speed up the demise of Corp. "A".

 

[steveh_131]

The problem with your argument is that it proceeds from a context shift of the word "entitled."

I'm not totally sure what you mean by this.

I was just trying to point out the difference between the government entitling you to a certain profit and the inherent value of your product creating that certain profit.

 

[Lex Concord]

I'm not totally sure what you mean by this.

I was just trying to point out the difference between the government entitling you to a certain profit and the inherent value of your product creating that certain profit.

It means he generally prefers to focus on failed semantics and logical constructs rather than dealing with ideas as presented.

 

[smoking357]

(pretty much my thoughts copied from another thread...)

I am pro-capitalism/free market(and libertarian), Without Govt. intervention in not allowing others to merely copy a product, innovation would suffer greatly. If corporation "A" spends several million in research, and developement, should Corp. "B" be allowed to make an exact duplicate of the product while only using a miniscule fraction of money for their own development of said product? Corp. "B" would then be able to offer this product for significantly less because they would not have to recoup for the initial enormous investment Corp "A" had in the research and developement. This would allow Corp. "B" to excell in the market and unlitmately Corp. "A" would never recover. And thats assuming there is only one other competitor. If there was a price war amongst 2 or 3 Corp. who made copies, this would speed up the demise of Corp. "A".

That's correct. The hard-core Libertarians approve of what you just described.

 

[smoking357]

It means he generally prefers to focus on failed semantics and logical constructs rather than dealing with ideas as presented.

Oh, how the conquered do protest.

Much to your displeasure, you can't proceed from false premises, and you can't change the meaning of words.

 

[Lex Concord]

Oh, how the conquered do protest.

Much to your displeasure, you can't proceed from false premises, and you can't change the meaning of words.

"conquered"...very cute.

You're obviously a bright kid. Why don't you step out of battlefield logic text and step into the real world where people discuss things civilly, rather than try to gain points, score wins, or "conquer"?

You can still point out logical fallacies but, if you do it with a kind hand, you might actually serve your cause, whatever that might be.

 

[steveh_131]

Oh, how the conquered do protest.

Much to your displeasure, you can't proceed from false premises, and you can't change the meaning of words.

entitledAadjective
1 entitled

qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"

So entitled means you only receive that profit because by law you are qualified.

My point is that in a true free market, no law should be necessary to qualify you for that profit.

So how did I change the meaning of the word?

 

[smoking357]

"conquered"...very cute.

You're obviously a bright kid. Why don't you step out of battlefield logic text and step into the real world where people discuss things civilly, rather than try to gain points, score wins, or "conquer"?

You can still point out logical fallacies but, if you do it with a kind hand, you might actually serve your cause, whatever that might be.

Try publishing a journal article with the "real world" rigor you learn here. This place is fun, but it ain't the bigs. When it comes to regimented and exacting discourse, this place is a long way from the "real world."

You can have all the tavern chat you want, but I'll be playing at a higher level.

 

[Lex Concord]

Here is a series of articles (plus a few follow ups) written from an anti-IP perspective.

Leonard Read's Open-Source Vision by Jeffrey A. Tucker

IP: It's a Market Failure Argument by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Pay to Pray: The Church's Simony Problem by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The Mercantilism of Our Time by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Do Patents Save Our Lives? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The Hoax of Invention History by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Fallacy Run Amok by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Back to Basics on Property and Competition by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The Music and Book Killers by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Seen and Unseen Cost of Patents by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Does Innovation Require Property in Ideas? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Does Monopoly Create Wealth? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The New Frontier in IP by Jeffrey A. Tucker

What's Your Attitude on IP? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Authors: Beware of Copyright by Jeffrey A. Tucker

A Book that Changes Everything by Jeffrey A. Tucker

After copying and pasting the URLs, I realized I pasted them in reverse chronological order...to get the full flow, you may want to start from the bottom of the list of links..

 

[Lex Concord]

Try publishing a journal article with the "real world" rigor you learn here. This place is fun, but it ain't the bigs. When it comes to regimented and exacting discourse, this place is a long way from the "real world."

You can have all the tavern chat you want, but I'll be playing at a higher level.

Congratulations on your excellent rigor. Please feel free to play through.

 

[steveh_131]

Try publishing a journal article with the "real world" rigor you learn here. This place is fun, but it ain't the bigs. When it comes to regimented and exacting discourse, this place is a long way from the "real world."

You can have all the tavern chat you want, but I'll be playing at a higher level.

Wow. You make some good points sometimes. But if your arrogant condescending manner represents the "higher level", I'll be glad to just hang out with Lex in the tavern.

 

[Fletch]

I've been involved in IP discussions regarding my own work, and the decision was ultimately left up to me. I chose to release it into the wild. I've never regretted the decision, as my innovation will spread to the work of others and help them to create better products just as my own product was improved by it.

One of the greatest criticisms that can be leveled against technological advancement in hardware is that there isn't enough iteration in design. Bringing more iterations into the design process results in better products, and slowing or stopping iteration results in relatively worse products. It is an inescapable consequence of the IP process that the iterative design cycles are necessarily reduced.

Another criticism of IP is that it permits people to lock up ideas. Ideas (as regards technology) are no good to the rest of us unless they're actually implemented. It's possible (and indeed it's already happening) for a company to simply patent/copyright various ideas, never create a product that does anything with it, and then wait to sue folks who independently come up with something very similar, making money on IP instead of products. It's an abuse of the idea of IP, and disregards completely the fact that many ideas are convergent -- that is, at some points in technological progress, there are junctures of advancement where multiple people will come to the exact same conclusion about what's "next". The problem with IP is that it rewards the first to get to the Patent Office, not the first to get to market with a product people can use.

At the same time, as I've said, I've been in the position of having to decide whether to protect my own IP. I already had a product in the market, and we were receiving some accolades for the improvements I'd made, and I would have been sorely disappointed to see someone else take my idea, copyright it for themselves, and then sue us for using "their" copyrighted material. IP allows people to do this. Frankly, all I wanted was credit for the idea -- the truly exciting part of the thing was what the idea did, not the idea in and of itself. If others could make similar improvements to their products using my idea (or a convergent idea with the same results), that was even cooler.

Granted, other innovators might not want that sort of result from their efforts, and I'm not sure -- which is to say, I haven't fully decided -- whether their concerns are sufficient for me to restrain my opposition to IP.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's correct. The hard-core Libertarians approve of what you just described.

I dunno, smoking. I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian (lower case intentional); in fact, the only thing I've heard from that group with which I disagree is the concept of borders and immigration. Because our system is NOT libertarian and does reward whoever shows up, I can't back that position.

Much the same way, because it's always easier to copy a breakthrough than it is to create one, I can't back a concept which harms, albeit financially, the one who works to create and rewards the copycat.

I am for minimal government and minimal government intervention. I can also see how copyright and patent law contradicts that. This is something on which I'll need to do some thinking... however, it's not something on which I'm going to make an absolute stand.

Wow. You make some good points sometimes. But if your arrogant condescending manner represents the "higher level", I'll be glad to just hang out with Lex in the tavern.

Steveh has addressed here what I've thought, reading which of your posts I have: Arrogance, abrasiveness, and belittling condescension don't win people to your way of thinking; quite the reverse. You don't seem to care about such things as "friends" here, so it may not matter to you, but to me, it comes across as a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people.

INGO is not a contest, not a courtroom, not a competition. You don't get points for "winning" or "conquering" others. Well, you do, sometimes... but usually, they're accompanied by one of those

pips.

I can't make everyone get along, but it sure makes our jobs as mods easier when people do.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[smoking357]

Steveh has addressed here what I've thought, reading which of your posts I have: Arrogance, abrasiveness, and belittling condescension don't win people to your way of thinking; quite the reverse. You don't seem to care about such things as "friends" here, so it may not matter to you, but to me, it comes across as a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people.

These people can't poke me with a stick then complain when I smack them over the head with it.

I give what I get.

 

[steveh_131]

These people can't poke me with a stick then complain when I smack them over the head with it.

I give what I get.

Still waiting for an explanation of how I "changed the meaning of words".

Am I just missing it because it's on a higher level?