You have this axiom that only property title transfer contracts can be legally enforced. I disagree with this. This limits the ways in which people can agree with each other. Any contract that was not signed under duress should be legitimate, and thus a contract that creates a new form of property rights, or stipulates any kind of rules or relations between the two parties should be acceptable.
Why?
Because that’s a non aggressive tool, it is a tool based on a consentual agreement, and anything that doesn’t involve aggression should be legitimate.
don’t fall into absolute propertarian trap, dude 
before it’s too late.
you should really listen to Maiku. To be honest I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with trying to make IP “work”, in essence, trying to make something that isn’t property be property and protect it. You already tried this in multiple threads (one of the more involved being here) and every time you were pressed for an actual argument in favor of IP laws you couldn’t even come up with one, even though that was the title of your thread. Now in this thread you’ve simply reanimated the same concept but instead of calling it an “argument in favor of IP” you’ve repackaged it as an “alternative to IP”. Did you really think putting lipstick on a pig was going to fool anyone here?
If you expended this amount of effort on actually producing something, you’d probably be a lot wealthier.
Sorry, but what exactly is an absolute propertarian? I thought it was a person who didn’t believe in abandonment 
Are you having a headache or are you just disagreeing with something from my post?
I call people, who belive that anything that is voluntary should be legitimate and/or that there is only property rights and ethics/morality is completely irrelevant, absolute propertarians. How Brainpolice would say, they reduce everything to property rights.
I definitely do no think that property rights are absolute or anything, yet I do believe anything that is voluntary should be legal. Why would any libertarian think otherwise? Aren’t we against aggression, and aggresion only?
I thought the property reduction was standard in libertarian thinking…
About aggression: Yes, but define aggression Left-libs believe property protection itself is aggression. And even right-libs don’t agree completely on all property matters (though they are generally coherent).
Don’t get me wrong, I also reduce almost everything to property (with few possible exceptions), however I do not reduce contracts to property. For me contract theory is something else entirely. You can sign a contract even if it has nothing to do with property.
maybe among some libertarians that would be the case. Actually mises forum is famous in this line of thinking.
You are generalizing. Surely not all believe in that.
The only way you would be able to protect trade secrets would be with private property laws. With big fences and expensive vaults. If you invent a hammer and start to sell it, you can not expect that no one is going reproduce it. If your invention is advanced like the iphone, not anyone can just go and copy it with the app store and exact same hardware and software etc.
The real market value for an invention comes from its producers ability to make it available or it comes from the inventions availability at a reasonable price. The alternative to IP is an increase in competition. Where innovation is not hindered by registration legislation or licensing and monopoly laws.
When i argue with pro IP proponents i find it interesting that every argument they come with, i seem to able to twist it in to the complete opposite of what they arguing and still convince them that IP holds back innovation.
You are generalizing. Surely not all believe in that.
Yes. But they have a lot looser property than we do here. For example, many don’t believe in rent. Many don’t belive in squatter eviction.
i seem to able to twist it in to the complete opposite of what they arguing and still convince them that IP holds back innovation
There is no natural social order that dictates that we need innovation, so the argument is utilitarian. You can also argue that living in communism holds back innovation, but AnCap allows for the creation of Communist communities.
If your invention is advanced like the iphone, not anyone can just go and copy it with the app store and exact same hardware and software etc.
Technology today doesn’t allow us to do this. In the future we might be able to copy objects in some copy chamber. But I believe IP shouldn’t exist then either. Because you’re not stealing anything. You’re making your own thing.
Non-sequitor. Once you start selling your creation, it is no longer a trade secret.
Yes, that is the point I was trying to make with the hammer example. But for example an Intel chip, not anyone can just reproduce it and start selling it. But a small amount of other companies and limited amount of individuals can reverse engineer it and that happens already with IP laws. So when it comes to easily producible products then there is no expectation that it will not be copied and resold. The competition comes down to the availability of the product at a reasonable price and the production costs associated with making it available. So they might be selling the same product by IP standards, but for one it is better quality at a better price, because of a production advantage for example. But for the intel chip, there is an inherent secrecy to the product that prevents it from being copied easily. I was trying to describe how it would be without IP regarding products being copied.
But the hammer could also have an aspect of secrecy to it, as it could be made out of a new material that other companies would have to try and reverse engineer. Then the producer could keep the ingredients and chemical make up of the material a secret by using private property laws.