Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Round 2: Block, Edelstein and Wenzel on Intellectual Property

Here's Round 2 of my discussion with Walter Block and Michael Edelstein on intellectual property.

The sound clarity on this edition is much better and it is a pretty rollicking debate/discussion. At one point, Walter accuses my grandmother, my mother and me of all being part of a line of criminals. But, it does appear that I am winning Michael over to my side, at least on certain points.

Note: Near the end, there is a stretch of back and forth as we try to find calendar time when we can do Round 3. But, after that, there is a bit more back and forth between Michael and me on IP.




Round 1 is here.

-RW

61 comments:

  1. Excellent discussion between three intelligent people.

    I think Walter's biggest stumbling block is that he can't accept that people who create something of value, and make it their property, can choose to either defend their property or give it away...and that society intuitively in most cases understands when the property right has been retained or abandoned.

    Sure, there are times when property rights are in question, but that is why some form of court system always exists(and that's not an endorsement for a gov't run court system).

    ReplyDelete
  2. There should be no property rights for a word unless there is some form of title (copyright, trademark or wordmark) to go with it. If no title exists, the word should not be restricted. The word "food" is not IP because there is no title assigned for it to anyone. And no one can now claim the word "food" as IP by the standard that it should be new and novel (and non-obvious and functional for patents) and not already in common use.

    The notion that copyrighted or trademarked words cannot be used by people in general should not be an IP concern. IP is about *commercial* value. The word "xerox" was trademarked but also became a word in common use. People could and did use the word "xerox" to refer to photocopying and the company had no claim but no one is allowed to use the word *commercially*... This distinction seemed to be lost in this discussion.

    Suing someone over an infringement of IP should require showing that the use caused financial harm because IP is commercial property. If the IP has no monetary value, then there should be no harm caused by infringement.

    I don't think it's a question of "using property without someone's permission" regarding IP. It's a matter of *profiting* from using someone's IP without permission or causing financial harm.

    So if I invent and wordmark a new word "brizbly," no one should be able to earn *income* from using the word without my permission or cause me financial harm. So if people make common use of the word, I likely should have no claim but if brizbly is used as a logo by another then I should.

    What is also lost in this discussion is that IP should be targeted and have limited scope. If I wordmark "brizbly" to name a company, product or service then I should be limited to sue only if someone also uses that word to name a company. product or service. If someone uses it in conversation, in a poem or other dissimilar use, then I should have no claim.

    And I don't agree that IP should be permanent. It should have a limited life of say 21 years.

    I'll tune in for the next round. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus,

      >>There should be no property rights for a word unless there is some form of title (copyright, trademark or wordmark) to go with it.<<

      You're begging the question. The claim to property does not stem from a document, it stems from objective facts: YOU build it, or YOU transformed it, or YOU purchased it, or YOU found it. You can only claim as property what you already *have*, like your life and your liberty. Property that you do NOT have cannot be claimed as yours, therefore titles that purport to transfer ownership of everybody else's property to YOU (e.g. copyright or patents) are immoral. The fact that you "invented" something does not mean you can claim someone else's property when that someone else transforms HIS property into something that resembles your idea. It is still HIS property.

      Delete
    2. >> The claim to property does not stem from a document...

      Yes it does. Property is a LEGAL concept. You own property because you can prove you do and that is through a title of some kind. You might have built, transformed or whatever but unless you can PROVE you have, it isn't property. That's why you need a receipt to return items you bought or provide title to a car you want to sell. Unless you have documentation, you are only in possession and it's not property. The car could be stolen...

      >> Property that you do NOT have cannot be claimed as yours,

      The idea IS the property and the person profiting from it is trespassing on that property.

      >> therefore titles that purport to transfer ownership of everybody else's property to YOU (e.g. copyright or patents) are immoral.


      Which it doesn't do. The idea was property by title BEFORE the trespasser copied it. Violating the property right of the inventor requires the POSITIVE ACT by the person copying the idea. That is the initial infringement.

      >> The fact that you "invented" something does not mean you can claim someone else's property when that someone else transforms HIS property into something that resembles your idea.

      Yes it does if I have title to the idea (as in patent) and the person profits from it. Property can be ANYTHING that can be described with words and diagrams including ideas. If a title is granted, property is created.

      Delete
    3. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus

      >> Property is a LEGAL concept. <<

      Concepts do not owe their existence to the State or the legal system. Either a thing IS or it is NOT. You can't say it is because the government says it is. That's circular thinking.

      >>You own property because you can prove you do and that is through a title of some kind. <<

      That's again the statist mindset. I can prove to you that I own my computer without having to show you title - just come and try to take it from my hands. I dare you.

      >>The idea was property by title BEFORE the trespasser copied it. <<

      COPYING is not trespassing. Now you're equivocating.

      >>Yes it does if I have title to the idea <<

      Having "title" to an idea is not the same as having possession of an idea. Ideas spawn in people's minds. Unless you have the power of erasing people's minds, you cannot stop an idea from being THOUGHT by another mind. Ergo, ideas cannot be property, no matter how many government people you happened to bribe.

      >>Property can be ANYTHING that can be described with words and diagrams including ideas. <<

      That's not true. Property is anything you possess which is rivalrous and exclusive, meaning no one else can have it IF you have it. YOU can HAVE your car, but you cannot have the IDEA of a car.

      Delete
    4. @Old Mexican

      >> Concepts do not owe their existence to the State or the legal system. Either a thing IS or it is NOT. You can't say it is because the government says it is. That's circular thinking.

      I didn’t say that “concepts owe their existence to the state.” Property is a legal abstraction which any agency (the state, individual or private defense provider) enforces.

      Can you touch, taste, see or smell a "property"? Property is no more real than "society" or "government"... It is an abstraction. “Owning” is a mental construct and does not exist in nature. It is what a society decides it to be.

      >> That's again the statist mindset. I can prove to you that I own my computer without having to show you title - just come and try to take it from my hands. I dare you.

      No it isn’t. You say you can prove you own your computer. How? Do you have a receipt? Do you have a clerk who can attest to your purchase? Possession is not the same as owning. And anyone can steal someone’s property and then say, “Just come and try to take it...” That doesn’t confer legitimacy. Possession and property are two different things. It just so happens that common law recognizes most possessions as property.

      >> COPYING is not trespassing. Now you're equivocating.

      Yes it is and no I’m not.

      >> Unless you have the power of erasing people's minds, you cannot stop an idea from being THOUGHT by another mind.

      The issue isn’t whether one possesses an other person's idea but whether the trespasser profits from it. That is the basis for civil damages.

      >> That's not true. Property is anything you possess which is rivalrous and exclusive,

      No. Property is whatever the society chooses to call property. Possession is not the same as owning. And property is not an economic concept – it is a legal concept.

      Delete
    5. Re:

      >>Property is a legal abstraction<<

      It is not. Property is what you possess that anybody else can't.

      >>Can you touch, taste, see or smell a "property"?<<

      "Property" is a word. However, I can taste, smell and touch MY property. Notwithstanding this, you're trying to obfuscate the issue. Why?

      >>Property is whatever the society chooses to call property. <<

      "Society"? Now you're making a fool of yourself. Who is this "society" to which you allude? Is "society" another legal abstraction? Only individuals step on this good Earth, not this "society". Property, the concept, is whatever you possess that nobody else can. Ideas cannot be possessed in this manner because they can SPAWN in people's minds, therefore ideas cannot be property.

      Delete
  3. Seems like this discussion hit a major complication when the analogy of language came up.

    It's a simple question of rights over non-rivalrous goods.

    Say you hear me playing a song on my guitar that I came up with. A week later I see you playing my guitar, singing my song.

    I say to you: give me back my guitar. You ask: why? I say: because, if you have it, I can't use it.

    I also say: don't ding my song. You ask: why? I say: because if you sing it, I can't?

    If we assume I made the guitar myself, then I created both things (we might even stipulate that it's the very first guitar, if we must). Bet there IS a real difference between the nature of the two creations of mine. One is rivalrous, one is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Economics is not moral philosophy.

      Just because one *can* do something (like easy copying) doesn't mean one should. Economics is descriptive not prescriptive.

      The question is "Has someone been harmed by the act of unauthorized distribution?" and the answer is "Yes"...

      Delete
    2. Economics is a value free science. "Harm" implies a moral judgment.

      If I'm growing corn, and the price is X, then you start growing corn, and the price falls, using your logic, I've now been "harmed".

      Clearly, economics cannot tell us whether or not IP laws should be on the books.

      Delete
    3. Re: steveZ,

      >>Clearly, economics cannot tell us whether or not IP laws should be on the books.<<

      No but it helps discern the harm brought by IP. For starters, IP violates the Law of Division of Labor.

      Delete
    4. Except, I'm not sure I know how it "violates the law of Division of Labor."

      Delete
    5. Re: steveZ,
      >> Except, I'm not sure I know how it "violates the law of Division of Labor." <<

      I should have been clearer. The theory that I.P. increases productivity (that is, helps inventors which purports to increase productivity) VIOLATES the Law of Division of Labor because IP grants exclusive rights to OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY to someone claiming to be the "originator", which makes that property unavailable for productive efforts that resemble the "invention" patented by the so-called "originator".

      Let's say nobody has invented the wheel yet. Let's say *I* invent the wheel. Then I ask the government (or bribe a few officials, to be more accurate) to allow me to stomp on anybody else's right to transform their own property into something that *looks* like a wheel (e.g. a "patent"). That way only *I* can manufacture wheels or only those who pay me for a license can manufacture wheels, but no one else. This means the economy cannot take advantage of Division of Labor to increase production of wheels. The demand for wheels will be artificially high until my patent runs out. THEREFORE, the idea that IP increases productivity - by increasing the likelyhood of invention - is FALSE. It cannot be true. It doesn't happen that way. To be more succinct about it: It is a damned lie.

      Delete
  4. As is common in debates, it seems like there are two different claims being debated here. Wenzel is trying to point out that, historically, people have not tried to lay claim to words, while Block is pointing out that under Wenzel's belief someone could lay claim to words.

    The better way to argue against Block's position is to have Block explain why a word is to be treated differently than a road. If Wenzel follows his own philosophy through, Block will find himself navigating the slope that his opponents face when he is arguing that roads are not public property. At the end of the argument, you either believe in the free market (a word will only be sold if there are buyers) or you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Intellectual property laws are necessarily arbitrary in length. If they were not arbitrary, for example, if they lasted forever, then it would be impossible to ever have a free market arise in any industry.

    The guy who invented the toothed gear would have a claim to any use of toothed gears in any machine forever, passing that privilege down generation to generation for eternity. No other manufacturer could produce a toothed gear without his say-so.

    Intellectual property is a grant of monopoly privilege. Anyone who favors free markets should view any violently imposed monopoly with the utmost suspicion. When people begin using violence to prevent competition, that's the point when market forces break down.

    IP is an absurdity. If the software industry enforced IP as vigorously as novelists did, no software would ever be built. In the software community, virtually everyone shares at least some of their code to preform certain tasks. The strong libertarian streak that runs through the software development community is what has allowed for such massive innovation in the field of software. Vigorously enforced IP would completely crush that innovation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> Intellectual property laws are necessarily arbitrary in length.

      As is your ownership claim on real property. How long should you be allowed to own land? Forever? Is that morally right?

      >> Intellectual property is a grant of monopoly privilege.

      As is your monopoly on land if you own it, your possessions, your body... all monopolies granted by the state that you enjoy.

      >> Anyone who favors free markets should view any violently imposed monopoly with the utmost suspicion.

      All property is an imposed monopoly.

      >> When people begin using violence to prevent competition, that's the point when market forces break down.

      And yet you have been granted a monopoly on your real property to prevent violent competition over it.

      >> IP is an absurdity.

      In your wrong-headed opinion. IP resulted in both the Italian Renaissance and Industrial Revolution.

      >> If the software industry enforced IP as vigorously as novelists did, no software would ever be built.

      Software is still a developing IP legal model. Open source is voluntary IP sharing. Nothing wrong with that.

      Delete
    2. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus,

      >>As is your ownership claim on real property.<<

      That's absurd. Is your claim to your own body arbitrary? IP is a monopoly grant by government to someone claiming to be the "originator". That's arbitrary. Your claim to real property stems from objective facts: YOU build it, YOU transformed it, YOU purchased it, YOU found it, etc. IP does NOT operate on that set of parameters because it is an UNDUE transfer of title from everybody else to this "originator" at least for the time the government says. You claim you "invented" it, therefore nobody else can use THEIR OWN property to transform it into something that resembles your "invention". THAT'S an undue transfer of title. It would be rightly called thievery if it weren't for IP proponents.

      >>IP resulted in both the Italian Renaissance and Industrial Revolution.<<

      That's a lie. It's not even close to be reality. The Industrial Revolution took off AFTER the Watt-Boulton patents expired. The Renaissance was nothing more than a return to classic forms which were NOT patented. You also (conveniently) forget the Medieval Renaissance which happened before government-managed IP, not after.

      >>And yet you have been granted a monopoly on your real property<<

      ANOTHER lie. Nobody grants you monopoly over property; it is YOU who ACKNOWLEDGES property rights to everybody else, just like I ACKNOWLEDGE your rights to your property, and acknowledge everybody else's right to their property. IP is a POSITIVE right (an entitlement) whereas property rights are negative - i.e. I have NO right to your property, YOU have NO right to mine, etc.

      Delete
    3. "If the software industry enforced IP as vigorously as novelists did, no software would ever be built."

      I disagree. We have plenty of market examples where people/corporations engineered around those being unreasonable in allowing for the licensing of IP.

      Betamax/VHS seems to be the big one right off the top of my head, intermittent windshield wipers(the circuits were designed around the original inventors), and I'm quite sure a ton of other examples.(I'm a bit busy today)

      Delete
    4. @Old Mexican

      >> Is your claim to your own body arbitrary?

      Yes as much as any other.

      >> IP is a monopoly grant by government to someone claiming to be the "originator". That's arbitrary.

      No it isn't. The proof is in the documentation.

      >> IP does NOT operate on that set of parameters because it is an UNDUE transfer of title from everybody else to this "originator" at least for the time the government says.

      Wrong. See my response to your previous post.

      >> Nobody grants you monopoly over property;

      Yes, the state does. If someone steals your car, the police will arrest him. You are granted a monopoly by the state for exclusive use of your car...

      >> The Industrial Revolution took off AFTER the Watt-Boulton patents expired.

      So? Patents were still the law. Watt developed the steam engine with the intent to obtain the patent. Herbert Spencer lamented that he couldn't find any manufacturer for his invalid bed invention because he HADN'T patented it because he wanted to give the invention away...

      >> The Renaissance was nothing more than a return to classic forms which were NOT patented.

      Huh? The Renaissance began in northern Italy after Venice and Florence adopted statues protecting IP. The Venice 1474 statute - first of its kind - protected IP. The Renaissance soon spread across Europe along with IP laws...

      From Wikipedia, "The nature of the Renaissance also changed in the late 15th century. The Renaissance ideal was fully adopted by the ruling classes and the aristocracy. In the early Renaissance artists were seen as craftsmen with little prestige or recognition. By the later Renaissance the top figures wielded great influence and could charge great fees. A flourishing trade in Renaissance art developed. While in the early Renaissance many of the leading artists were of lower- or middle-class origins, increasingly they became aristocrats."

      >> Nobody grants you monopoly over property...

      Yes the state does. You confuse natural law with actual law. Your definition of property might conform to Locke but that's not relevant to how the law defines it.

      >> That's a lie. ... ANOTHER lie.

      When you resort to ad hom, you lose.

      Delete
    5. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus,

      >>Yes [my claim to my body is arbitrary] as much as any other.<<

      Do you usually make such perfunctory contradictions as a matter of routine, or just now?

      >>The Renaissance began in northern Italy after Venice and Florence adopted statues protecting IP. <<

      That's just utter NONSENSE. You're confusing correlation and causation. The Renaissance started right after the fall of Constantinople, when scores of Greeks migrated to Italy and right after the invention of the printing press. The Renaissance started with the dissemination of information, not with protectionist schemes.

      >>Yes the state does [grant you property]. You confuse natural law with actual law. <<

      There's no confusion in my argument. If the state grants property, who granted that right to the state? Don't tell me - the same people whose property is being granted, perhaps?

      >>Your definition of property might conform to Locke but that's not relevant to how the law defines it.<<

      Petitio Principii.

      >>When you resort to ad hom, you lose<<

      Indicating that your statement is a lie is not the same as an Ad Hominem. If I said that your argument cannot be trusted because you're a know liar, THAT would be an Ad Hominem. But have done nothing of the sort.

      Instead, you committed several fallacies: You assumed what you want to prove, e.g. saying that property is granted by law (the state) because that is what the law says. You assume I am confusing natural law with actual law. There's no such confusion. I am merely not granting the state any power over the individual. YOU are.

      Delete
    6. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus,

      >>So? Patents were still the law [even if the Industrial Revolution took off after the expiration of Watt-Boulton's patent].<<

      You completely missed the point. The Industrial Revolution did not happen because of IP but DESPITE of it. As it happened, Watt and Boulton could not make use of the most efficient mechanical power transfer device - the crank - for their engines because the crank, incredibly, was patented by James Pickard, so Watt and Boulton had to make due with a planetary gear system which at that time was not reliable. Once THAT patent expired, Watt and Boulton were quick to incorporate the crank into their engines. So IP TRUMPED the development of a better engine. And once Watt and Boulton's patent expired, the steam engine industry REALLY took off in England and elsewhere. AGAIN, IP stymied industrial development. It did NOT encourage it.

      Delete
    7. If we really want to critique logic...

      Saying a statement is a lie is not an "ad hom." Saying "Plenarchist libere vivimus is a liar therefore his statements are false" would be an ad homeniem.

      Meanwhile, saying the Industrial Revolution started after the expiration of a patent is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

      But hey, I'm a geek ;)

      Delete
    8. >> Do you usually make such perfunctory contradictions as a matter of routine, or just now?

      No contradiction. Ownership means exclusive control of a thing. You claim exclusive ownership over your person which the state enforces. By arbitrary, I mean subjective. All thinking is by definition subjective but some more logical than the rest.

      >> The Renaissance started with the dissemination of information, not with protectionist schemes.

      No. It was the IP statutes that facilitated the dissemination of information. Before that processes and craft skills were closely protected guild secrets. This is one reason why Florence and Venice adopted IP statutes to encourage guilds to be open.

      >> There's no confusion in my argument. If the state grants property, who granted that right to the state? Don't tell me - the same people whose property is being granted, perhaps?

      It’s not a question of who grants rights to anyone. Even if there is NO state, you would still depend on someone enforcing your property claims. And those claims could be ANYTHING!!!!!! You could claim as your property the neighbor’s 13 yo daughter... The point is that property can be ANYTHING that is enforceable. The question is on what basis *should* property be defined and on the Lockean principle of labor mixing with resources IP qualifies. Locke didn’t mention scarcity or any of the other BS aIPers keep coughing up.

      >> Petitio Principii.

      Whatever.

      >> Indicating that your statement is a lie is not the same as an Ad Hominem.

      If you are calling me a liar that is ad hom.

      >> You assumed what you want to prove, e.g. saying that property is granted by law (the state) because that is what the law says.

      By granted, I do not mean the state justifies property. You conflate (as all aIPers do) *is* and *ought*... Property is DEFINED by the state as possessions in its myriad forms it will enforce if someone steals. Property is a question of enforcement whether it is the state doing it or not.

      >> The Industrial Revolution did not happen because of IP but DESPITE of it.

      Disagree.

      Delete
    9. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus

      >>Ownership means exclusive control of a thing.<<

      Which is what I said several times.

      >>You claim exclusive ownership over your person which the state enforces.<<

      I don't care what the state chooses to do. It is irrelevant.

      >>By arbitrary, I mean subjective.<<

      I don't care. Property is an objective thing. Either YOU have it, or I have it. It cannot be more objective than that.

      >>All thinking is by definition subjective but some more logical than the rest.<<

      I don't understand the meaning of this statement nor the point. We're not talking about thoughts, we're talking about property.

      >>If you are calling me a liar that is ad hom.<<

      No, I'm calling your statement a lie. Maybe you were misinformed. That does not change the fact.

      >> you would still depend on someone enforcing your property claims.<<

      You think me so helpless? You're begging the question!

      >>Property is DEFINED by the state<<

      Who cares what the State does? Why do you keep bringing the state in? Are you a Statist, P?

      >>Disagree [that the Industrial Revolution happened despite IP]<<

      Of course you disagree. That changes not the facts. Henry Ford was able to put a car in almost every household because he BESTED a patent, not because of the patent.

      Delete
    10. Re: Luke Perkins,

      >>Meanwhile, saying the Industrial Revolution started after the expiration of a patent is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc.<<

      During the time Watt and Boulton had the patent for the steam engine with condenser, nobody else could build steam engines, Luke. That's a fact. A post hoc conclusion is one where an UNRELATED thing is though as the cause of another thing. The Watt-Boulton patent was NOT unrelated to the situation at all precisely because it was a stumbling block for developers and investors who wanted to build steam engines.

      Delete
    11. >> I don't care what the state chooses to do. It is irrelevant.

      Of course it is. You expect someone to enforce your property rights. SOMEONE. Call it the state, PDA or your own private Army-of-One but someone will. The question is will others recognize that you have a legitimate claim?

      You want to issue your own personal decrees irrespective of what others believe are rightful. That is what leads to a disintegration of civil society. That is why there has to be universal law with respect to property and a common understanding. Like a petulant child you want it only your way and everyone else be damned...

      >> I don't care. Property is an objective thing.

      OMG, so stubbornly irrational. Property is not “objective”... What does a property smell like? What does it look like? How much does it weigh? What color is it? It is NOT a physical thing. Property is what humans choose to label as property.

      >> Either YOU have it, or I have it. It cannot be more objective than that.

      So if I sit in your car the second you step away, I can claim it as mine? I possess it so its mine! You must be okay with that. If you respond, “I’ll take it back by force!” then applying that logic to society we can say “Good bye!” to civil society. I don’t want to live in the place you would create with everyone armed to the teeth ready to attack anyone who would possess what they have for any reason.

      >> No, I'm calling your statement a lie. Maybe you were misinformed. That does not change the fact.

      If my statements are lies, please tell me WHO originated these lies since he or she is a liar by your accusation. Maybe you and I disagree but I will refrain from implying you deliberately lie. But you know DAMN WELL that using the word “lie” in a response to my statements is to discredit my statement. Don’t play dumb.

      >>>> you would still depend on someone enforcing your property claims.<<

      >>You think me so helpless? You're begging the question!

      Okay, so you’re an Army-of-One but what about everyone else? The context here is not what you can do for yourself but as a society or you can maybe find a deserted island to occupy. I can guarantee that you will not be able to fend off a mob of armed looters... If you think you can then you’re delusional.

      >> Who cares what the State does? Why do you keep bringing the state in? Are you a Statist, P?

      I’m using “state” here to refer to ANY enforcement entity. If you want to be a “state” of one, fine. It doesn’t change my arguments. SOMEONE is going to define what property is and that SOMEONE will be the one with the firepower to backup that definition. Nature doesn't define property humans do.

      >> Of course you disagree. That changes not the facts.

      Whatever. You just interpret history to fit your argument. Waste of time.

      Delete
    12. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus

      >> You expect someone to enforce your property rights.<<

      I'm not that helpless. Stop assuming things, P.

      >>I’m using “state” here to refer to ANY enforcement entity.<<

      So you want to keep engaging in question-begging assertions. "We have property because we have a state which defends property." That's circular thinking.

      >>You just interpret history to fit your argument. <<

      I can say the same thing about you.

      Delete
    13. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus

      >>So if I sit in your car the second you step away, I can claim it as mine?<<

      You can certainly TRY and see what happens. My two friends, Smith and Wesson, will have a talk with you. See? I don't need no stinkin' State to protect what is mine. Instead, it is IMPOSSIBLE to protect an idea with fences or my two friends, ergo IP is NOT property.

      Delete
    14. @ Old Mex

      >> You can certainly TRY and see what happens.

      Yet you posted before that if you possess something that means its your property. By your own definition of property, I now legitimately own your car because I possessed it... and you would use violence against me violating the NAP to get it back. Prove to anyone else that it's yours and not mine. If I'm driving it, it must be mine according to the your own logic. ;) Lol.

      Delete
  6. IP is an artificial contrivance created for the greater good by (1) encouraging developers to publish their discoveries rather than keeping them secret so that others may learn and create even more innovations and (2) to enable products which would not otherwise be produced without such protections. In short, like Capitalism & Free Markets, it is all about and for the consumer so we get more & better stuff.

    It's economics. Monopoly rights are only justified when they increase the economy, though in particular cases the economic net result is often impossible to predict so “benefit of any doubt” should prevail.

    Creating language constructs to equate physical property to intellectual property and treating them the same is preposterous. They are absolutely different.

    There are many studies showing we have a net economic loss by our current IP system with at least some economists saying it is so bad we'd be economically better off scrapping it altogether; others saying it should be limit IP to some very few industries (drugs mentioned); and many others saying there should be drastically fewer patents granted – we are now granting patents on trivia.

    Under the purpose & intent of IP law I see no justification whatsoever for software patents over copyright laws commonly in use during the build up of Microsoft and the software industry. (SW patents were possible and some granted but Microsoft, for example, did not use them until late).

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, forgive me for asking a stupid question, but why do we have property rights?

    Also, if I might ask another stupid question, why do property rights go back thousands upon thousands of years, but intellectual property rights only go back ~600 years?

    One more stupid question if I may, what were the reasons governments gave ~600 years ago when they created intellectual property rights?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> So, forgive me for asking a stupid question, but why do we have property rights?

      I think so that a civil society remains civil. Property rights are codified as laws to provide "rules of the game" for people to know what's theirs and what's not and do so fairly. This reduces conflict. Property rights also motivate personal industry because they give confidence that what one labors to produce will not be just stolen (except as taxes of course).

      >> why do property rights go back thousands upon thousands of years, but intellectual property rights only go back ~600 years?

      I don't think property rights are so different than the development of other individual rights like freedom of speech. It would seem that property rights as we think of them today were a product of the Enlightenment and particularly Locke.

      >> what were the reasons governments gave ~600 years ago when they created intellectual property rights?

      IP has been around longer than 600 years. There's evidence that the ancient Greeks had their own form of IP. Modern IP law can be traced back about 600 years.

      From Wikipedia, "There is some evidence that some form of patent rights was recognized in Ancient Greece. In 500 BCE, in the Greek city of Sybaris (located in what is now southern Italy), "encouragement was held out to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury, the profits arising from which were secured to the inventor by patent for the space of a year." Athenaeus, writing in the third century CE, cites Phylarchus in saying that in Sybaris exclusive rights were granted for one year to creators of unique culinary dishes."

      Delete
    2. Gov enforced property rights are justified and usually* implemented to enrich our lives so that we have more and better stuff, i.e. the nation is wealthier. Perhaps one might add, to protect you from a bigger guy beating you up and taking your stuff, but that is really covered in the 1st sentence.

      *Govs do implement all sorts of laws primarily or exclusively for special interests usually in return for money or other compensation to law writers. These cause economic harm, we are poorer, and they are not justified.

      Delete
    3. Re: Luke Perkins,
      >>So, forgive me for asking a stupid question, but why do we have property rights?<<

      Because we're moral beings, Luke.

      >> why do property rights go back thousands upon thousands of years, but intellectual property rights only go back ~600 years?<<

      Actually, so-called "intellectual property" goes back further with the existence of guilds and trade associations. People do try to hide their knowledge from others for gain, but once an idea gets into the open, the real economic growth begins. The first or Medieval Renaissance of 1100 to 1300 was possible thanks to several Chinese inventions that were brought to Europe and the increased commerce after the end of the Viking raids and Moorish conquests. It was the dissemination of knowledge that brought growth to Europe, not IP and certainly not the State.

      Delete
    4. @Plenarchist libere vivimus
      I'm sorry, I must be really slow here. If property rights exist to reduce conflict, how do intellectual property rights fit with that aim?

      I am also confused about rights developing. In what way did Locke develop property rights, as opposed to merely justifications thereof, which were not already known before?

      You'll have to forgive me for being so backward, but you have added another question to my third question. I am still confused about what reasons the Italians gave when they created their intellectual property rights, and now I have to ask also about the reasons the Greeks gave when they created theirs.

      Delete
    5. @ tex
      So, forgive me for my slowness, are you saying property rights are strictly utilitarian in nature? I am confused, how does that reason fit with Plenarchist libere vivimus's of property rights being about reducing conflict?

      Delete
    6. @Luke Perkins

      >> If property rights exist to reduce conflict, how do intellectual property rights fit with that aim?

      They don't necessarily. I also stated that property motivates personal industry. IP does that. But in the absence of patent law for instance, guild secrecy will return with violence used to secure trade secrets.

      And copyrighted IP just won't be created in the first place (as was the case in the early Renaissance). It's unlikely that a JK Rowling would toil for years writing a novel only to have it copied resulting in no income for her. It's unlikely there'd even be a publishing industry without copyright.

      The same sense of gross injustice and unfairness we feel when someone steals a possession is felt when someone copies a creative work if not more intensely.

      >> In what way did Locke develop property rights, as opposed to merely justifications thereof, which were not already known before?

      He gave us a moral standard for individual property (labor mixed with resources) that differed from property claimed by the monarch by fiat. This is my understanding. I'm not a scholar on the history of property rights.

      >> I am still confused about what reasons the Italians gave when they created their intellectual property rights, and now I have to ask also about the reasons the Greeks gave when they created theirs.

      I don't know the motivation of the Greeks. AFAIK we know little more than just that they did have a form of IP. The point being that IP is not just a modern invention.

      Regarding Florence and Venice, my understanding is that they had two primary objectives for enacting IP statutes: to better attract skilled artisans and tradesmen; and to eliminate the need for guild secrecy which they believed inhibited progress and was a source of conflict.

      Delete
    7. @Luke Perkins

      >> So, forgive me for my slowness, are you saying property rights are strictly utilitarian in nature? I am confused, how does that reason fit with Plenarchist libere vivimus's of property rights being about reducing conflict?

      Reducing conflict is utilitarian. I'm probably best described as a social consequentialist.

      Delete
    8. @ Old Mexican
      I am afraid I don't follow when you say we have property rights because we are moral people. Perhaps it is my own silliness, but the creation account from the Bible would seem to be one example of a moral man who has no conception of property. Property rights only exist in relation to other people, but morality exists even with a single individual. So perhaps being moral is a necessary but not sufficient explanation? What would be the reason property rights require morality?

      I am still not certain I understand the reasons for intellectual property from your second paragraph. If it was the dissemination of ideas which caused the "Medieval Renaissance," what reasons did the Italians give for creating their system of intellectual property which seems to go against the dissemination of ideas?

      How do the trade guilds relate to the idea of intellectual property? What did they do similar to patents and copyrights?

      You will have to forgive me, but the more answers I receive to my original question, the more I realize how little I know about this topic.

      Delete
    9. @ Plenarchist libere vivimus

      I think I begin to understand dimly. I believe you are saying intellectual property exists merely as a construct which, if followed, makes society a better place because the benefits outweigh the costs. If I am understanding correctly, it would be morally correct for a society to hold intellectual property rights even though they lead to more conflict provided the net result is superior. Would this position make the case for or against intellectual property an empirical one alone? Recognizing you said you more identify with the social consequentialists, and therefore not obliged to answer for other people's beliefs, how does this position relate to the non-aggression principle libertarians espouse?

      I am still somewhat confused about Locke. If he was replying to a king's claim, was Locke creating a new sense of property rights, or arguing against a king's usurpation of rights historically understood but not generally articulated? Also, and perhaps it is another stupid question, but Locke's labor theory of property seems remarkably close to Marx's labor theory of value. How are the two related?

      One more question about ancient intellectual property, what did the Greeks do to protect Homer and his Iliad from being copied?

      With Florence and Venice, those make sense for reasons. What would be good primary sources for what they were thinking at the time?

      Delete
    10. @Luke Perkins

      Assume you were addressing me...

      >> I am afraid I don't follow when you say we have property rights because we are moral people. ... So perhaps being moral is a necessary but not sufficient explanation? What would be the reason property rights require morality?

      This is getting into a deeper subject that I don't think can be addressed adequately here. I'm most aligned with the evolutionary ethics of Herbert Spencer and recommend you read Social Statics if you haven't.

      For me (and Spencer), property rights contribute to a more fit society and, by extension, a more fit human species. If one believes that IP produces greater prosperity and happiness (which I do), then IP is morally justified because I hold that a happier society is a more fit society.

      When I use the word morality here, I mean it in a political context - political morality. And thus political morality is that which contributes to a more fit society and more fit human species. Political morality should be the foundation for moral law. I'm very Spencerian in this regard.

      >> If it was the dissemination of ideas which caused the "Medieval Renaissance," what reasons did the Italians give for creating their system of intellectual property which seems to go against the dissemination of ideas?

      This is a common fallacy cited by aIPers. That IP inhibits the distribution of information. It's just the opposite. Guilds jealously protected their methods because doing so gave them a competitive advantage. Keeping secrets is the opposite of openness. By protecting methods by statute as IP, the guilds could then feel secure that their competitive advantage would be sustained for the life of the patent. The patent is only available to them if they publish their methods so the knowledge ends up in the public domain as a product of the patent process. Right now you can Google any patent on file in the United States. That means all the methods, processes and means used for most industries are there for the learning. This would not be the case in the absence of a patent system.

      A positive consequence of the patent system then is that competitors will learn of the methods too (just not be able to profit directly from them). So knowledge is gets transferred freely through the patent system. There is no reason that competitors can't then improve on the original patent with their own derivative method. Patents encourage distribution of knowledge that would otherwise be guarded as guild or trade secrets.

      >> What did they do similar to patents and copyrights?

      I'm not a scholar on the subject and don't feel confident to answer.

      I'm not sure that they did but whatever the customary practices were, the Italian governments didn't consider they were effective. Of course, the patent system could have been corrupt and Machiavellian but I have no evidence that it was. My understanding is that the aristocrats wanted to attract the best artisans and tradesmen to their country because they thought doing so would add to their prestige and wealth.

      Delete
    11. @L Perkins

      Many lawmakers may have reducing conflict as motive, but there are other ways.

      Communal or state owned property also reduces conflict; however, such property does not result in the enormous wealth produced by private property rights in physical property. Personal freedom is another result of such private physical property, and for me, trumps most other things & happily leads to maximizing the wealth of the nation.

      IP restricts freedom, yet, such restriction can enhance national wealth, so where that results, it is a time-limited freedom reduction worth tolerating.

      IP is provided “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Not to reduce conflict. The “limited times” does not apply to physical property. IP is clearly for us citizens to get more & better stuff, and is its only justification. If IP is implemented so that our economy is harmed, it should be adjusted or abandoned as a failure.

      I don't share Plv's contention that the injustice, unfairness, ... equate in measure to physical property and except in a few cases I think folks would not be as upset for a neighbor copying their poem as steeling their car. Lawyers spend many hours devising intellectual “tricks” which if protected would earn them much more. Writers write, singers sing, programmers code and all would continue w/o protection; but, protection can yield more & better stuff. JK Rowling might well write anyway, but with such income she can devote her life to it rather than being for personal pleasure. Einstein toiled on non-protected discoveries to great world benefit. Many spend great efforts producing intellectual stuff without “possessing the fruits” of such labor. I do not doubt the sincerity of Plv as he might well shoot you for steeling a song he wrote quicker than were you breaking into his house.

      Delete
    12. @Plenarchist libere vivimus

      That reply, along with the one from tex seems to solidify what I was starting to understand. Thank you.

      @ Everyone

      Ironically, Tom Woods did a show yesterday (which I found through this website and listened to today) on intellectual property with Stephan Kinsella, who pointed out a starting place for the English historical arguments. I suppose I will have to keep looking for primary sources outside the English tradition, but perhaps I have a start on the Albion origins at least.

      Thank you all for taking time to answer my questions. It seems rather complicated to my befuddled brain, but I think I am understanding now. To summarize the answers I have gotten, it seems whether one accepts intellectual property as a legitimate concept stems from one's view of morality.

      Intellectual property does not fit with Libertarianism's non-aggression principle because it increases conflict in the society, which necessarily means more people initiating force. Also, it seems no one historically argued intellectual property to be a "property" right until considerably after Locke with his labor theory of property filtered through Marx's labor theory of value. Prior to Locke, intellectual property was defended (in Italy, and the US, I still do not know the Greek's reason) from a public good stand point, which of course is not a valid argument for Libertarians. Therefore, Libertarians would be against intellectual property because it necessarily leads to aggression and was historically created for public policy reasons rather than a teleological rationale of property (which developed later to justify the new tradition).

      For the various forms of utilitarianism, the question is whether the whole society is made better off, which is the quintessential public policy rationale which brought about intellectual property rights initially. If, empirically, the society is made better off by aggression against a segment of the society, then of course such aggression is justified. Thus intellectual property rights being aggression against people is not a sufficient argument against intellectual property; rather, the aggression would have to cause more damage to the society than the benefit from the increase in technology.

      No wonder there is such disagreement over this concept when both sides have a fundamentally different moral starting point. How can such a dispute ever be reconciled?

      Thank you all for helping me try to understand this concept and debate. At this point, my remaining questions are "which is better, greater good or non-aggression?", "what reasons did the Greeks give for intellectual property?", and "what studies have been done on whether intellectual property provides a net benefit to society?"

      I realize one of these questions is grandiose, one extremely specifically historical, and one very complex, so perhaps, though I am loathed to conclude such a profitable conversation, we have reached the end of my pestering.

      Thank you again for taking the time answering my questions.

      Delete
    13. @ Luke Perkins

      >> you are saying intellectual property exists merely as a construct which, if followed, makes society a better place because the benefits outweigh the costs.

      That's fine. Also applies to all forms of property including exclusive use right to your person (ie property in your person). Humans are naturally happier having control over our mind and body and the products of our labor. Slaves don't make for particularly happy people. Having property in something (as opposed to just possessing it) means having control over its use.

      >> it would be morally correct for a society to hold intellectual property rights even though they lead to more conflict provided the net result is superior.

      By superior, I can accept that people are happier overall.

      >> Would this position make the case for or against intellectual property an empirical one alone?

      Don’t agree because the scientific method cannot be applied to human society. If one could create a "control" society that is in every way the same as the test society except for IP, then I suppose it could be the subject of science.

      Boils down to whether the citizens choose to adopt IP or not or if it is imposed upon them or not.

      >> Recognizing you said you more identify with the social consequentialists, and therefore not obliged to answer for other people's beliefs, how does this position relate to the non-aggression principle libertarians espouse?

      It does by the logical deduction that conflict reduces social fitness. Taken to an extreme, conflict will destroy the society even the human species. Happy people are fit people and conflict causes suffering.

      >> I am still somewhat confused about Locke. If he was replying to a king's claim, was Locke creating a new sense of property rights, or arguing against a king's usurpation of rights historically understood but not generally articulated?

      I would say more against a king's usurpation. From Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government, "... our great restorer, our present King William; to make good his title, in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful governments, he has more fully and clearly, than any prince in Christendom; and to justify to the world the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very brink of slavery and ruin."

      >> but Locke's labor theory of property seems remarkably close to Marx's labor theory of value.

      I don't see a connection between them. LTV is economic and LTP is natural rights. LTV says that value is created by the amount of labor required to produce a thing while LTP says that if one labors to produce a thing, that thing then belongs to him. LTV doesn't speak to ownership AFAIK and LTP doesn't speak to economics.

      >> One more question about ancient intellectual property, what did the Greeks do to protect Homer and his Iliad from being copied?

      I don't think they did. All I've read is that they had a limited form of patenting (for food delicacies??) but know of no copyrights.

      >> With Florence and Venice, those make sense for reasons. What would be good primary sources for what they were thinking at the time?

      Unfortunately, I've lost my original source link. The Wikipedia article on history of patent law seems okay but doesn't go into why Venice adopted their patent system. But the system did evolve apparently from the private rules the guilds used to share their trade secrets. It seems the government wanted to perhaps standardize the practice perhaps. I'm sure an aIPer argument would be that the state co-opted private associations and maybe they did but not relevant to the discussion. If anything the fact private parties developed their own private patent system suggests that it would have emerged even without the state.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#Development_of_the_modern_patent_system

      Delete
    14. @tex

      Have you ever produced commerical-grade IP yourself? Do you understand that doing so is not a leisure activity and requires much hard work and much sacrifice?

      Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books because she wanted to earn a living writing and get off welfare. Would that be possible without copyright? I don't think so.

      Einstein could not have gotten a patent for his theories because they don't meet the standard for a patent ie it must describe a device or machine.

      Would Edison have developed the light bulb without absent the patent system? As I noted above Herbert Spencer invented an invalid bed for poor people to use at home which he wanted to give away. He couldn't find a manufacturer because he hadn't patented it...

      >> I do not doubt the sincerity of Plv as he might well shoot you for steeling a song he wrote quicker than were you breaking into his house.

      No. Use of lethal force should be limited to self-defense in response to a threat of lethal force. IP is a civil matter that warrants civil remedy (ie compensatory damages).

      Delete
    15. @Plv

      Mathematician & EE. Mostly developing commercial SW incl banking SW for IBM360 as a service for 17 banks. I also developed a multitasking sys on PC/XT/DOS substitute for a $40K Diebold ATM controller. My design was much better & I received the $40K. IBM was HW oriented caring little about SW (e.g. Microsoft), but loved my stuff & offered to sell my software world-wide in order to sell banks the hardware. The deal included giving me $100,000s of IBM bank HW to demo in a rich bank-looking office. Deal fell through b/c my guys were in the 360/370 DOS/VSE division & AS400 guys won for smaller mainframes so my contract died. All SW CR, no patents. The Fed eventually ended my service bureau quietly telling banks they did not want a small private guy doing bank processing. I did sell some bank SW but DOS/VS was on the way out, recession et al ended that.

      With my 360, I designed a channel controller for foreign devices & looked at patents. An IEEE mag advised a min expectation of $4M profit to consider a patent b/c to defend it would likely take years & $1M to prevail.

      Since, I develop 1-of for Win or Web mostly heavily math & eng oriented. A customer was hit by a P-Troll for a few $K, but the wealthy owner said shove it & they disappeared.

      With univ prof friends I have some highly math stuff with potential of world-wide packaged SW. I discussed it w/ a VC friend (owns a jet) & he suggested I try to make a deal w/ a big rich co in the field with a patent portfolio. He told me about 1 he funded where IBM brought a stack of patents to conf saying make a deal or they had plenty more. They made a deal.

      The IP/legal sys is so bad I told my son to skip STEM or business & become a lawyer. He graduated near top at a top law school & is starting w/ higher pay than a SrEng & a $20k raise nxt yr if he stays. Sad really. I read econ stuff & start-ups have been slowing for yrs & now more business are closing than starting. Apple recently crushed a newbie.

      Delete
    16. @ tex

      I'm not going to defend the current IP laws. I'm in favor of IP in principle but believe in radically different system. I'm an engineer and have obtained a patent. Without the patent, I would never have received anything - my work would have been stolen so I know first hand I wouldn't have invested the time and money to develop the idea.

      Patent trolls take advantage of a disfunctional justice system IMO. They know that the cost of litigating is so high and seemingly without negative consequences. They use our (in)justice system as a mean to extort.

      In ancient Athens, the accuser of a crime acted as the prosecutor and had to receive at least 20% of jury votes or be heavily fined. Patent trolls might not exist is they were punished for making frivolous claims...

      Just saying that IP in principle should not be judged by the current IP legal system.

      Delete
    17. @Plv

      OK, agreed. Skip existing IP law and go to fundamentals: Your defense of IP seems based upon hard work, sacrifice & rights to the “fruits of ones labor.” Kinda: I worked hard, its all mine and gov, protect me to maximize my wealth cuz of it.

      Yet you accept Einstein's lack of the right to his hard work & sacrifice, because . . . because why? If the principle is hard work, sacrifice, & fruits of ones labor why should physics, math, law not be covered? It is just arbitrary law that could be written to include all hard work.

      Why do you depreciate some hard work? Don't tell me it's the law! We are talking about what the law should say and justifying or not what it does say.

      I know many bright guys, “weird” prof types who ignore pay checks & are compelled to work. As we discussed math at his home, my thesis adviser's wife quietly walked around us, putting his wallet & keys in his pocket & pulling up his pants leg to see if he had socks & they matched. You cannot know what drove Edison. My wife is a bit annoyed with me and my education frequently asking what good it is since I am not rich, but I must produce if only for my gratification – frequently adding more than contracted for because I have to, I can't help it. My SW generally has few errors partly b/c I am compelled to keep looking at routines and compelled to make them simpler, mathematically prettier.

      My IP justification is economic benefit to us all when, and only when it provides same, and it can if done correctly. It gets to the foundation, the reason, and I do not believe it justified to base it upon gov granting privilege and restraints. My justification is more like Adam Smith's: “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.” So, the producer is attended to only so the rest of us can have more & better stuff.

      Delete
    18. @ tex

      >> Yet you accept Einstein's lack of the right to his hard work & sacrifice, because . . . because why?

      I'm not necessarily against scientific discovery as IP. Haven't really considered the possibility. Current patent law though as I understand it doesn't allow for it. Patent law is generally limited to machines and processes - things that perform some function.

      Maybe this is an area where IP should be extended. Might result in much more private investment of theoretical science.

      >> You cannot know what drove Edison.

      True. I can only speculate. However if not for the patent system I think it's very unlikely he would have found the capital to fund his work and facilities no matter how much or why he might have been motivated.

      >> but I must produce if only for my gratification

      Me too but then not every creative effort is motivated by money and obtaining a patent is voluntary. As I noted before Herbert Spencer wanted to give his invalid bed invention away to the poor (being the cold-hearted "social Darwinist" that he was :P) but as he wrote in his autobiography no manufacturer would make it because he chose not to get a patent. He mistakenly thought he would make his invention more available to the poor by not patenting it.

      >> My IP justification is economic benefit to us all when, and only when it provides same, and it can if done correctly.

      And I agree though I envision IP being completely voluntary one day. Until then, I do consider IP a greater good so long as the government does not abuse it (which it is wont to do).

      Delete
    19. @Plv

      Now then, sticking to basics, let us dispel any gov granted special privilege based upon hard work, sacrifice, etc.

      Value is what consumers will pay independent of dev effort or production cost. Me working a lifetime to make a better razor would be trivial compared to your having some 5min stroke of genius to invent a cup sized, totally safe atomic generator able to power whole houses and buildings. Independent of cost & effort your 5min would be worth over $1TRILLION and many $T world-wide.

      The “feeling” of entitlement for hard work, sacrifice, investment, etc, leads us down a bad road. It is such that M Obama wants gov to provide “just” compensation for her hard work & time spent in college to discover there was no market for her talent. She wants gov to compensate all who work hard in college when there are no good jobs for such skills. It just seems fair to her and many others. The same applies to licensing where a recent “pillow thrower” school graduate appealed to FL's congress about the hard work, time & expense of her education & they MUST, therefore, grant gov license only to such graduates else competition would deprive her a decent living & she may not be able to repay her student loan (M Obama's concern too).

      We don't want someone to go into his back yard and dig & fill day after day & finally hold his hand out to us because of his working extremely hard in blazing sun, freezing cold, wind, rain, snow & ice for months to lay claim upon our assets, right?

      The entitlement concept is NUTS & causes our nation to be poorer even though some few w/ license benefit by extracting more from the rest of us.

      Can we agree that hard work, sacrifice, investment should not be part of any gov privilege decision, and any such grants should be based upon other considerations?

      Delete
    20. Re: Luke Perkins,
      >> I am afraid I don't follow when you say we have property rights because we are moral people.<<

      It means we recognize that those things possessed by others are not ours and that taking what is not ours is evil and immoral. Property rights stem from the realization that we do not own other people's minds or bodies and, by extension, their things. Rights are entirely rational conclusions about the nature of our existence as rational, acting beings.

      >> Perhaps it is my own silliness, but the creation account from the Bible would seem to be one example of a moral man who has no conception of property.<<

      Adam was not a moral actor. Remember that Adam was completely innocent, meaning completely ignorant.

      >> Property rights only exist in relation to other people, but morality exists even with a single individual.<<

      No. Moral codes exist precisely because we're not alone.

      >> If it was the dissemination of ideas which caused the "Medieval Renaissance," what reasons did the Italians give for creating their system of intellectual property which seems to go against the dissemination of ideas? <<

      What other reason would assholes give to impose barriers to entry to competitors?

      >> How do the trade guilds relate to the idea of intellectual property? What did they do similar to patents and copyrights? <<

      They kept their knowledge closely guarded within a small group of members. Unfortunately, the fact that cheap printing made dissemination of knowledge faster and cheaper, made the guild system much more difficult to keep. So Patents were created as an alternative. It wasn't difficult for artisans and inventors to convince the local princes to impose these legal monopolies on their work. Mr. Plenarchist libere vivimus thinks that this is what sparked the Renaissance, but he does not realize that the Renaissance was well in place before patents, when the rich princes and lords wanted to show off their wealth in a different way than the odious "Gothic" princes and kings of the North.

      Delete
    21. @tex

      >> Can we agree that hard work, sacrifice, investment should not be part of any gov privilege decision, and any such grants should be based upon other considerations?

      If you are saying that IP is granted privilege independent of value, that's not true. Even though IP is a monopoly (no different than the gov granted monopoly people enjoy owning land, car, even their body), then the value of the IP is still market-driven.

      Just because the IP holder *wants* a $1T for his 5min invention, doesn't mean he can get it. No one is forced to purchase the product of his IP. IP simply means that the one who invents is the one who controls. In principle, no different than the Lockean homesteading sense that the one who converts wild land to usable land owns the land. IP simply extends that principle to the realm of mental labor...

      Delete
    22. @Plv

      “IP is granted privilege independent of value” IS TRUE to the best of my knowledge, e.g. a copyright should be given/honored or not based upon common rules without regard to the document being a 3 page boring epistle or a 300 page block buster novel likely to be turned into a movie. The right to the privilege is independent of the value of the object.

      I've no concern with the developer's wants and the value as you note is market driven.

      But neither relates to what I'm trying to achieve. You and many others discuss the right to gov granted privilege based upon “fairness for the level of work done,” e.g. “Do you understand that doing so is not a leisure activity and requires much hard work and much sacrifice?” I assert that is immaterial whether or not gov should make the developer special. If we (gov, our rulers, etc) decide that “FOO-thing” complies with our requirements for, say, a patent, we totally ignore the effort our applicant has expended to invent/develop it. I hope there is nowhere on a patent application to put how hard, time consuming or expensive development was, as it should not matter. And it should not matter to you & I if tasked with writing IP law.

      You raised a separate issue equating land property to IP. They are different. IP is specifically addressed in a separate way from land with “time limits” & purpose (to further our knowledge). Physical property rights have notions of exclusive and quiet use of something physical that no others can simultaneously enjoy. Such notions make no sense in IP.

      But physical or intangible, blood, sweat & tears should have no influence on whether gov grants privilege over it. Whether you've worked 30yrs to buy the land or won it on flip of a coin, is immaterial. Whether you've worked 30yrs to develop IP-thing or thought of it in a flash, is immaterial.

      Delete
    23. @tex

      >> I've no concern with the developer's wants...

      Then you reject the whole basis of Lockean property rights that libertarianism is in large part based on. IP is an "ought" question. I believe it is morally right that the person who produces something be entitled to control it and that in a civilized society that right is recognized and enforced.

      IP is not a positive right because it does not obligate third parties to do anything other than not take the postive action of distributing the IP without permission (ie not to "trespass" on the IP of others). And that having IP benefits society by encouraging personal industry in creative works.

      You reject these arguments for the sake of claiming your right to take the fruits of other people's labor away from them. On this we will have AGTD.

      >> But neither relates to what I'm trying to achieve. You and many others discuss the right to gov granted privilege based upon “fairness for the level of work done,”...

      Lockean homesteading principle in its purest sense.

      >> I assert that is immaterial...

      And I don't. AGTD.

      >> whether or not gov should make the developer special.

      As it does over your claim on land you own. A monopoly the government enforces.

      >> I hope there is nowhere on a patent application to put how hard, time consuming or expensive development was, as it should not matter.

      There isn't because it doesn't matter to the law but is implied. If IP production was a trivial matter, there'd be no need for IP laws... The proof of the significance of effort is in the fact that IP protections exist.

      >> You raised a separate issue equating land property to IP. They are different.

      *sigh* Yes, they are different but they are also the same. Just as land is a different type of property than a car or, as was once the case, a slave. When slavery was legal, slaves were treated as property. Is a human the same as land?

      >> Physical property rights have notions of exclusive and quiet use of something physical that no others can simultaneously enjoy. Such notions make no sense in IP.

      So what? As I've stated multiple times on this thread, property can be defined ANY WAY society chooses. IP is different than physical property. Not relevant to the question whether IP SHOULD be property... it obviously CAN be given its called "intellectual PROPERTY"... You are arbitrarily redefining it away.

      >> But physical or intangible, blood, sweat & tears should have no influence on whether gov grants privilege over it.

      It does according to Locke and every libertarian philosopher who followed. Property rights are based on labor mixed with resources. Locke also didn't mention how much labor...

      >> Whether you've worked 30yrs to buy the land or won it on flip of a coin, is immaterial. Whether you've worked 30yrs to develop IP-thing or thought of it in a flash, is immaterial.

      Just like we benefit from private ownership of land from farming for instance, we benefit from the private ownership of creative works. Marxian denial of private land ownership has the inescapable result of greatly reduced farm production and subsequent starvation. Marxian denial of private intellectual property will have the inescapable result of greatly reducing mental production and the subsequent dearth of creative works and new inventions. I prefer to live in the richer society that recognizes right of IP.

      Delete
    24. @tex

      Sorry, I meant ATD (agree to disagree) not AGTD... too fast with my typing. bleh!

      Delete
    25. You keep us in the false imbroglio of real property & imaginary “property” being the same - physical = intangible. That things which have mass & occupy space are no different than those with neither.

      Those who assert equivalence, I assume including you, recognize a difference in the rules; different legal specialties; advanced degrees as LLM in IP. They know there is a difference, yet refuse to discuss it. The purpose is different as shown in the constitution, yet through contrivance of words assert we can ignore “time limited,” and “physical possession” & “exclusive position of the object” and equate an object which I can hit you in the knee with to some imaginary thing that cannot bruise you. It is so muddled we need a new definition as “property” has become useless because when compounded with “physical” & “intangible” those extremely important adjectives are discarded.

      And I doubt you believe what you say: “. . . it is morally right that the person who produces something be entitled to control it. . .”

      If you did then if I independently developed your patented thing with no knowledge of it whatsoever mine is my work product and I should also be entitled to control mine. Like us having identical houses by accident – you can do whatever with yours just as I could with mine. In this example I have IN NO WAY stolen the fruits of your labor - by accident alone we had the same idea.

      By asserting quirk of time or registration, you will qualify your morality so my work, accidentally duplicating yours, is not worthy & I'm not entitled to the fruits of mine. You probably do not believe a man is certainly entitled to his own work but only by happenstance.

      And you've muddled our discourse as I have tried to concentrate on ONE issue, so we may discard “hard work, sacrifice, etc” as germane – to lessen the muddle. I was remiss responding to the “separate issue.”

      Delete
    26. @tex

      >> If you did then if I independently developed your patented thing with no knowledge of it whatsoever mine is my work product and I should also be entitled to control mine.

      No. One purpose of having the patent system is to make a public record of discovery. Anyone who wishes to patent an idea is required to review prior art. This is a non-issue.

      >> By asserting quirk of time or registration...

      No different than the title you have for land or property of high value to prove you own it. Possession alone does not make property. If you live on an island alone, "property" has no meaning. The word "property" only has meaning in a social context. Like Old Mex, you're just being stubbornly irrational.

      >> you will qualify your morality so my work, accidentally duplicating yours...

      An almost never likely to happen situation. And even if you could prove independent discovery (as RW supports), IP law could be tailored to allow for that. Such a situation doesn't by itself invalidate IP in principle.

      >> I was remiss responding to the “separate issue.”

      Not sure what that means but no matter. This convo like all convos with aIPers is going nowhere. It's shocking to me the length aIPers will go to torture plain logic to justify their Marxism-of-the-mind yet they still call themselves anarcho-capitalists and libertarians. Just staggering to me.

      Delete
  8. @ Luke Perkins

    >> At this point, my remaining questions are "which is better, greater good or non-aggression?", "what reasons did the Greeks give for intellectual property?", and "what studies have been done on whether intellectual property provides a net benefit to society?"

    I don't see IP enforcement as a violation of the NAP per se anymore than initiating force to remove a trespasser or to remedy a fraud. The first act of "aggression" is the person copying and distributing the IP. That is the trespass.

    But I view the NAP much more narrowly than most libertarians seem to because IMO it doesn't apply to non-violent wrongs such as fraud, trespass and breach of contract. Nor does the NAP distinguish between civil and criminal acts of aggression.

    There's no way IMO to do an honest study on the benefit of IP because of lack of knowledge, complexity, etc. Any such study is just as likely to reflect the biases of the researcher and not be factual. There's also no way to separate the affect of IP from all other societal influences. Logic and deduction should be good enough and then pIPers and aIPers go their separate ways - like different countries - if it matters that much.

    @tex

    One correction to my previous post. I posted, "IP is a civil matter that warrants civil remedy (ie compensatory damages)."

    That's not what I believe. I think any deliberate act of deliberate trespass (including IP via unauthorized copying) should be considered a crime and not just a civil matter. A crime IMO is harm caused with intent (mens rea).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus,

      >>I don't see IP enforcement as a violation of the NAP <<

      It IS a violation of the NAP the moment you try to enforce it on someone else's property. You can obfuscate all you want, it changes nothing.

      Delete
    2. @ Old Mex

      >> It IS a violation of the NAP the moment you try to enforce it on someone else's property. You can obfuscate all you want, it changes nothing.

      Except that the IP isn't their property... The IP is as much the property of the person who created it as your car, house and land is your property.

      You can own the pieces of paper of the book but not the words. You can own the plastic CD but not the song. You can own the plastic DVD but not the movie. Get over it. You didn't create these properties and you possess them by the will of the creator. No different than letting someone borrow your car. Once that person gets behind the wheel the car doesn't magically become theirs.

      Delete