I was thinking about this on my way back from Vegas yesterday. There's a lot of talk about a Maglev train going from Anaheim to Las Vegas, and I was thinking. Let's say that a company builds the tracks and runs trains to and from. That company owns the tracks. If he doesn't want competition to use those tracks, we wouldn't see a problem with that, after all, it's his property. This means that prices will go up because competition is being slightly stifled (there is a price barrier to get into the industy where you have to build tracks to get in or pay the company a usage fee). All of us see absolutely no problem with this, right?
So then, what is the differrence between this and say the process by which a prescription drug can be made? A company had to pay for the research and development of the process, so why should competition be allowed to get their hands on that for free? The process of making the pill are like the railroad tracks from the analogy. Research and development is the price barrier.
My question is, if it is okay for physical property, why is it not okay for intellectual property? Maybe we have to compromise and say that for someone to get into the industry they must either buy the idea from the company or they must come up with it themselves?
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
tonyfernandez:If he doesn't want competition to use those tracks, we wouldn't see a problem with that, after all, it's his property. This means that prices will go up because competition is being slightly stifled
That's incorrect.
tonyfernandez:My question is, if it is okay for physical property, why is it not okay for intellectual property?
Check your premises.
Okay, you're definitely right about that, but doesn't a problem still exist with the book that was shown last week advocating for the elimination of copyright and patent laws? It seemed to me like they were saying that any company should be able to use the though (like the tracks) without having to pay for it. In the more physical sense, a company would either have to get an agreement to use those tracks or build the tracks himself. Why shouldn't that be the same with intellectual property?
ideas are not physical objects. they are not economic goods. they cannot be owned.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
tonyfernandez:Okay, you're definitely right about that, but doesn't a problem still exist with the book that was shown last week advocating for the elimination of copyright and patent laws? It seemed to me like they were saying that any company should be able to use the though (like the tracks) without having to pay for it. In the more physical sense, a company would either have to get an agreement to use those tracks or build the tracks himself. Why shouldn't that be the same with intellectual property?
No. What they are saying is that any company should be allowed to build and use their own tracks, regardless of where they got the idea (of tracks) from. Nobody is saying that they can go and use anothers equipment, land, capital, etc, without permission.
tonyfernandez:with the book that was shown last week
What book?
tonyfernandez:It seemed to me like they were saying that any company should be able to use the though (like the tracks) without having to pay for it.
Because there is no such thing as IP. It is a state created fiction. We've had numerous huge debates here on it. You can search for them. I really don't have the stamina to take on the statists (minarchists, objectivists) (who believe otherwise) yet another time.
Taxi licenses have value. They are state created. They do not exist in a free market. A title to an idea or process is also state created. It does not exist in a free market.
One problem with IP laws (at least the way they are written today) is that they conflict with property rights. You can't have conflicting rights. IP laws say that if Person A patents MagLev rails, then Person B cannot use his own steel to make MagLev rails without the permission of Person A. Therefore, Person A also has rights over your steel simply because he patented MagLev.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The book was against Intellectual Monopoly.
It seems like an idea, although a non-physical thing, is something that I can make into property and sell. If I come up with a way to get 90% efficiency on a heat engine for a car (pretty much impossible, but just an idea), build a car to demonstrate that efficiency, and then sell it to Ford, then it really seems like something physical.
And I'm really not a statist, just someone who is trying to figure things out.
tonyfernandez: It seems like an idea, although a non-physical thing, is something that I can make into property and sell. If I come up with a way to get 90% efficiency on a heat engine for a car (pretty much impossible, but just an idea), build a car to demonstrate that efficiency, and then sell it to Ford, then it really seems like something physical.
Where's the problem?
You're aren't selling the idea to Ford, just the model car.
I thought that what I was being told before (with the arguments I've heard against IP rights) was that basically this idea would be free to steal, or at least there would be no legal problems with stealing it.
tonyfernandez:And I'm really not a statist, just someone who is trying to figure things out.
People don't like being called statist because it's pejorative, and I didn't mean you any disrespect, so I apologize. I was framing it more for others who love to endlessly argue this topic, as I mentioned, has been done here many times before.
tonyfernandez:It seems like an idea, although a non-physical thing, is something that I can make into property and sell.
Bingo.
tonyfernandez:If I come up with a way to get 90% efficiency on a heat engine for a car (pretty much impossible, but just an idea)
Worthless.
tonyfernandez:build a car to demonstrate that efficiency, and then sell it to Ford, then it really seems like something physical.
Valuable.
Another example. I come up with the most beautiful poetry ever. Worthless. But if I put it in a book, or record my reciting it, now I have enabled it's transmission. Now it is property. Not the idea, but the expression of the idea.
hope that helps
tonyfernandez: I thought that what I was being told before (with the arguments I've heard against IP rights) was that basically this idea would be free to steal, or at least there would be no legal problems with stealing it.
Tell me, how exactly would someone go about stealing and idea?
Is intimidation suitable?
I understand that the idea is worthless until it is used to produce some good, but if I have a method to produce a drug and I come up with it and don't want to sell it, doesn't being against IP rights mean that other people have access to the idea and get to use it? There's no problem if they come up with it independently, but if I just have to give it up then the other guy doesn't have to spend the money for the research and that doesn't seem right.
tonyfernandez: Is intimidation suitable?
Actually, no. Because the entire premise behind IP laws is theft/stealing/robbery, not copying/duplicating/imitating. But like I said before:
With that analogy though, why should the other company be able to build them unless they either came up with the idea themselves or got the idea from another company?
Isn't the only other way that they can get the idea basically via theft?
tonyfernandez: I understand that the idea is worthless until it is used to produce some good, but if I have a method to produce a drug and I come up with it and don't want to sell it, doesn't being against IP rights mean that other people have access to the idea and get to use it? There's no problem if they come up with it independently, but if I just have to give it up then the other guy doesn't have to spend the money for the research and that doesn't seem right.
You can't own, and by extention, sell ideas. If two people independantly develope the same idea, how can they both have 100% rights to the same idea?
tonyfernandez:I understand that the idea is worthless until it is used to produce some good, but if I have a method to produce a drug and I come up with it and don't want to sell it, doesn't being against IP rights mean that other people have access to the idea and get to use it?
No. That sounds like you are concerned that other people have a right to demand your thoughts from you. You're under no obligation to share your ideas or processes.
tonyfernandez:but if I just have to give it up then the other guy doesn't have to spend the money for the research and that doesn't seem right
You don't have to give anything up. But if you tell me about your process, and I go and use it, then you shouldn't have told me, because there is no way you can prove that I didn't come up with it on your own. Forget the law. Forget what you think is or is not fair. Consider how you learned to read. To write. To speak. To drive. To walk. All of that was copying someone else's idea. The notion behind 'Against Intellectual Monopoly' is that by monopolizing ideas (assigning them fiat exclusivity) we actually hinder progress because it is the human experience to learn not only by research, but by emulation.
tonyfernandez:With that analogy though, why should the other company be able to build them unless they either came up with the idea themselves or got the idea from another company?
Why should you be able to type on this forum? Wasn't that first someone else's idea?
tonyfernandez:Isn't the only other way that they can get the idea basically via theft?
Did you steal the idea to type with your keyboard?
Daniel:You can't own, and by extention, sell ideas. If two people independantly develope the same idea, how can they both have 100% rights to the same idea?
I wouldn't say that both should have monopolistic rights over it, and if two people own it, then two people own it. If they want to spread it around, then that's fine. If one pays money and wants to keep it and the other wants to give it away for free, then he should be allowed to.
I guess my confusion is in how the idea spreads. If I come up with it and no one else develops it for 100 years and I would rather die with the idea than let humanity benefit by spreading the idea, should I be allowed to?
Well no, but didn't someone give me those ideas? It's a little more ambiguous, but isn't typing on the internet using ideas that I've created myself and ideas that people have given to me?
Btw, do you have permission to use the Dodgers logo as your avatar?
tonyfernandez:I guess my confusion is in how the idea spreads. If I come up with it and no one else develops it for 100 years and I would rather die with the idea than let humanity benefit by spreading the idea, should I be allowed to?
Who decides what you should and should not be allowed to do?
tonyfernandez:Well no, but didn't someone give me those ideas?
You tell me. Did they give you the ideas? Did you copy what you saw someone else doing? Did the person who "gave you" the ideas have title to give the ideas, or were they a thief?
tonyfernandez:It's a little more ambiguous, but isn't typing on the internet using ideas that I've created myself and ideas that people have given to me?
I'm talking about the knowledge of typing. Which characters you strike in which order. Whose idea was language? Who owns it? How did you gain use of it? Are you a thief?
Ideas are not property friend.
nirgrahamUK: ideas are not physical objects. they are not economic goods. they cannot be owned.
I don't think this is correct to say. But you might have to clarify what you mean. Are you stating that ideas are not economic goods because they are not physical objects, or some such combination of terms you used. Or are you making multiple statements, each independent of the other?
Anyways, will interpret them as if they are independent.
1) Ideas are not physical objects. In this you are correct.
2) They are economic goods, reference Mises and Rothbard - they must be economized in their creation and for calculation - but they are not economized in their use.
3) I would argue that ideas can be owned - as all things must be owned in order to justify use and jurisdiction. But the idea is owned on the individual level, in the same manner that there may be an infinite physical good that does not need to be economized, but I can claim ownership over a single portion of that infinite good. I have created a heterogeneous distinction (a non-infinite good) from a homogenous stock (in this case, some infinite good).
If you can. You won't have any legal recourse if someone learns it though, whether it be independant or through other means. If you write down the idea and he steals the paper and profits, you have recourse for trespass and theft of property (the paper) but that is all.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
JackSkylark: I would argue that ideas can be owned - as all things must be owned in order to justify use and jurisdiction.
I would argue that ideas can be owned - as all things must be owned in order to justify use and jurisdiction.
Ideas are not scarce goods, therefore property rights are not only unnecessary but would be unethical. How do you defend original appropriation when there is no appropriation taking place? It's not an issue.
But there is appropriation taking place, people claim ownership of information and ideas all the time. By this, I do not mean the ownership of the general idea (as in exclusive right), but of the specific manifestation as known to the individual.
In general most ideas are, in fact, scarse. It is for this reason that we have teachers and inventors - prior to full knowledge the idea can be demanded but not infinite in supply.
Secondly, property rights are required for justification of action - if I did not posess property rights over the intangable idea I would not be justified in using it.
JackSkylark:Secondly, property rights are required for justification of action - if I did not posess property rights over the intangable idea I would not be justified in using it.
You can own the right to use an idea, but this does not imply that you have the right to exclude others from using the idea, because they do not prevent you from using the idea. With physical property, the right to use it requires also the right to exclude others from using it, because other people using the property prevents you from using it. This is what we mean when we say that ideas are "not scarce."
I don't see scarcity of the idea "cool". I don't see a scarcity of ideas that already exist.
tonyfernandez: My question is, if it is okay for physical property, why is it not okay for intellectual property? Maybe we have to compromise and say that for someone to get into the industry they must either buy the idea from the company or they must come up with it themselves?
You can defend a physical property claim without coercing anybody. You simply put up a sign that says: "This is mine. Trespassers will be shot." You can also hire a security company to handle your defense. Ultimately, you bear the costs of your defense.
However, in our current state of affairs, intellectual "property" claims include coercion over people whilest on their own property. You also pay taxes to fund a bloated legal system that arbitrates esoteric disputes between intellectual "property" claimants. If all of those claimants had to pay a truly free market cost of their arbitration, it is highly unlikely that anybody would bother. The disputes are really that ridiculous sometimes and expensive.
So, basically, you should think of it this way: Without a tax-payer subsidized legal system, how can an intellectual "property" claimant defend his claim outside of his own territory???
liberty student: tonyfernandez:I guess my confusion is in how the idea spreads. If I come up with it and no one else develops it for 100 years and I would rather die with the idea than let humanity benefit by spreading the idea, should I be allowed to?Who decides what you should and should not be allowed to do?
See, you can have intellectual "property" law and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle. You just can only have it respected on your own land and by the people who visit/rent your property. Outside of that, you will have to negotiate.
tonyfernandez:My question is, if it is okay for physical property, why is it not okay for intellectual property? Maybe we have to compromise and say that for someone to get into the industry they must either buy the idea from the company or they must come up with it themselves?
Because:
1. There's no such thing as intellectual property.
2. Property must be tangible.
3. You an own X and Y and make Z from them, but you can't own the process--there's no substance to it.
Charles Anthony:See, you can have intellectual "property" law and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle.
But not with objective reality.
Charles Anthony:You just can only have it respected on your own land and by the people who visit/rent your property. Outside of that, you will have to negotiate.
You can't contract thoughts, only actions. This is one of those cases where we don't need to go to the NAP.
Zavoi: You can own the right to use an idea, but this does not imply that you have the right to exclude others from using the idea.
You can own the right to use an idea, but this does not imply that you have the right to exclude others from using the idea.
I am speaking on a much more fundamental principal than general idea exclusion. But, you are right in what you have said. But, specifically, I can exclude others from the individual idea that I have ownership of. This could be thought of a jurisdiction of the individual mind. But if someone has the same idea, they are in complete ownership of their individual concepts.
Where this leads to, after the metaphysical aspect of property in intangables, is the justification for jurisdiction outside of the individual. Property in general. It is here that Rothbard's concept of the "inventors copyright" comes fully in to play. If you will remember, in MES he advocates a copyright by contract. It is through this that there can be jurisdiction for exclusion outside of self.
It must be noted that I define property as jurisdiction related to action.
liberty student: Charles Anthony:See, you can have intellectual "property" law and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle.But not with objective reality.
You may not realize this but we act upon reality based on our perception. As objective as reality may be, we are acting upon it subjectively in practice. So, in a practical sense, objective reality does not exist. Everything is subjective -- even physical property law.
liberty student: Charles Anthony:You just can only have it respected on your own land and by the people who visit/rent your property. Outside of that, you will have to negotiate. You can't contract thoughts, only actions. This is one of those cases where we don't need to go to the NAP.
I dont necessarily agree with Rothbard about everything. anyhow, im pretty sure he would hold consistently with his 'property title transfer' theory of contract.
so for example, if rothbard copyrights MES and sells it to me as a book under the proviso that I not reproduce it, and i pay him 10$ and so he gives me the book. If I reproduce the book, and sell 1000 copies at 1$ each making 1000$, I would owe rothbard not money, but the book he had sold me, so I would hand it over. I would then spend my time reading my own copy of MES
Rothbard states the exact opposite in MES.
its a big book what page should i turn to
Charles Anthony:You are kidding, right?
Internet is seriuz bizness
Charles Anthony:You may not realize this but we act upon reality based on our perception.
Just because we claim to be eating an orange, doesn't change the fact it is an apple.
Charles Anthony:You can make a contract for anything you want.
It's not possible to enforce. Unless you think you can prove intent without action.
Charles Anthony:As long as nobody is forced to step on your land, you can prohibit violations of "intellectual" property without violating the non-aggression principle. All you have to do is post a sign that says: "Violators of such and such laws are prohibited entry." Just replace "such and such" with copyright nonsense and you have perfectly libertarian intellectual "property" law.
Again, sure you can, but you can't prove what is or is not a violation. If someone watches you make a sandwich, is that an intellectual property violation? Can you prove their eyes saw it? Can you prove that their brain accumulated it? Understood it?
It's nonsense. Might as well put up a sign that said, "Happiness not allowed."