JParker:Copyright, as you understand it, is all I argue for. I type IP because that's the title of the post, its easier to type, and the current umbrella of ''IP" covers copyright. I say IP because the definition should be changed. Now, because its so hard to say IP and not be blasted by calls of statist!, I will stop using it and just say copyright. But to me they're synonymous.
ok, so the reason that you made false statements was that you were lazy. and the effort you then took to not concede the point was because you arent lazy. i get it.
hopefully, you will stop favouring the kind of nonsense that passes for the wikipedia encyclopedia entry. i qoute :
>> Intellectual property (IP) are legal property rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.<<
obviously outrageous, you and i could both of us never agree to this ? could we?
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
nirgrahamUK: >> Intellectual property (IP) are legal property rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.<<
I don't have time to write much, but, I claim ownership over ideas that spring into my head (the thoughts, memories, ideas, etc.), meaning I own them (the specific bit of information). Just as you can claim ownership of the specific thoughts in your head. From this we get the concept of an inventors copyright, that grants the first thinker the right to decide how the information (through a buyers contract) is propagated as well as how the information is used in action. So, in response to your earlier question, I believe there is no problem with the word combination "Intellectual Property", since I believe that I own my self, and then homesteaded those ideas. Just like I can go outside, fill a bottle with air, and claim ownership over that division of air.
So, once again, if anyone outside of this buyer contract (inventors copyright) creates, within his own intellect, the same concept or idea, then he is free to do with that idea whatever he wants (since he owns the idea within his own self).
I see some hope for JPark and MaxL, buy jack just persists with utter nonsense.
JackSkylark:I claim ownership over ideas that spring into my head (the thoughts, memories, ideas, etc.), meaning I own them (the specific bit of information). Just as you can claim ownership of the specific thoughts in your head.
Yup, you own them right up until you divulge them.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
nirgrahamUK: I see some hope for JPark and MaxL, buy jack just persists with utter nonsense.
Do you happen to understand Jack's calculation argument?
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
i think i understand it well enough to say i disagree with it
Spideynw: Yup, you own them right up until you divulge them.
Which is why I can contract certain things relating to the divulgence said information. Now, of course, i still own the individual idea in my head - but say I go tell you my idea without contract, you now have full ownership of the idea in your head - but if I do contract you, then you have conditional ownership of that information and must abide by the contract.
nirgrahamUK: i think i understand it well enough to say i disagree with it
The calcualtion argument, follows directly from the economic conditions of relative pricing. I do not think you understood it well enough to truly disagree (but I may be wrong), since it is purely causality related and not based on any theory of rights or legal framework.
What constitues a good that can be called property, in your definition of the term? Secondly, how does property come about?
spidey, thats not true, you can only own property a\nd ideas arent property. before or after other people have them
JackSkylark:The calcualtion argument, follows directly from the economic conditions of relative pricing. I do not think you understood it well enough to truly disagree (but I may be wrong), since it is purely causality related and not based on any theory of rights or legal framework.
when you first raised your misesian calculation argument you framed it as an analysis of a situation involving Complementary Goods. I think for the argument to have force, the good cant be a good in the wide sense, but only in the economic sense. it must be a property. as such Complementary Goods analysis must fail as it tries to shoe horn a not-property into a property
No, I still own the information in my head... you just now own the information in your head plus the information I divulged (assuming you were not subject to a contract limiting how you can act with that information, then you would posess conditional ownership of the information).
JackSkylark:What constitues a good that can be called property, in your definition of the term? Secondly, how does property come about?
i suggest, scarce and rivalrous.
No, the complementary good argument was completely different than the economic calculation argument, I made that clear in another post. The problem with the way you are seeing the issue is that you see a IP based good only on the market side of the disconnect (as in a price of 0, due to infinite supply), but do not see the other side of the disconnect, where the idea (by definition) must be super scarce and scarce resources must be allocated in order to facillitate development.
Why do you say that ideas are not scarce or rivalrous?
Does anyone have anything to say about my definition of property?
This is so ridiculous.
IP is not property. If it's not property, then it can't be stolen. If it can't be stolen, then there is little purpose to contracting to protect it. Oh sure, you can contract, just like you can contract a "money back guarantee" or a "lifetime warranty". Doesn't mean it is a good idea (hint: it is not a good idea to make contracts like that).
im sorry, is super-scarce an original idea? is it a unique product of your mind? i have not encountered it in the literature. what do you mean by it?
i dont see IP based goods anywhere. this side or that side of whatever disconnect you imagine there could be. also i dont think thats a problem.
i own your mind, and call it anarchy
liberty student: IP is not property.
IP is not property.
Conjecture...
A resource is considered scarce when its availability is not enough to meet its demand.
although i can:
know what an apple is, demand it, and find it lacking, hence demonstrating its scarcity,
i will never:
know what ideaX is, demand ideaX, and find it lacking.
hence not scarce.
ideas are obviously not rival.
liberty student: Does anyone have anything to say about my definition of property? This is so ridiculous. IP is not property. If it's not property, then it can't be stolen. If it can't be stolen, then there is little purpose to contracting to protect it. Oh sure, you can contract, just like you can contract a "money back guarantee" or a "lifetime warranty". Doesn't mean it is a good idea (hint: it is not a good idea to make contracts like that).
Gutless, what you can not explain is that the free-market is acting in contrast to your stated theory of what will happen in a free-market. What you are predicting will happen in a free-market is in fact not happening. Like your assertion that Money-back guarantees and lifetime warranties are negative value contracts for the issuer. Yet, we see in the market-place the widespread use of exactly these contracts and have seen them for a very long time which on the surface would indicate that these types of contracts are in fact beneficial to the parties that issue them. Again, free-market activity is contradicting your theory of how it will behave.
I think Jack is making sense and I don't see much different in his arguement and mine or JP's.
Maxliberty:Gutless, what you can not explain is that the free-market is acting in contrast to your stated theory of what will happen in a free-market. What you are predicting will happen in a free-market is in fact not happening. Like your assertion that Money-back guarantees and lifetime warranties are negative value contracts for the issuer. Yet, we see in the market-place the widespread use of exactly these contracts and have seen them for a very long time which on the surface would indicate that these types of contracts are in fact beneficial to the parties that issue them. Again, free-market activity is contradicting your theory of how it will behave.
What free market?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Maxliberty: nirgrahamUK: I see some hope for JPark and MaxL, buy jack just persists with utter nonsense. I think Jack is making sense and I don't see much different in his arguement and mine or JP's.
i take it back. you are as hopeless. it comes from having an inadequate theory of property.
wombatron: Maxliberty:Gutless, what you can not explain is that the free-market is acting in contrast to your stated theory of what will happen in a free-market. What you are predicting will happen in a free-market is in fact not happening. Like your assertion that Money-back guarantees and lifetime warranties are negative value contracts for the issuer. Yet, we see in the market-place the widespread use of exactly these contracts and have seen them for a very long time which on the surface would indicate that these types of contracts are in fact beneficial to the parties that issue them. Again, free-market activity is contradicting your theory of how it will behave. What free market?
The free-market...in his head?In any case, I find it a complete irony that Max is decrying "gutless" when he only comes back to necro-post his previous arguments that most are either tired of or have refuted already.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
If you look at some areas in the market place they are essentially free markets. If we look a the example of Coke as has been cited, the ability for people to think of the Coke formula independently is not being prevented by any coercive force. Coke's action to protect the idea through contracts does not have any coercive force. In fact Coke has deliberately chosen not to accept government force and the Coke formula could be copied and reproduced without any concern for government response.
So this example is a free market. There is nothing to prevent the things that you and the others predict will happen in a free-market which is that without government coercion any effort to protect ideas or inventions will fail. Yet, those things are not happening. Your theory does not match the facts on the ground. Coke has been able to protect the idea and has this protection of the idea has enabled them to capture the value of that idea.
Maxliberty: wombatron: Maxliberty:Gutless, what you can not explain is that the free-market is acting in contrast to your stated theory of what will happen in a free-market. What you are predicting will happen in a free-market is in fact not happening. Like your assertion that Money-back guarantees and lifetime warranties are negative value contracts for the issuer. Yet, we see in the market-place the widespread use of exactly these contracts and have seen them for a very long time which on the surface would indicate that these types of contracts are in fact beneficial to the parties that issue them. Again, free-market activity is contradicting your theory of how it will behave. What free market? If you look at some areas in the market place they are essentially free markets. If we look a the example of Coke as has been cited, the ability for people to think of the Coke formula independently is not being prevented by any coercive force. Coke's action to protect the idea through contracts does not have any coercive force. In fact Coke has deliberately chosen not to accept government force and the Coke formula could be copied and reproduced without any concern for government response. So this example is a free market. There is nothing to prevent the things that you and the others predict will happen in a free-market which is that without government coercion any effort to protect ideas or inventions will fail. Yet, those things are not happening. Your theory does not match the facts on the ground. Coke has been able to protect the idea and has this protection of the idea has enabled them to capture the value of that idea.
I disagree with the doublespeak of "essentially free-markets". I could sit here & proclaim The Free State Movement (more specifically, the FSM community in New Hampshire) as an example of the free-market, but The State still exists, and thus, it's very existence threatens any free-market activity being attempted in the FSM (i.e. the possible development for camps to be utilized for possible martial law to imprison dissidents). The most you could say is that free-market activity being attempted under the non-free market is 'more' free than non-free market activity, or less "coercive" than non-free market activity. In other words, at least from what I can see, you are playing the lesser of evils card to hoist up "freer" market activity as example of the free-market already existing. Why don't we just conclude the free-market "requires" the existence of The State, while we're at it, for all sorts of reasons & call it a day, aye? It's not like that hasn't been refuted before...
Maxliberty: If you look at some areas in the market place they are essentially free markets. If we look a the example of Coke as has been cited, the ability for people to think of the Coke formula independently is not being prevented by any coercive force. Coke's action to protect the idea through contracts does not have any coercive force. In fact Coke has deliberately chosen not to accept government force and the Coke formula could be copied and reproduced without any concern for government response. So this example is a free market. There is nothing to prevent the things that you and the others predict will happen in a free-market which is that without government coercion any effort to protect ideas or inventions will fail. Yet, those things are not happening. Your theory does not match the facts on the ground. Coke has been able to protect the idea and has this protection of the idea has enabled them to capture the value of that idea.
Leaving aside the issue of the existence of a free market, so what? They protected their formula without the state. And? That isn't IP, by any definition of the term.
JackSkylark:Conjecture...
It's not conjecture, I laid out a detailed explanation of the position. You still haven't defined precisely what property is, but I was able to show, what it clearly is not. And ideas, are not property. Ideas written down on paper, or in a book, can be property. But no one can "steal your idea".
If you're going to challenge me on this, which would be great because I need to refine this argument further and improve how I communicate it, but if you are going to challenge me when I have supplied a reasoning beyond a bare assertion, then please don't play childish antics like "Conjecture..."
There is an argument there, argue it if you disagree.
This recipe is attributed to a sheet of paper found in an old formulary book owned by Coca-Cola inventor, John S. Pemberton, just before his death (U.S. measures).[8] Makes 10 gallons of Soda
This recipe does not specify when sugar, coca, caramel or the rest of the water are added, or the flavoring oil quantity units of measure.
This recipe is attributed to pharmacist John Reed[9]
Recipe is from Food Flavorings: Composition, Manufacture and Use. Makes one U.S. gallon (3.8 L) of syrup. Yield (used to flavor carbonated water at 1 fl oz per bottle): 128 bottles, 6.5 fl oz (192 ml).[10][11]
nirgrahamUK:i take it back. you are as hopeless. it comes from having an inadequate theory of property.
I've been saying that for months. He's got the time to waste and the stamina to go in circles pretty much indefinitely.
All 3 of these guys refuse to argue honestly. I'm going to go back and review what meambobbo wrote for something to further the discussion.
wombatron: Leaving aside the issue of the existence of a free market, so what? They protected their formula without the state. And? That isn't IP, by any definition of the term.
Well as has been pointed out the term IP for the anti-IP crowd has an entirely different meaning than the comon use of that term. What most people are discussing is the protection of ideas and inventions from other's using them when they are referring to IP. As a mechanism for this protection the government enforces this coercively through copyright and patent laws.
The only relevant question is can you protect ideas or inventions and prevent other people from using them in a free society without coercion. If you believe in voluntary contracts being binding then the answer as has been demonstrated is yes.
Your refusal to acknowledge the actual issue is why you can't deal with real examples.
liberty student: JackSkylark:Conjecture... It's not conjecture, I laid out a detailed explanation of the position. You still haven't defined precisely what property is, but I was able to show, what it clearly is not. And ideas, are not property. Ideas written down on paper, or in a book, can be property. But no one can "steal your idea". If you're going to challenge me on this, which would be great because I need to refine this argument further and improve how I communicate it, but if you are going to challenge me when I have supplied a reasoning beyond a bare assertion, then please don't play childish antics like "Conjecture..." There is an argument there, argue it if you disagree.
Typical anti-contract protection of idea nonsense. I have come to the conclusion that your definition of IP is just simply not what anybody else is even talking about. No wonder there is such confusion on your part. You have developed an alternate universe with your own definition of everything and then try and argue everyone else is wrong because they have a different definition of the word. Again, this is why your arguements can not address what is actually happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula
p.s. coca-cola formula being 'secret' is almost certainly a superioir marketing angle than a defense from rival competitiors over 'taste of drink'. generic cola's are widely available, we could all start up cola factories, set up a few taste tests like pepsi did and for all you know you might have hit on the formula. or something as good as the formula as far as the consumer cares.
obviously its intellectually dishonest of max to miscategorise the anti-IP crowd as not being amenable to voluntary contracts over physical property and agent behaviour, when that has been a major point in our own arguments in which we demonstrated the absurdity of the IP concept.
Maxliberty: liberty student: JackSkylark:Conjecture... It's not conjecture, I laid out a detailed explanation of the position. You still haven't defined precisely what property is, but I was able to show, what it clearly is not. And ideas, are not property. Ideas written down on paper, or in a book, can be property. But no one can "steal your idea". If you're going to challenge me on this, which would be great because I need to refine this argument further and improve how I communicate it, but if you are going to challenge me when I have supplied a reasoning beyond a bare assertion, then please don't play childish antics like "Conjecture..." There is an argument there, argue it if you disagree. I have come to the conclusion that your definition of IP is just simply not what anybody else is even talking about. No wonder there is such confusion on your part.
I have come to the conclusion that your definition of IP is just simply not what anybody else is even talking about. No wonder there is such confusion on your part.
MaxIrony:You have developed an alternate universe with your own definition of everything and then try and argue everyone else is wrong because they have a different definition of the word. Again, this is why your arguements can not address what is actually happening.
max, how could two people possible have the same idea of IP. when IP is an absurd contradiction in terms. do you have the same idea of the meaning of 1=2 as i do. does it even make sense to ask the question?
Maxliberty:The only relevant question is can you protect ideas or inventions and prevent other people from using them in a free society without coercion. If you believe in voluntary contracts being binding then the answer as has been demonstrated is yes.
Sure, you could make a contract that said that. But would it be valid? You can't compel specific performance in a personal contract, something that we discussed months ago, and I not even sure that you could claim damages; what is being exchanged that must be returned in case of a breach?
Maxliberty:Your refusal to acknowledge the actual issue is why you can't deal with real examples.
Who are you talking to?
wombatron: Maxliberty: If you look at some areas in the market place they are essentially free markets. If we look a the example of Coke as has been cited, the ability for people to think of the Coke formula independently is not being prevented by any coercive force. Coke's action to protect the idea through contracts does not have any coercive force. In fact Coke has deliberately chosen not to accept government force and the Coke formula could be copied and reproduced without any concern for government response. So this example is a free market. There is nothing to prevent the things that you and the others predict will happen in a free-market which is that without government coercion any effort to protect ideas or inventions will fail. Yet, those things are not happening. Your theory does not match the facts on the ground. Coke has been able to protect the idea and has this protection of the idea has enabled them to capture the value of that idea. Leaving aside the issue of the existence of a free market, so what? They protected their formula without the state. And? That isn't IP, by any definition of the term.
Coca Cola is not really protecting any advantages. It thinks it is doing so, which is not the same thing as actually doing.
Heck, ever heard of OpenCola? A company managed to sell 150,000 of them and their recipie was open for anybody to copy and make using Coke factories. Go figure.
nirgrahamUK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula p.s. coca-cola formula being 'secret' is almost certainly a superioir marketing angle than a defense from rival competitiors over 'taste of drink'. generic cola's are widely available, we could all start up cola factories, set up a few taste tests like pepsi did and for all you know you might have hit on the formula. or something as good as the formula as far as the consumer cares. obviously its intellectually dishonest of max to miscategorise the anti-IP crowd as not being amenable to voluntary contracts over physical property and agent behaviour, when that has been a major point in our own arguments in which we demonstrated the absurdity of the IP concept.
You continually state you are not opposed to contracts but Wombatron who has the same arguement openly questions are they valid. If you could just answer the simple questions definitively without changing your view on contracts then we could know exactly where you stand. You keep bringing up your definition of IP. Forget about your private definition and just respond to what has been presented.
kiba: Coca Cola is not really protecting any advantages. It thinks it is doing so, which is not the same thing as actually doing. Heck, ever heard of OpenCola? A company managed to sell 150,000 of them and their recipie was open for anybody to copy and make using Coke factories. Go figure.
The facts would seem to indicate otherwise, there is no one selling a product that tastes exactly like Coke nor even marketing a product that tastes exactly like Coke, which according to your groupthink should have already occurred. You make the assertion that Coke and presumably all other persons or companies that use Non-compete or Non-disclosure agreements are acting irrationally. Just maybe all those people have their own experiences that might indicate otherwise.