Discussion of the legitimacy of Intellectual Property

[jsgolfman]

When I saw the thread title, I was going to jump in as this is one of my favorite topics to discuss. However, it's already gotten snippy and the actual topic has barely been discussed. I think I'll head to the pub till it comes 'round again.

 

[Fletch]

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.

No you don't. Nobody poked you with anything. A discussion was started, and you used your first post to pick a fight by using needlessly inflammatory language instead of making a calm and reasonable argument.

So far you've done nothing more than construct a straw man about what you claim certain people support, make unfounded assertions about its consequences without regard for the full scope of the discussion, imply that you oppose the straw man, and claim victory.

It would be far more edifying for all involved if we were to get into an actual discussion rather than an e-peen contest, but it's clear that your preference is for the latter.

 

[mrjarrell]

IP covers a wide array of things. Take music. If I buy a gun, I can sell it to whomever I wish. If I buy a CD, I can also do with it what I want, within very specific limits. If I download a song from iTunes, however it isn't really mine to do with as I wish. It is watermarked and I can't transfer it for remuneration to anyone without breaking the law. That's a serious flaw in the IP argument. It violates basic rights of property.

 

[jsgolfman]

Do you own your reputation?

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I'd like to read your journal publications and make an independent assessment.

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.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

One theme I took from your note is that you CHOICE in whether to give your idea or protect it. I think not having the choice would completely change the viewpoint.

Also, you make good points with respect to patent trolls (making money off suing others, but not making any product) and independent invention. There are two solutions available in other countries. With respect to making your invention, some countries required you to use or license your product within three years of patent grant, or the patent office will grant a compulsory license to any person requesting. With respect to independent invention, some countries permit the independent inventor to use independent invention as an excuse for infringement and/or force the first patenting entity to grant a non-transferable compulsory license to the independent inventor.

I make not comment on either as good or bad, just providing some additional perspective on them.

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.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Bill, one place to look at how government intervention plays out in the realm of IP is to make some comparisons of countries that had very poor IP protection (read no protection) and those same countries after stronger IP protection were enacted. The investment by entities in those countries increases dramatically as well as the amount of creation in those countries. A good example would be to look at China and India to see how the amount of research and development has increased.

Another thing to ponder is the basis or theory for real property rights. I've not done sufficient research to understand why Libertarians believe we have a right to property, but one common rationale is a Lockean theory of property which basically states we have property because "we've mixed the sweat of brow" and thus we've earned a right in that thing. I think if you buy that rationale for say earning a wage, the same would apply for creating an invention and reaping a benefit from the invention without fear of somebody who mixed no sweating using it for free. Thus, investment in creating is incentivized by recognizing the property right.

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.

 

[antsi]

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.

The other extreme on that continuum is corporatists who believe that you can patent anything and own all rights to it. These people are currently arguing, among other things, that private corporations can patent parts of the human genome that they map and believe have commercial application.

If they get their way, congratulations, part of your DNA will be the intellectual property of Eli Lily. Wouldn't that be cool? Eli Lily could collect royalties from every human being, just for carrying on with basic metabolic processes.

Maybe it would be better to come up with some kind of practical system somewhere between these extremes that actually works, instead of a system based on fanatical, quasi-religious implementation of an ideology.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

This is completely untrue. Your own experiences and biases color your comments before anybody "poke" you. A typical example is your broad brush painting in the Evangelical thread.

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.

 

[Fletch]

One theme I took from your note is that you CHOICE in whether to give your idea or protect it. I think not having the choice would completely change the viewpoint.

Yes, and I thought about that while writing it. I mostly wanted to point out that I understand from experience what it's like to ponder the future of one's work and want to protect it. The choice aspect does cloud the issue for me, as I noted toward the end. I am convinced that I made the correct choice, but I wonder how my perspective might change without the ability to choose.

Also, you make good points with respect to patent trolls (making money off suing others, but not making any product) and independent invention. There are two solutions available in other countries. With respect to making your invention, some countries required you to use or license your product within three years of patent grant, or the patent office will grant a compulsory license to any person requesting. With respect to independent invention, some countries permit the independent inventor to use independent invention as an excuse for infringement and/or force the first patenting entity to grant a non-transferable compulsory license to the independent inventor.

I make not comment on either as good or bad, just providing some additional perspective on them.

These are good points to have for the discussion. To the extent that I can support IP, I believe it should be limited in scope and duration to address the concerns listed.

 

[Fletch]

The other extreme on that continuum is corporatists who believe that you can patent anything and own all rights to it. These people are currently arguing, among other things, that private corporations can patent parts of the human genome that they map and believe have commercial application.

If they get their way, congratulations, part of your DNA will be the intellectual property of Eli Lily. Wouldn't that be cool? Eli Lily could collect royalties from every human being, just for carrying on with basic metabolic processes.

Michael Crichton's book Next, while fictional, does an excellent job of illustrating the IP quagmire and its detrimental effects on human rights. Unless we start acting to put limits on what can be patented, we could lose a lot more than a few innovations.

 

[Bill of Rights]

IP covers a wide array of things. Take music. If I buy a gun, I can sell it to whomever I wish. If I buy a CD, I can also do with it what I want, within very specific limits. If I download a song from iTunes, however it isn't really mine to do with as I wish. It is watermarked and I can't transfer it for remuneration to anyone without breaking the law. That's a serious flaw in the IP argument. It violates basic rights of property.

Except that you're not buying the song. To do so would mean that you owned the song and all rights to it. When you "buy" a song on iTunes, you're buying the non-exclusive right to play that song on that MP3 player or the computer linked to it.

Similar is true of the CD. Sure, you have the ability to copy and play it elsewhere, but if you copy it and give it to someone else without paying for another copy, that's piracy. Think of it as a book. If you buy a hard copy of that book, you can read it as much as you like. You can loan it to someone else, but then you don't have it to read yourself. You could go through and photocopy every page, but again, that would be a form of piracy.
I probably don't need to tell you about the fact that if you don't pay the author/artist for the work they do, they have no incentive (and probably no ability) to create more, because they need to go work a regular 9-5 job to make a living.

I can't argue any of these points; the original artist deserves to be compensated for his or her work. If you don't agree... I can only guess that you've never created anything of which you are proud and for which you deserved the appropriate credit.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fletch]

Similar is true of the CD. Sure, you have the ability to copy and play it elsewhere, but if you copy it and give it to someone else without paying for another copy, that's piracy. Think of it as a book. If you buy a hard copy of that book, you can read it as much as you like. You can loan it to someone else, but then you don't have it to read yourself. You could go through and photocopy every page, but again, that would be a form of piracy.
I probably don't need to tell you about the fact that if you don't pay the author/artist for the work they do, they have no incentive (and probably no ability) to create more, because they need to go work a regular 9-5 job to make a living.

I can't argue any of these points; the original artist deserves to be compensated for his or her work. If you don't agree... I can only guess that you've never created anything of which you are proud and for which you deserved the appropriate credit.

And this is the other side of the coin, for me. I am both a tech guy and a creative guy. On the tech side of things, I tend to think in terms of the arguments I've already presented. On the creative side, I tend to agree that some protection is warranted. I am disgusted by people who rip off creative works, downloading bootlegs of movies and whatnot, and it makes me wary of the process of attempting to monetize my own efforts.

 

[Lex Concord]

Do you own your reputation?

As it exists only in the minds of others, unlikely, though one might make an effort to manage it.

 

[steveh_131]

And this is the other side of the coin, for me. I am both a tech guy and a creative guy. On the tech side of things, I tend to think in terms of the arguments I've already presented. On the creative side, I tend to agree that some protection is warranted. I am disgusted by people who rip off creative works, downloading bootlegs of movies and whatnot, and it makes me wary of the process of attempting to monetize my own efforts.

With respect to the creative works, I suppose my problem is the lack of any objectively drawn line separating right from wrong.

Example: Downloading a bootleg copy of a new movie from the internet. Many people would consider this immoral. Why? Because someone watches the movie without paying the owners for it.

Example: Renting a movie and watching it with your friend. Most people consider this to be moral. However, consider the fact that only one of you has paid and both of you are watching it. Rationally, this is no different than renting the movie, ripping it onto your computer, and allowing your friend to download a bootleg copy from you and watch it.

What do you guys think? Where do you draw the line?

 

[jsgolfman]

As it exists only in the minds of others, unlikely, though one might make an effort to manage it.

Yet, you can be sued for defamation of character. Where does IP begin and end? Where is line between tangible property and IP drawn? What about trade secrets and trademark?

If I am a musician and perform at a concert hall and neither sell nor distribute physical or electronic copies of my performances, I have a realistic expectation that my property rights will be protected. The moment I produce copies of said work, either physical or electronic, that expectation disappears.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yet, you can be sued for defamation of character. Where does IP begin and end? Where is line between tangible property and IP drawn? What about trade secrets and trademark?

If I am a musician and perform at a concert hall and neither sell nor distribute physical or electronic copies of my performances, I have a realistic expectation that my property rights will be protected. The moment I produce copies of said work, either physical or electronic, that expectation disappears.

But success with libel and defamation suits usually hinge on some proof of a lie by the accused party, thus showing that a form of fraud had been perpetrated. Hence, the suit is a form of management of that character which, lying in the minds of others, would be someone else's IP.

I don't really think it is accurate to compare "character" or "reputation", being abstract concepts, with concrete reproducible artifacts such as music or written works.

As far as IP is concerned, it is one of those rare subjects, for me, that has wide gray areas. I can see both sides of the argument...I tend to focus on issues which are, to me, of greater urgency.

 

[jsgolfman]

The success of those lawsuits assumes that the reputation or character is owned/created by the individual bringing the lawsuit when it is not.

While I agree that it is a gray area, the fact remains that both are considered IP.

 

[Lex Concord]

The success of those lawsuits assumes that the reputation or character is owned/created by the individual bringing the lawsuit when it is not.

Does it? That is a serious question, not having delved deeply into it.

But does it presume ownership, or simply a vested interest subject to real (whether potential or realized) economic harm upon execution of a fraud against it?

The latter makes more sense to me, but I realize that, in the eyes of the law, the former is likely the case.

There is right, there is wrong, and then there is law.

 

[jsgolfman]

Does it? That is a serious question, not having delved deeply into it.

But does it presume ownership, or simply a vested interest subject to real (whether potential or realized) economic harm upon execution of a fraud against it?

The latter makes more sense to me, but I realize that, in the eyes of the law, the former is likely the case.

There is right, there is wrong, and then there is law.

IANAL, so take it with a grain of salt. I recommend reading Blocks Defending the Undefendable, particularly the section dealing with slander and libel. He argues, and I tend to agree, that your reputation would be more secure without libel laws. Everyone knows, if its in the paper it must be true.