General

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

wombatron — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:21:14 GMT

Closing this one then.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

JackSkylark — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:09:41 GMT

liberty student:

If there is more to discuss, by all means it should carry on.

I thought this thread was getting too long (and going back through all the pages of posts was driving me crazy), and was covering a lot of different areas of IP - so I made another called "On the Ownership of Ideas" in order to further discussion of idea ownership within a natural rights framework.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

liberty student — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:56:49 GMT

Nitroadict:
I would also this to the list of candidate posts for "End of Thread" status.

Thanks Nitro but I just meant I was adding it to the end of the thread.

If there is more to discuss, by all means it should carry on.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

Nitroadict — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:46:33 GMT

liberty student:

Not directed at you SpideyNW, just tacked onto the end of this thread.

There was an earlier charge that I am a socialist of the mind, or a communist or a marxist or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not "anti-IP". IP as most people understand it, is a nonsense concept just like the social contract. Or democracy. Or that all men are equal.

I'm very interested in understanding the truth. I see no advantage in holding onto something that makes me feel good, but is false.

I've been a musician. I've got relatives who are musicians who make more noise with their MySpace pages than they do on people's iPods because they won't release their music for people to hear it. They keep holding out this hope that they will get a record deal, and that back catalog of demos is a treasure trove, completely oblivious to the fact that if no one ever notices them, they will never get the record deal.

That said, no one should reveal their ideas on any terms they do not agree to. If you have the cure for AIDs but demand $100 billion for it, then I'm cool with that. You are under no obligation to share it at any price which you do not agree to. You're not obliged to share it at all. But you don't own the idea, because if there is a problem, and demand for a solution, someone somewhere is going to try to solve it. And it is very likely someone will succeed with an idea similar to yours or even different, but either way, your hidden idea could find itself valueless when someone else releases a competing solution at any cost.

This is the natural market incentive for people to share and capitalize on ideas quickly. It encourages thinking, and acting on those thoughts because ideas can become less profitable the more ubiquitous they become.

The problem with IP is that it has really distorted not just how people make money, but has created the notion that the only way to create ideas is through monopoly protectionism, that people will stop thinking and solving problems without IP. Which is not an Austrian position on why man acts. Dare I say, it's not even a Randian position on why man acts.

These conversations are moot, because just like drug prohibition, IP monopoly loses teeth all of the time. The digital age has taken ideas outside of the control of states. Even if global laws were enacted, there is too much entropy to filter and control all of the knowledge freely flowing, regardless of law. And it is increasing.

In small business, you learn to fight the battles you can win, and avoid the battle fields you cannot survive. IP is a losing battle for small business. As friends of mine discovered when they patented a lawn and garden product, after you pay for the patent process, you might not have any capital left over to hire lawyers to defend your patent. The patent certificate looks pretty, but it is meaningless without the teeth to enforce it. Which is why many small businesses either forgo the process altogether, or they "steal" someone else's idea. There is a prominent Michigan billionaire who it is claimed took advantage of patents that the owners couldn't afford to defend in order to build his own empire, and then patented his own processes to protect his success.

We're in a never ending fight against the state as it social engineers successive generations of people to demand socialism, worship political command, to hate the market, to practice anti-intellectualism, and to respond only to the basest stimuli of violence, greed, jealousy and sex. IP is an important battleground for liberty. Not just because ideologically it is ideal at this moment in time, but because we can prove a great many state crimes and paradoxes through it.

Think it over.

I would also this to the list of candidate posts for "End of Thread" status.

+1 on the comment regarding reactionary acceptance to monopolistic protectionism.

Ironically, as Kinsella has noted, IP seems to be the only area where I don't have to do much defensive maneuvering in arguments with Statist citizens, regarding ideas of the libertarian, anarchist, & austrian school variety.

I suppose the internet has made many, to some extent, infoanarchists

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

liberty student — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:33:03 GMT

Not directed at you SpideyNW, just tacked onto the end of this thread.

There was an earlier charge that I am a socialist of the mind, or a communist or a marxist or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not "anti-IP". IP as most people understand it, is a nonsense concept just like the social contract. Or democracy. Or that all men are equal.

I'm very interested in understanding the truth. I see no advantage in holding onto something that makes me feel good, but is false.

I've been a musician. I've got relatives who are musicians who make more noise with their MySpace pages than they do on people's iPods because they won't release their music for people to hear it. They keep holding out this hope that they will get a record deal, and that back catalog of demos is a treasure trove, completely oblivious to the fact that if no one ever notices them, they will never get the record deal.

That said, no one should reveal their ideas on any terms they do not agree to. If you have the cure for AIDs but demand $100 billion for it, then I'm cool with that. You are under no obligation to share it at any price which you do not agree to. You're not obliged to share it at all. But you don't own the idea, because if there is a problem, and demand for a solution, someone somewhere is going to try to solve it. And it is very likely someone will succeed with an idea similar to yours or even different, but either way, your hidden idea could find itself valueless when someone else releases a competing solution at any cost.

This is the natural market incentive for people to share and capitalize on ideas quickly. It encourages thinking, and acting on those thoughts because ideas can become less profitable the more ubiquitous they become.

The problem with IP is that it has really distorted not just how people make money, but has created the notion that the only way to create ideas is through monopoly protectionism, that people will stop thinking and solving problems without IP. Which is not an Austrian position on why man acts. Dare I say, it's not even a Randian position on why man acts.

These conversations are moot, because just like drug prohibition, IP monopoly loses teeth all of the time. The digital age has taken ideas outside of the control of states. Even if global laws were enacted, there is too much entropy to filter and control all of the knowledge freely flowing, regardless of law. And it is increasing.

In small business, you learn to fight the battles you can win, and avoid the battle fields you cannot survive. IP is a losing battle for small business. As friends of mine discovered when they patented a lawn and garden product, after you pay for the patent process, you might not have any capital left over to hire lawyers to defend your patent. The patent certificate looks pretty, but it is meaningless without the teeth to enforce it. Which is why many small businesses either forgo the process altogether, or they "steal" someone else's idea. There is a prominent Michigan billionaire who it is claimed took advantage of patents that the owners couldn't afford to defend in order to build his own empire, and then patented his own processes to protect his success.

We're in a never ending fight against the state as it social engineers successive generations of people to demand socialism, worship political command, to hate the market, to practice anti-intellectualism, and to respond only to the basest stimuli of violence, greed, jealousy and sex. IP is an important battleground for liberty. Not just because ideologically it is ideal at this moment in time, but because we can prove a great many state crimes and paradoxes through it.

Think it over.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

Spideynw — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:07:46 GMT

kiba:

Spideynw:
End-user license agreements exist only because patent laws exist.

Pardon me, but I don't see how EULA and patent laws got anything to do with each other?

Microsoft can only require an EULA on their product because they have a patent on the product in the first place. If they did not have a monopoly on the product, no one would enter into an EULA with them.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

liberty student — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:50:17 GMT

JackSkylark:
I can't seem to find your post where you laid out your theory of property. Would you please re-post it, re-write it, or guide me to where I can find it... Thank you.

It's a few pages back, but I have already advanced the discussion beyond IP is not unique, with uniqueness being a defining characteristic of any parcel of property. If ideas are unique, then they can't be stolen. If they are not unique, then they cannot be owned. It can't be had both ways.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

JackSkylark — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:51:12 GMT

liberty student:

Still no one has challenged my property definition,

I can't seem to find your post where you laid out your theory of property. Would you please re-post it, re-write it, or guide me to where I can find it... Thank you.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

kiba — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:41:41 GMT

Spideynw:
End-user license agreements exist only because patent laws exist.

Pardon me, but I don't see how EULA and patent laws got anything to do with each other?

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

liberty student — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:37:57 GMT

Spideynw:
End-user license agreements exist only because patent laws exist.

Indeed. Although some will try to argue that this is "the market" because it involves a "voluntary contract".

Spideynw:
People are not going to write fictional pieces of work or make music and attempt to contract with someone to buy it and tell them they cannot reveal it to anyone else.

Or that they can't hear it first without signing a contract, a NDA just to decide if they want to buy it or not. No one in their right mind would take that risk, of signing a contract and taking on legal liability for an unknown. Oh sure, some daredevils might, but there is no way you could mass market a product by forcing every individual to sign an NDA.

Think about all of the restrictions, like insisting that people who buy music, not play it loud enough that others (who have no signed NDAs) can hear it. So you can forget wedding parties and dance clubs as places "for pay" music would be used.

LOL. Man, I don't think anyone can make a utilitarian argument for IP. Even if I am totally wrong about it's definition as property, it's simply outrageous to insist you can sell something, and own it, and control it within yourself and others, all at once. Nuts.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

liberty student — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:32:47 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
this is basic Misesian stuff here.

The problem is, there are not Misesians in the discussion. I can take the socialist of the mind crap, that's just funny because I spend most of my time here harassing anyone who even looks like they once had a socialist thought, but when people don't even recognize that they are arguing for a LTV perspective, well...

Still no one has challenged my property definition, and since I figured out that even a refutation of my definition also eliminates IP as property, then it is what it is. As Max would say, "looks like I have won this argument".

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

liberty student — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:28:20 GMT

JParker:
Kinsella, last I checked, is not infallable.

Never said he was.

JParker:
And his argument is utterly unconvincing to me.

Oh really? Which part? What about his argument about not owning your labour do you not agree with?

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

kiba — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:06:47 GMT

meambobbo:

nirgrahamUK:
dude, Demand for commodities is not demand for labour'.

so then there's the argument that individuals should directly contract laborers to produce desired goods. well, that's inefficient and generally why we have entrepreneurs. this was mises's argument - the monopoly increases efficiency of production by allowing entrepreneurs to develop a finished product, which it can market to consumers.

I considered myself an entrepeneur, thank you very much.

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 01:44:49 GMT

services can be described entirely by tangibles. hence that does not support your argument

Re: My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

meambobbo — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 01:38:44 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
dude, Demand for commodities is not demand for labour'.

without the labor, there is no informational good. without the monetary incentive, there is no labor.

intangibles can most certainly be economic goods. look at services.

so then there's the argument that individuals should directly contract laborers to produce desired goods. well, that's inefficient and generally why we have entrepreneurs. this was mises's argument - the monopoly increases efficiency of production by allowing entrepreneurs to develop a finished product, which it can market to consumers.