ok, if you like, you may submit for my consideration my various different contracts that you propose and i will tell you whether they are legitimate contracts or not. but whats the point, you arent going to pay me lawyerly rates.
if i had to guess i would suggest wombatron,( as I am too), are skeptical about your ability to write valid contracts that concern only two parties (not 3rd parties) given your irrational love for irrational phrases.
I.e. you dont fill us with confidence that you both; understand why intellectual property is a contradiction,;and can write a legitimate contract
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
Nitroadict: 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. Doesn't it make sense when discussing something to at least have a common definition of the terms that are being used? Or are you so opposed to that concept that you would prefer every individual have a different definition of every word? 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. Oh noes, a majority doesn't agree? 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.
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. Doesn't it make sense when discussing something to at least have a common definition of the terms that are being used? Or are you so opposed to that concept that you would prefer every individual have a different definition of every word? 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.
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.
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.
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.
here max
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing
nirgrahamUK: 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?
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?
Why is IP a contradiction of terms? I can own a ford, but doesn't mean I own all fords (this is a bad example I know). What I am finding disagreement with is the proposition that ideas can not be part of a contract since they are somehow, either not a good and is somehow absurd to be distinguished as one, or not a properly ownable thing.
This is why I asked the question regarding memories, and ideas specific to self. I claim ownership over the accumulation of ideas in my head (meaning if you were, in an imaginary construct, able to remove, or erase, the ideas from my conscious, without physical aggression - and you did so without my express permission you would be, in fact, invading my property rights.) If this is the case, then, I can contract the divulgence of that information - thus making contract regarding the intangible idea. Thus, if you agree to that contract and you then come to posess that information, you own it on condition of contract.
Specific ideas are scarce as well as rivalrous (they don't have to be, but they are) - and everyone owns their ideas (in the sence they own their intellectual mind), but there can be the position whereby you come about an idea by agreeing to a contract - thus becoming a conditional owner of that good (it is a good since you obviously subjectively desired it enough to enter into conditional ownership) - this style of contract is called copyright (which is an outgrowth of each individuals ownership of their mind, or individual IP). I don't understand what is so absurdly contradictory about this line of argument.
you can own a ford, thats not contradictory. but can you own a ford thats also a not-ford.? no.
can you own a block of wood where in its face has been carved a single geometric figure, a 'squarecircle'? no. if you know what it means for something to be square , and you also understand circle. you know that its not possible to be simultaneously both. so it is with ideas and property.
you can claim ownership of monsters under the bed, and fairies dancing behind the moon. but thats hardly ownership is it? you think that if its possible to say the sentance "i own x" then thats proof enough that x can be owned. this is absurd. you have to be sure that X is a candidate for property-ness before you can own it. contracts involving things that arent property are like a contract i might draw up between myself and yourself, that you might agree to, and what does the contract govern, it regulate how we both must abide by certain codes of conduct in our relationships with Santa Claus. As we have no such relationship, that particular contract is meaningless and void. an actual possible contract might determine which of us gets the other a present on a certain day. that would have some meaning.
JackSkylark:Specific ideas are scarce as well as rivalrous
ideas arent scarce, i have never demanded an idea and found it lacking. if i knew it to demand it, i had it and it wasnt lacking. gameover.
ideas arent rival, if i know how to build a bridge, that doesnt mean you dont know how to build a bridge. gameover.
JackSkylark:Why is IP a contradiction of terms? I can own a ford, but doesn't mean I own all fords (this is a bad example I know). What I am finding disagreement with is the proposition that ideas can not be part of a contract since they are somehow, either not a good and is somehow absurd to be distinguished as one, or not a properly ownable thing.
Ideas can't be part of a contract, actions however, can.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
nirgrahamUK: ideas arent scarce, i have never demanded an idea and found it lacking. if i knew it to demand it, i had it and it wasnt lacking. gameover.
Yes you have, you're just not thinking.
GilesStratton: Ideas can't be part of a contract, actions however, can.
You too have not thought this through. Obviously, I am contracting your actions - but the idea is the basis of the contract and defines scope of action. Thus, the idea would be intergral to the contract, and is then part of the contract.
The question is, do you own your mind (meaning your individual intellect, your specific ideas)?
Note: by "specific" i mean related to the indiviual, or to self. I have deemed it important to use this termenology so that we can mark distinction between the mind of the individual and the mind of others.
This in no way refers to the fact that multiple people may have full ownership over the 'same' idea. But only that it is possible to maintain conditional ownership over an intangible good, namely ideas.
JackSkylark: nirgrahamUK: ideas arent scarce, i have never demanded an idea and found it lacking. if i knew it to demand it, i had it and it wasnt lacking. gameover. Yes you have, you're just not thinking.
to be honest i dont know if the concept, 'demand an idea' even makes sense
JackSkylark:This in no way refers to the fact that multiple people may have full ownership over the 'same' idea. But only that it is possible to maintain conditional ownership over an intangible good, namely ideas.
oh, hey, i just gave birth to some imaginary children.
i bequeeth them to you.
you are their owner now.
i have just pictured in my mind the idea of a porsche. enjoy driving it. im glad i shared it with you so that you can own it now. dont sell it to anyone thats drunk, they might get in and drive it irresponsibly and that would be bad.
..and so on...
'ownership of intangible goods' sheeeeeeeesh
You've never found yourself lacking an idea? Cavemen never knew they were lacking personal computers. Your ignorance doesnt mean you're not lacking something. Do you want clean energy? Its lacking. You are in demand for the method of creating clean energy. As inventor of cold fusion, I have the idea you are demanding. I can sell it, I can contract the actions pertaining to it of all people I show it to, and thereby maintain my exclusive right to it without any state, and without any coercion. You and LS both ignore the sanctity of contract and say its irrelevant because its inconvenient to your argument. Give it up. Contracts can compel future actions. I can contract to control the spread of my ideas. Ergo, the market can protect ideas.
You're a person claiming to have proof that there is life in other planets, because since there's so many, there just has to be. You have no evidence that there actually is. You're claiming ideas arent scarce because there's so many other people, they just have to come up with the same things. The market would argue otherwise, as it puts value to ideas.
JParker:You've never found yourself lacking an idea? Cavemen never knew they were lacking personal computers. Your ignorance doesnt mean you're not lacking something. Do you want clean energy? Its lacking.
surely you realise that the idea of 'the wheel' is different from the idea that 'there might be a solution i could think up that would help me travel long distances easily'. you cant demand the idea of 'the wheel' because to the extent you truly demanded it, you would know it , so no need to demand it.
JParker:You and LS both ignore the sanctity of contract and say its irrelevant because its inconvenient to your argument.
this is slander, you should take it back if you cant prove it. and you wont prove it.
you think its credible to have contracts concerning intangibles. thats what we dispute. not contracts.
JParker:You're a person claiming to have proof that there is life in other planets, because since there's so many, there just has to be. You have no evidence that there actually is. You're claiming ideas arent scarce because there's so many other people, they just have to come up with the same things. The market would argue otherwise, as it puts value to ideas.
where does this come from? whats this got to do with anything i said? the market has never put a value on ideas, its put 'prices' on 'products'. i hope you know the difference between value and prices.
right on, JParker.
nirgrahamUK: JackSkylark: nirgrahamUK: ideas arent scarce, i have never demanded an idea and found it lacking. if i knew it to demand it, i had it and it wasnt lacking. gameover. Yes you have, you're just not thinking. to be honest i dont know if the concept, 'demand an idea' even makes sense
He's begging the question. To "demand" something presumes that it is scarce.
JParker:You've never found yourself lacking an idea? Cavemen never knew they were lacking personal computers. Your ignorance doesnt mean you're not lacking something. Do you want clean energy? Its lacking. You are in demand for the method of creating clean energy. As inventor of cold fusion, I have the idea you are demanding. I can sell it, I can contract the actions pertaining to it of all people I show it to, and thereby maintain my exclusive right to it without any state, and without any coercion. You and LS both ignore the sanctity of contract and say its irrelevant because its inconvenient to your argument. Give it up. Contracts can compel future actions. I can contract to control the spread of my ideas. Ergo, the market can protect ideas.
You don't need property in ideas to argue this, just property in tangible goods.
This is a lie. Why post lies?
nirgrahamUK: surely you realise that the idea of 'the wheel' is different from the idea that 'there might be a solution i could think up that would help me travel long distances easily'. you cant demand the idea of 'the wheel' because to the extent you truly demanded it, you would know it , so no need to demand it. ... where does this come from? whats this got to do with anything i said? the market has never put a value on ideas, its put 'prices' on 'products'. i hope you know the difference between value and prices.
... where does this come from? whats this got to do with anything i said? the market has never put a value on ideas, its put 'prices' on 'products'. i hope you know the difference between value and prices.
You are absolutely wrong about demand for ideas. Apparently we are moving back to a neolithic period in our examples, so here goes. Caveman1 sees caveman2 sitting around a fire, 1 asks 2 if he made the fire, 1 says yes. The next day, 2 trys to make a fire - first he jumps up and down, then he decides he must perform a fire ritual so as to please the sun god. When this fails, he asks 1 for the ideas bound up in creation of fire. 1 says he will sell it on condition of contract (assume a basic copyright and a nondisclosal argeement, we will also assume people follow their contracts). 2 agrees and now owns the idea of fire on condition. 1 now advertises the ability to purchase the ideas bound into his fire producing invention, but on condition of contract. The various tribes people thus demand and purchase the idea of this fire producing invention (but are bound not to disclose, or copy for outside personal use, kind of like a early microsoft license agreement)... of course Caveman3 could come up with the same thing and have full ownership over the idea (as opposed to the contracted, conditional ownership assumed by the people who bought the idea from caveman1).
prices can be put on ideas, since ideas can be valued by individuals (think Rothbardian ordinal values) and then the aggregate of the values play on the market to create the price... we are now arguing that the supply of the idea is not infinite.
Ok... I dont give a shit anymore. You can play in your denial worlds all you like. You are mental communists. Go and create your free society, have a freaking blast. You will be disproven fast enough when absolutely NOBODY creates anything new that requires initial capital investment to come up with. No new ideas, no new code, no new books, no new art. Because you claim that its owned by the communal mind the moment it leaves the creator's mind. I'm sick of dancing in circles with everything boiling down to one simple point we dont agree on: I say I own my mind and the ideas that come from it. You say everybody else does, and that somehow this is good. Whatever it takes for you to sleep at night.
I tried to frame the argument within your make believe world, I created scenarios where contracts would control access to the ideas, no government, no coercion, hell no mention even of IP, just of contract limiting action. You say the contract is invalid because its contracting something that you dont believe exists, an idea. My idea.
You're inventing perfect competition where its all about marketing and who is more efficient, all the while completely ignoring that initial capital investments. Here's a breakthrough in economics for you: perfect competition does not, and can not, exist in a dynamic marketplace. Monopolies, insomuch as they can exist within a dynamic marketplace, are GOOD.
Oh well, we will never agree on this topic. This argument is pointless. Its come 23+ pages and neither side has budged. Let history be the judge, because I just dont care anymore.
liberty student: JParker:You and LS both ignore the sanctity of contract and say its irrelevant because its inconvenient to your argument. This is a lie. Why post lies?
because it's not a lie. You think you support contracts, but you fool yourselves by creating your own phantom world and try to irrationaly assume your way out of what you don't like.
JackSkylark:he asks 1 for the ideas bound up in creation of fire.
you act as though ideas are simply communicated without physical means.
when cave1 physically asks cave2 for firehelp. he will only have fire aptitude if he physically listens to what cave2 physically tells him. if cave1 must pay a price to cave2 for the benefit of the physical act of cave2 speaking thats well and good.
i havent meantion the transfer of idea property. and why would i. its not a coherent concept, and i didnt need it to have cave1 learn something, and reward cave2 for the physical service he provided.
JackSkylark:because it's not a lie. You think you support contracts, but you fool yourselves by creating your own phantom world and try to irrationaly assume your way out of what you don't like.
So you or JParker can prove that I ignore the sanctity of a contract? Because otherwise you're both lying. I already went through the strawmanning stuff with all of you in this thread. I don't like people dictating a unfounded and inaccurate position for me.
You'd both better supply some proof, or retract your statement.
JParker: Ok... I dont give a shit anymore. You can play in your denial worlds all you like. You are mental communists. Go and create your free society, have a freaking blast. You will be disproven fast enough when absolutely NOBODY creates anything new that requires initial capital investment to come up with. No new ideas, no new code, no new books, no new art. Because you claim that its owned by the communal mind the moment it leaves the creator's mind. I'm sick of dancing in circles with everything boiling down to one simple point we dont agree on: I say I own my mind and the ideas that come from it. You say everybody else does, and that somehow this is good. Whatever it takes for you to sleep at night. I tried to frame the argument within your make believe world, I created scenarios where contracts would control access to the ideas, no government, no coercion, hell no mention even of IP, just of contract limiting action. You say the contract is invalid because its contracting something that you dont believe exists, an idea. My idea. You're inventing perfect competition where its all about marketing and who is more efficient, all the while completely ignoring that initial capital investments. Here's a breakthrough in economics for you: perfect competition does not, and can not, exist in a dynamic marketplace. Monopolies, insomuch as they can exist within a dynamic marketplace, are GOOD. Oh well, we will never agree on this topic. This argument is pointless. Its come 23+ pages and neither side has budged. Let history be the judge, because I just dont care anymore.
So you have no proof. You just post lies (and now Ad Homs) and run.
Nice. If your ideas have not discredited you, your dishonest and childish behaviour has.
nirgrahamUK: you act as though ideas are simply communicated without physical means.
I don't pay a tuition for a school, or a professor, so that I can witness idea communication. That's absurd. I,in fact, would be paying for the idea. Thus, in these examples it is not required to show physical communication.
JackSkylark:I don't pay a tuition for a school, or a professor, so that I can witness idea communication.
i hope you tell your professors to cut it out. they are obviously wasting your time if you have to sit and wathc them talk, and point at whiteboards and so on.
they are obviously just monopolists looking to raise your education cost, lumping in all that extraenous stuff that you are not paying for.
liberty student: You'd both better supply some proof, or retract your statement.
I'll go back and find quotes if it comes to that. But, first you say ideas are not property (either in the specific individual sense or in the general, multi-party sense). This is pure conjecture, and to say you do not own your mind (as in the ideas, and specific intellect), goes against any theory of natural rights property I have ever heard of (including, I believe, your own). Secondly, you believe that you can arbitrarily throw out a contract based on it's, so called, "absurdity".
I don't like attacking the person, i find it cude and distasteful. Earlier in this thread, it was not me who you were trading personal attacks with. Because of this, I would rather turn the topic back towards the subject of intangible property and IP. If you haven't noticed, we are all now arguing on your terms (natural rights), and aren't using anymore economic based arguments (which I still find very convincing), but in this vein, let us continue.
nirgrahamUK: i hope you tell your professors to cut it out. they are obviously wasting your time if you have to sit and wathc them talk, and point at whiteboards and so on.
Reductio ad absurdum
JackSkylark: nirgrahamUK: i hope you tell your professors to cut it out. they are obviously wasting your time if you have to sit and wathc them talk, and point at whiteboards and so on. Reductio ad absurdum
ha ha ! you dont get it. it is absurd to say that 'you are paying for the ideas they are teaching you and NOT their physical acts of teaching'
JackSkylark:ll go back and find quotes if it comes to that. But, first you say ideas are not property (either in the specific individual sense or in the general, multi-party sense). This is pure conjecture, and to say you do not own your mind (as in the ideas, and specific intellect), goes against any theory of natural rights property I have ever heard of (including, I believe, your own). Secondly, you believe that you can arbitrarily throw out a contract based on it's, so called, "absurdity".
i qoute Mises, from Human Action.
on the subject of what is an economic good:
The formula, the recipe that teaches us how to prepare coffee, provided it is known, renders unlimited services. It does not lose anything from its capacity to produce however often it is used; its productive power is inexhaustible; it is therefore not an economic good. Acting man is never faced with a situation in which he must choose between the use-value of a known formula and any other useful thing.
now, economic goods can command prices. they are what humans trade. ideas are not economic goods. ideras are not property.
They're merely misusing the concept of scarcity.
GilesStratton: They're merely misusing the concept of scarcity.
please help explain it, i am obviously not doing well at it.
Property is an institution that is used to deal with scarcity, it helps reduce conflict between individuals with different ends to acheive who both require a certain means to acheive their respective ends. This problem arises because of scarcity, because they both cannot use the good at the same time. This isn't the case with ideas, since the "same idea" (whatever that actually means) can be used by multiple individuals at the same time. In fact, there is no conflict arising between individuals for the use of an idea, unless, IP is introduced.
GilesStratton: Property is an institution that is used to deal with scarcity, it helps reduce conflict between individuals with different ends to acheive who both require a certain means to acheive their respective ends. This problem arises because of scarcity, because they both cannot use the good at the same time. This isn't the case with ideas, since the "same idea" (whatever that actually means) can be used by multiple individuals at the same time. In fact, there is no conflict arising between individuals for the use of an idea, unless, IP is introduced.
If you believe that contracts can cover the issue discussed then it doesn't really matter what anyone's defintion of scarcity is. Previously, you said that contracts could be used, your belief of what the contract is protecting is irrelevant because the mechanism is the same as JP Jack and I are suggesting.
Where the real conflict is with LS and the like who do not believe these contracts can be made and enforced. So LS and the others say you can make the contract but it can't be enforced because you can't make contracts about the exchange of ideas/information. In their world all information is known by everybody which is why when you at look at what actually happens it doesn't fit the theory. Every idea/all information is not known by everybody.
if I have some idea/information which no one else has then by any practical definition I own the information. This is how the market treats ideas and information they are traded like any other good.
Maxliberty:Where the real conflict is with LS and the like who do not believe these contracts can be made and enforced.
Strawman. I believe it is economically non-viable to contract something you have no control over. It more often than not, will result in a net loss.
Maxliberty:So LS and the others say you can make the contract but it can't be enforced because you can't make contracts about the exchange of ideas/information.
Your ability to frame the debate differently than it is clearly written is remarkable. It makes me wonder if you actually read and comprehend anything written in this discussion. Perhaps the problem isn't that you are stupid, but have a learning disability. If that is the case, I apologize for mocking you.
Any contract which contracts the impossible, or cannot be resolved from the perspective of a burden of proof, it meaningless. You can contract until you are blue in the face, there is no way to prove where an idea originated from, and how the mind acquired it. You certainly cannot contract how 3rd party (uncontracted) minds will operate. In light of IP not being property, and thus one having no control of it, how could you contract? Could I contract with Giles about how YOUR CAR is used? Can he guarantee your car will not be driven today? Can he make your car appear outside my house in the evening?
Of course not.
Maxliberty:Every idea/all information is not known by everybody.
But it can be. Property titles do not change when people acquire more knowledge. IP is not property.
Maxliberty:if I have some idea/information which no one else has then by any practical definition I own the information.
And what, if someone else has the same idea, no one owns it?
Maxliberty:This is how the market treats ideas and information they are traded like any other good.
You keep parroting "market" and it is totally irrelevant. Again, if you have a functional deficit when it comes to comprehension, I apologize for being so rude. But repeating "market" over and over is meaningless within the context of the discussion. There are things in the market that succeed and things that fail. Charles Ponzi operated in the market. He ran a fraudulent business. Does that mean the market has proven fraud is a viable and desirable business model? Of course not.
I don't know how many more ways these basic, simple truths can be explained.
1. IP is not property by any complete theory of what property is. The reason? It is not unique. And even assuming it is property, and IP is unique, then by the fact people can come to ideas without "stealing" from one another, but rather by discovery, then each instance of IP is unique in each mind and this destroys any concept of singular ownership, because no one can own my thoughts but me.
2. Contracts cannot accomplish the impossible. You could contract that I never think about dancing with monkeys. But there is no way for you to satisfy the burden of proof. Other examples include contracting with me to make it rain, to turn off the sun at night time, or to make someone else's property do something, when I clearly have no control over it.
3. All sorts of things are tried in the market, the test of their worth is their profitability, not if those ideas are ubiquitous. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
4. The current market, is not a free market. For illustrative purposes, it is completely useless due to the massive amounts of distortion, not just in public perception, but in the system of exchange, the legal system, the regulatory system etc.
liberty student: You could contract that I never think about dancing with monkeys. But there is no way for you to satisfy the burden of proof.
You could contract that I never think about dancing with monkeys. But there is no way for you to satisfy the burden of proof.
If I see you dancing with a stuffed monkey, it's over for you.
Anyways, you are right that the "burden of proof" will invariably limit enforcement of contracts, but that makes no claim on ideas. If I enter into a contract with you that for the exchange of my book you may not distribute the ideas within it, and then I find you giving lectures on those ideas (or writing your own book with the same idea) then you have obviously broken the contract, and the burden of proof is easily overcome.
JackSkylark:Anyways, you are right that the "burden of proof" will invariably limit enforcement of contracts, but that makes no claim on ideas. If I enter into a contract with you that for the exchange of my book you may not distribute the ideas within it,
And why would anyone ever do this?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
of course its easy to sound perfectly reasonable when you are avoiding saying what you want to say. that ideas can be property
I think we are using different definitions in the scope of owning ideas. When I say I own an idea, it is the same as saying I own my mind (not the physical, but the intangible). People may then demand a certain idea that I have created, and own in accordance to self. Other people may come up with the same idea, and they are complete owners of their mind, thus would have full property of their ideas (limited to self). Now when the idea is transfered to another person, they would then have full ownership over the idea, limited to self, unless they are bound by contract, in which case they would posess conditional ownership of the idea.
I understand what you are saying about uniqueness, but I don't think it negates the contract theory and conditional ownership (because, by the contract, they are contracted to do/or not to do certain things relating to whatever unique idea they get as a direct result of the information transfer).
Spideynw: And why would anyone ever do this?
What kind of question is this? People do this all the time, either in NDA's or in end-user license agreements, they are contracts decided upon equally by both parties - and created, since the seller thinks it important.
JackSkylark:If I see you dancing with a stuffed monkey, it's over for you.
That's not what the contract was. You've taken "idea" and made it synonymous with "action". This is dishonest.
It's very difficult to argue with people who lie and do not read precisely.
JackSkylark:If I enter into a contract with you that for the exchange of my book you may not distribute the ideas within it, and then I find you giving lectures on those ideas (or writing your own book with the same idea) then you have obviously broken the contract, and the burden of proof is easily overcome.
I'm not going to argue utilitarianism, it is very easy to pick your example apart, and then we will get into the Maxian cycle of examples of examples of examples trying to find the most absurd hypothetical to prove a position, and declare it "market".
Simply put, if you only plan on contracting your idea once, you might have a shot at enforcement. But if more than one person reads your idea, then it will be very hard to prove who leaked to who, and created a derivative work, 2 or 3 degrees from the original contract.
And of course, all of this presumes that customers are just dying to get into contracts and potentially compromising legal obligations just to use your product, when there are public domain products available to choose from.
Again, utilitarian arguments, waste of time imo.
Until you address whether or not IP is property by challenging my definition, then you're just spinning your wheels. You can make 10,000 hypothetical examples, and not advance the discussion one iota.
liberty student:You keep parroting "market" and it is totally irrelevant.
Yes, I understand for you what people are voluntarily doing in the marketplace is irrelevant, for me the market matters.
liberty student:IP is not property by any complete theory of what property is. The reason? It is not unique.
By the common definition of the word unique, ideas can be unique. People have responded to your theory of property on numerous occassions you just refuse to acknowledge. We don't agree. It is that simple. Your arguement is not convincing.
liberty student:Contracts cannot accomplish the impossible.
Contracting with people to limit their own actions is not impossible. people are in control over their own voluntary actions and can make contraacts that limit them.
liberty student:All sorts of things are tried in the market, the test of their worth is their profitability, not if those ideas are ubiquitous. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
Yes, and the protection of ideas and inventions for some companies is definitely profitable.
liberty student:The current market, is not a free market.
Well, there will never be a free-market by your definition because you require universal agreement on your viewpoint.
Don't worry about being rude gutless, because we are enemies as per your request.