I believe the market is very much like evolution - the best producers of goods and services strengthen while their competitors challenge them or die out. One of the main arguments against capitalism is the issue of monopolies and their power over their competitors. If there is a lack of competition then prices and quality can become unfair and unchallenged. Although this is rarely the case because there is almost always competition, there is an issue with market 'monopolies' that can prevent the evolution in the market - patents. Say a technological company supplies the best products in their line of industry, they then obtain patent rights to privatize the next innovative designs and ideas in their line of industry. Their competitors are now restricted to out perform them. In this way a monopoly can be established with the power of the law preventing competitors to out-perform them.
I can understand the value of patents for inventors, but the misuse of them in terms of market evolution is very uneconomical.
I wanted to get some opinions on patents in an ideal market. How do you think they would work best (if at all) in an ideal market?
Patents do not help invent things per se. It is all one big legal mess and people can get by without them at all. Something that can be infinitely reproduced has no intrinsic value, and no one has a property right over my brain or body.
What you would do in an Austrian society is offer prizes instead of patents to people that invent stuff. Think of the X-prize for instance.
"I hereby patent red. The very idea of a red object belongs to me. All royalties payable to Clayton Inc. 10239 Old World Rd. 00385"
The problem is that the human concept of ownership regards rights to exclusive use of specific objects, whereas patents and copyrights grant "property" rights to entire classes of objects. "You may purchase this clock and thereby own the right to hang it on your wall and look at it, but you may not under any circumstances disassemble it, reverse-engineer its mechanism and manufacture a clock operating on the same principle, whether of your own design or not." That's the effective meaning of patent. What an absurdity. You sell an object but its disassembly, reverse-engineering and copying is prohibited??
This makes no sense whatsoever in terms of the basic conception of what ownership means. It is a bastardization of the human concept of property and ownership. The owner of a patent or copyright is implicitly claiming a kind of property right in every burnable DVD (you can purchase this blank DVD but you may not burn this pattern upon it), every piece of steel (you can purchase this piece of steel, but you may not fabricate it into any of these patented shapes), and so on and so on. Such ownership rights are ridiculous.
Clayton -
anenome - breaking of contracts would obviously be a serious crime in a free society that doesnt have IP laws so i think you are kind of blowing off the seriousness of b telling c. Technically the contract can say if you tell anyone you goto jail for life/put to death. Inventors of ideas would also have access to entrepenuers with LONG records of remaining silent on deals that they did not agree to fund.
Plus if there is record (notorized or something) that an inventor of an idea came up with it before anyone else then out of no where C starts producing that very product legal action can be taken to stop the production of it because the courts need to decide if B just broke the contract or was C in on it too. So C has to be very careful on how they come about accepting and acting on information that B has given them.
Then there will also be a track record in the court system for Bs and Cs that effectively punishes them enough so this type of colluding doesnt occur often.
If it is discovered that B just told C without C knowing about A then credit for originating the idea would still goto A after the fact.
Anenome:Not sure I agree completely here. A patent allows someone to own an idea. It's not an illegitimately enforced monopoly any more than you owning a house is an illegitimately enforced monopoly.
What do you think ownership conveys? I think it conveys three types of right: the right to use, the right to the fruit(s) of use, and the right to abandon. These kinds of right make sense when scarcity is involved - i.e. A's use of something excludes B's use of it and vice-versa. How does one's use of an idea exclude anyone else's use of it?
Anenome:If patent laws go away entirely, the incentive to share new knowledge with the community in exchange for a limited grant of sole-use over that knowledge will go away and everyone will suffer.
By that reasoning, there was no incentive to invent ideas like fire, agriculture, the wheel, metallurgy, the heavy plow, the equations of motion, and all the other things that were invented before the idea of "intellectual property" was invented.
Anenome:Even in a free society, something like patent could still exist, because it is prima facie ownership, just ownership of something that's very difficult to own, an idea.
How is it very difficult to own an idea? It doesn't seem difficult to use an idea, nor to enjoy the fruit(s) of using it, nor to abandon it.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Anenome:So inventor A signs contract with B to not tell his idea to anyone. B tells C and C makes a business using that idea. Now A sues B for losses, including all the money C's making, but A cannot then injunct C from making the product, even though A came up with the idea, thus homesteading it?
B tells C and C makes a business using that idea.
Now A sues B for losses, including all the money C's making, but A cannot then injunct C from making the product, even though A came up with the idea, thus homesteading it?
How can an idea be homesteaded?
Autolykos: How can an idea be homesteaded?
It is not being used, it is discovered by labor of an individual who discovers it by that labor. Seems to fit the general idea of homesteading something, altho by abstraction since ideas are not material entities. But I don't see why that should matter particularly.
One can own the ideas contained in a book they've written without owning the individual words. So too one should be able to own a unique idea they've come up with.
You've got to be able to prove that you're the first to come up with that idea, which is why the patent process today gives precedence to first filers.
Anenome:One cannot steal an idea if it is not divulged, this is true. But, let's say that an idea is like a tract of land that is unscarce but can only produce a certain amount of money despite its unscarcity, and the more people use it, despite its unscarcity, the more diluted its value becomes. It is the use of that idea that gets diluted. The producer of an idea would normally have to keep that idea completely secret in order to profit from it.
But, let's say that an idea is like a tract of land that is unscarce but can only produce a certain amount of money despite its unscarcity, and the more people use it, despite its unscarcity, the more diluted its value becomes.
It is the use of that idea that gets diluted. The producer of an idea would normally have to keep that idea completely secret in order to profit from it.
First off, no one can know in advance how much money an idea can "produce". Second, I don't see how anyone is prima facie entitled to any particular amount of money from an idea. The same is true for houses. For example, I own a house. And while I'd like to sell it for at least as much as I bought it, 1) there's no guarantee of that happening, and 2) no one is stealing from me if it doesn't happen. In other words, what I own is the house itself, not any particular value imputed to it.
Anenome:A property claim is claim to land that you're not yet using but land that you plan to use, to mix your labor with, in the relatively short-term. There's no reason why people should respect a property claim, except that they want others to respect their claim. There's nothing in homesteading theory that supports the idea of respecting a claim, but it translates theory into reality. Because in practice there's always a time delay between starting to till land and when the full farm is put in. And if you couldn't have X number of acres farmed, because somoene else grabbed your claim before you could till it, you would never have begun tilling at all.
Keep in mind that claiming something isn't the same as homesteading it. Homesteading something requires actually using it in some way. Plowing an area of land is certainly one way to use it. I think fencing off an area of land is also a way to use it.
But yes, homesteading something carries risk. If someone else homesteads something you were planning on homesteading, tough luck. The same goes for all other forms of acquiring ownership. Reality is not obligated to meet one's expectations.
Anenome:With an idea, like an invention, though ideas are not scarce we make this bargain with people: disclose your invention or idea such that anyone can use it, and in return we'll give you an exclusive right to use that idea for a set term.
Who do you mean by "we"? I'm certainly not making that bargain with people.
In any event, I think the notion that technology can progress only by leaps and bounds is ridiculous. There are no truly original ideas - everything is a remix. So why are minor remixes bad while major remixes are good?
Anenome:It is not being used, it is discovered by labor of an individual who discovers it by that labor.
In order for something to be homesteaded, it must be used in some way. But as far as discovering ideas, can't they be discovered independently by multiple people? Indeed, couldn't you say that everyone who understands an idea thereby discovers it for himself?
Anenome:Seems to fit the general idea of homesteading something, altho by abstraction since ideas are not material entities. But I don't see why that should matter particularly.
Because ideas exist in the mind, not in the external world.
Anenome:One can own the ideas contained in a book they've written without owning the individual words. So too one should be able to own a unique idea they've come up with.
That's just it - I don't think one can own those ideas, because I don't think one can own any idea.
Anenome:You've got to be able to prove that you're the first to come up with that idea, which is why the patent process today gives precedence to first filers.
Appealing to the patent process as it exists today is irrelevant. Also, how does being the first to ever discover an idea prevent anyone else from discovering it independently? (It doesn't.)
Autolykos: Anenome:One cannot steal an idea if it is not divulged, this is true. But, let's say that an idea is like a tract of land that is unscarce but can only produce a certain amount of money despite its unscarcity, and the more people use it, despite its unscarcity, the more diluted its value becomes. It is the use of that idea that gets diluted. The producer of an idea would normally have to keep that idea completely secret in order to profit from it. First off, no one can know in advance how much money an idea can "produce".
First off, no one can know in advance how much money an idea can "produce".
Neither can one know in advance how much money a plot of land can produce.
Autolykos:Second, I don't see how anyone is prima facie entitled to any particular amount of money from an idea.
Nor is anyone entitled to any particular amount of money from any piece of property. Neither of these facts negate or affect ownership in any way.
Autolykos:The same is true for houses. For example, I own a house. And while I'd like to sell it for at least as much as I bought it, 1) there's no guarantee of that happening, and 2) no one is stealing from me if it doesn't happen. In other words, what I own is the house itself, not any particular value imputed to it.
But if someone took your house or your land and began draining value from it, let's say by pumping oil out of the ground, then you would be entitled to restitution.
Autolykos:Keep in mind that claiming something isn't the same as homesteading it. Homesteading something requires actually using it in some way. Plowing an area of land is certainly one way to use it. I think fencing off an area of land is also a way to use it.
Sure, but there's always a time lage between intended use and the completion of that use, and this is where the claim becomes an important facilitator. One could equally claim a patent is fencing off an idea, barring others from its use.
And because ideas are non-scarce and infinitely replicateable, that "fence" cannot therefore exit in perprtuity, for it would be silly to claim someone can own X idea forever.
Of course one can own X idea forever if one simply does not disclose it to others. Thus, the patent encourages disclosure in exchange for a limited monopoly on that idea which expires after a term.
Autolykos:But yes, homesteading something carries risk. If someone else homesteads something you were planning on homesteading, tough luck. The same goes for all other forms of acquiring ownership. Reality is not obligated to meet one's expectations.
Except that in real world cases, the "claim" has been used to prevent this undesirable scenario, even though it is only adjunct to the homestead.
Autolykos: Anenome:With an idea, like an invention, though ideas are not scarce we make this bargain with people: disclose your invention or idea such that anyone can use it, and in return we'll give you an exclusive right to use that idea for a set term. Who do you mean by "we"? I'm certainly not making that bargain with people.
Whatever society chooses to implement patent protection. I assume you are part of some society for the purpose of this argument. It would be only implicit agreement in a non-libertarian society, but certainly explicit in a libertarian one.
Autolykos:In any event, I think the notion that technology can progress only by leaps and bounds is ridiculous. There are no truly original ideas - everything is a remix. So why are minor remixes bad while major remixes are good?
You would have a hard time making the case that quantum mechanics was "only a remix" of existing ideas.
There's plenty of new out there, new combinations are in fact new, despite this deconstructive painting of newness. It will probably always be possible to discover a new principle or fact about science and reality which can enable some new invention beneficial to humanity.
New in the context of a product is new in the same way that it will always be possible to write a book that is unlike any other book ever written, despite the fact that you're only using 26 letters and punctuation.
'New' transcends the medium in which that newness originates. If it did not, then it would be impossible to own a book that you have written, because you would sit here telling me that it's impossible to own letters of the alphabet, and that a book is only a remix of letters.
I would certainly reject that.
Jargon: inventors figure out that they ought to show no one their ideas without a contractual obligation to not use it.
see here
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Anenome: It is not being used, it is discovered by labor of an individual who discovers it by that labor. Seems to fit the general idea of homesteading something, altho by abstraction since ideas are not material entities. But I don't see why that should matter particularly.
I would recommend you listen to the IP class that Kinsella taught on Mises Academy. In that course, Kinsella has answered many of the questions/thoughts you have brought up in this thread.
Kinsella has posted it for free here:
http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/12/25/kinsellasrethinking-intellectual-property-course-audio-and-slides/
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Anenome:Neither can one know in advance how much money a plot of land can produce.
I don't see how that refutes my point. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. But you invited us to treat an idea as though it were an infinitely large tract of land that can nevertheless produce a finite amount of money.
Anenome:Nor is anyone entitled to any particular amount of money from any piece of property. Neither of these facts negate or affect ownership in any way.
Well it seemed to me like you were arguing that, if other people make use of an idea, then the person who came up with the idea is being stolen from. So I wanted to refute that argument.
Please explain to me how my use of an idea excludes anyone else from using it. As I see it, the only way you can make that "work" is if you define "using an idea" as "getting at least $X from marketing it". But that's not how I define it.
Anenome:But if someone took your house or your land and began draining value from it, let's say by pumping oil out of the ground, then you would be entitled to restitution.
Here you seem to be implying that I do own value - which contradicts what you previously said. Please make up your mind.
Pumping oil out of the ground below my house/land does not necessarily constitute draining value from it. And honestly, I don't know whether I'd consider myself entitled to restitution in that case. I think it would depend on how far down the oil is.
Anenome:Sure, but there's always a time [lag] between intended use and the completion of that use, and this is where the claim becomes an important facilitator. One could equally claim a patent is fencing off an idea, barring others from its use.
No, there's not always a time lag between intended use and the completion of that use. All the ways in which a person intends to use something don't really matter either. All that matters is whether he starts using it in some way.
Patents don't physically prevent others from using an idea. You're committing the reification fallacy if you believe otherwise. Furthermore, how is a patent even a use of an idea?
Anenome:And because ideas are non-scarce and infinitely replicateable, that "fence" cannot therefore exit in perprtuity, for it would be silly to claim someone can own X idea forever.
I'm sorry but that's a non sequitur.
Anenome:Of course one can own X idea forever if one simply does not disclose it to others. Thus, the patent encourages disclosure in exchange for a limited monopoly on that idea which expires after a term.
I think you're equivocating over the meaning of "own". I'd like to know the definition that you'd say you're using.
Anenome:Except that in real world cases, the "claim" has been used to prevent this undesirable scenario, even though it is only adjunct to the homestead.
Please elaborate on this. Who do you think enforces mere claims?
Anenome:Whatever society chooses to implement patent protection. I assume you are part of some society for the purpose of this argument. It would be only implicit agreement in a non-libertarian society, but certainly explicit in a libertarian one.
Tell me, where do you draw the line between "one society" and another? Regardless, though, "society" doesn't necessarily mean everyone presumed to live within it. Furthermore, "societies" can't act - only individuals can.
Anenome:You would have a hard time making the case that quantum mechanics was "only a remix" of existing ideas.
You don't seem to understand what I meant by the term "remix". A remix of a song sounds similar to the original, but also changed in one or more ways. Those changes could be said to be "new", yes? I'd say so. This concept of remixing can then be extended to other areas, including physics. So yes, I'd make the case that quantum mechanics was a remix of existing ideas. For one thing, it's derived in large part from classical mechanics.
Anenome:There's plenty of new out there, new combinations are in fact new, despite this deconstructive painting of newness. It will probably always be possible to discover a new principle or fact about science and reality which can enable some new invention beneficial to humanity. New in the context of a product is new in the same way that it will always be possible to write a book that is unlike any other book ever written, despite the fact that you're only using 26 letters and punctuation. 'New' transcends the medium in which that newness originates. If it did not, then it would be impossible to own a book that you have written, because you would sit here telling me that it's impossible to own letters of the alphabet, and that a book is only a remix of letters. I would certainly reject that.
One could argue that every combination of things that hasn't existed before is new, simply because "new" is being implicitly defined as "hasn't existed before". My point is not to say that there's nothing new under the sun. Rather, it's to point out that nothing is ever original in the sense that it was put together from scratch. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants. So my question is, why are new ideas that are only slightly different from existing ideas considered to infringe on those existing ideas, whereas new ideas that are majorly different from existing ideas considered to not infringe on them? I think that, in the absence of so-called "intellectual property", there would be more developments that are maybe only a little different from existing ones, because people won't be so afraid of getting in trouble for violating patents and copyrights.
Autolykos: Anenome:Neither can one know in advance how much money a plot of land can produce. I don't see how that refutes my point. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. But you invited us to treat an idea as though it were an infinitely large tract of land that can nevertheless produce a finite amount of money.
What's wrong with that. We effectively have an infinite universe. It produces a finite amount of money because human energy to produce out of the infinite physical canvas is limited.
Autolykos: Anenome:Nor is anyone entitled to any particular amount of money from any piece of property. Neither of these facts negate or affect ownership in any way. Well it seemed to me like you were arguing that, if other people make use of an idea, then the person who came up with the idea is being stolen from. So I wanted to refute that argument.
If he chooses not to keep the idea secret in exchange for a limited grant of monopoly, then yeah he's being stolen from. The only other way to prevent being stolen from is to keep the idea secret, which will long-term hurt the prosperity of that society. I suppose my argument sounds utilitarian then :\ I don't intend it to. However you guys aren't attacking that aspect, but rather the idea of ownership of an idea in the first place.
Autolykos:Please explain to me how my use of an idea excludes anyone else from using it.
It doesn't, but as Rothbard puts forward in Ethics of Liberty, no one can have a higher right over property than its first user. This is the homesteading concept. Thus, the inventor of an idea is its owner, and how we choose to handle that from there is important because of the nature of ideas. We can't simply say he's not an owner, nor can we say he should have indefinite ownership because the nature of an idea is that its indivisible from other ideas. So a time-based grant of monopoly is a decent compromise. How long should be handled explicitly within a society.
There are for instance a lot of people saying drug patents are too short right now given how long it takes to bring a drug to market in the US. That's really the fault of the regulators for requiring 7 years of trials tho, imo.
Autolykos:As I see it, the only way you can make that "work" is if you define "using an idea" as "getting at least $X from marketing it". But that's not how I define it.
Nah, see above.
Autolykos: Anenome:But if someone took your house or your land and began draining value from it, let's say by pumping oil out of the ground, then you would be entitled to restitution. Here you seem to be implying that I do own value - which contradicts what you previously said. Please make up your mind.
If you own a property then you own whatever value is derived from that. How is that different than owning land? You said a particular value. I say only value. If someone drains millions of dollars in oil from your land, or just $10 worth of cactus, they've stolen from you in both cases. The number doesn't matter, the fact that stealing is occurring does.
Autolykos:Pumping oil out of the ground below my house/land does not necessarily constitute draining value from it. And honestly, I don't know whether I'd consider myself entitled to restitution in that case. I think it would depend on how far down the oil is.
Nah, it depends on the vertical limits of your property. Which currently most people are considered to have a sub-ground ownership all the way down to the center of the earth :P Altho in some parts of the country they do limit it typically to a few feet.
Autolykos: Anenome:Sure, but there's always a time [lag] between intended use and the completion of that use, and this is where the claim becomes an important facilitator. One could equally claim a patent is fencing off an idea, barring others from its use. No, there's not always a time lag between intended use and the completion of that use. All the ways in which a person intends to use something don't really matter either. All that matters is whether he starts using it in some way.
So, say you intend to put in a ten thousand acre solar farm. You clear the first hundred acres and install panels. Then someone else jumps in and builds on the rest before you can get there. You must now abandon what you did install because it was only economical if installed in mass amount, not a mere 100 acres.
In the same way, if you put a shovel in the ground to dig what you're sure will make a great gold mine and someone begins shovelling next to you, now you have conflict. The claim avoids this. It's not a grant of property, but a statement of intention that others should respect because you got there first and are in the process of homesteading the territory.
Autolykos:Patents don't physically prevent others from using an idea. You're committing the reification fallacy if you believe otherwise. Furthermore, how is a patent even a use of an idea?
A patent is a limited grant of exclusive property to an idea. Title to a car doesn't physically prevent others from stealing your car either. Coercion would take place in the courts, just like if someone stole your car.
Autolykos: Anenome:Of course one can own X idea forever if one simply does not disclose it to others. Thus, the patent encourages disclosure in exchange for a limited monopoly on that idea which expires after a term. I think you're equivocating over the meaning of "own". I'd like to know the definition that you'd say you're using.
In this case 'to make use of legitimately.' I suppose you could leave out legitimately since, as a secret, no one else can use it at all.
Autolykos: Anenome:Except that in real world cases, the "claim" has been used to prevent this undesirable scenario, even though it is only adjunct to the homestead. Please elaborate on this. Who do you think enforces mere claims?
Just agreement to do so by others in that society. It's adjunct to the homestead principle, it's a way to put it into effect and avoid disputes. A respects B's claim because B wants A to respect his claim. It's just a previous agreement to respect claims and be bound by them.
Autolykos: Anenome:Whatever society chooses to implement patent protection. I assume you are part of some society for the purpose of this argument. It would be only implicit agreement in a non-libertarian society, but certainly explicit in a libertarian one. Tell me, where do you draw the line between "one society" and another?
Tell me, where do you draw the line between "one society" and another?
In this case, on their agreements or laws on patents.
Autolykos: Anenome:You would have a hard time making the case that quantum mechanics was "only a remix" of existing ideas. You don't seem to understand what I meant by the term "remix". A remix of a song sounds similar to the original, but also changed in one or more ways. Those changes could be said to be "new", yes? I'd say so. This concept of remixing can then be extended to other areas, including physics. So yes, I'd make the case that quantum mechanics was a remix of existing ideas. For one thing, it's derived in large part from classical mechanics.
So your position on owning a book then?
Autolykos: Anenome:There's plenty of new out there, new combinations are in fact new, despite this deconstructive painting of newness. It will probably always be possible to discover a new principle or fact about science and reality which can enable some new invention beneficial to humanity. New in the context of a product is new in the same way that it will always be possible to write a book that is unlike any other book ever written, despite the fact that you're only using 26 letters and punctuation. 'New' transcends the medium in which that newness originates. If it did not, then it would be impossible to own a book that you have written, because you would sit here telling me that it's impossible to own letters of the alphabet, and that a book is only a remix of letters. I would certainly reject that. One could argue that every combination of things that hasn't existed before is new, simply because "new" is being implicitly defined as "hasn't existed before". My point is not to say that there's nothing new under the sun. Rather, it's to point out that nothing is ever original in the sense that it was put together from scratch. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants. So my question is, why are new ideas that are only slightly different from existing ideas considered to infringe on those existing ideas, whereas new ideas that are majorly different from existing ideas considered to not infringe on them? I think that, in the absence of so-called "intellectual property", there would be more developments that are maybe only a little different from existing ones, because people won't be so afraid of getting in trouble for violating patents and copyrights.
The patent process has a hurdle, the hurdle whether it's obvious and new enough to justify a limited grant of monopoly ownership. That seems to address your point here.
You sound like a (big government eventually) minarchist with that rhetoric. Patents only exist because of the paranoid state, in a free market more subsidies for research would be available. Relax dude people are still going to make things, and products will be higher quality with more competition.
Face the facts, patents that you supposedly "own" are imaginary-mystical-magical property that belongs to me anyway, since I've homesteaded my mind and property. All your ideas belong to me, any future ideas you have will be my property as well. I'll make sure to plagiarize you whenever possible. :]