What about all the ideas steve jobs and others stole from xerox ?
Now again, i’m not arguing for the current patent/copyright system. It’s obviously flawed, as the presentation LS pointed to showed (searched for and found it, thanks). But industrial design and works of art (writings to be published, music, art) should have some form of protection. I know true anarchists would insist that this could only be enforced through force, but thats where a judicial system (or multiple competing judicial systems) should come into play.
Arguing based upon examples that go against my point is a waste of time. Prove to me that I shouldnt have ownership of a book I wrote, or music I created, or a design I created and sell. I don’t play the Plato “you make an argument, i’ll give one minute example that doesnt fit exactly and thereby somehow claim to have proven you wrong” game.
As for Xerox and steve jobs stealing from them, unfortunately I dont know much of the situation. But if, under the current broken system, Jobs stole from Xerox, Xerox could and should have sued and won compensation.
Thanks. Stupid forum messes up internal site links. It’s fixed now.
Another way to waste time is to claim that the ipod should be patentable because you think it is oh so great. I’m still waiting for you to explain how patenting an mp3 player is different from patenting the wheel.
LS, this presentation is an argument against the beaurocracy and complexity of present IP laws. I am not arguing that current IP law is correct, only that IP should be protected. His arguments are attributing the stupidity of the US govt to the idea of IP. There’s a fallacy there, no?
Again, I despise apple, I dont think its oh-so-great. I used an example many people would know. Apple didnt patent an mp3 player. They patented the package of user interface and design of a product made to play music files.
Still waiting for you to leave the specific examples and tell me how, big picture, you stealing my work without compensation is any less theft than a government stealing my money through taxes. Sure, you dont use the threat of force to take my money, the govt does. But you believe that stealing the production of a man’s mind is just?
You just assume that IP is the same thing as physical property. You’re assuming what you need to prove…
Just to be clear : If you can come up with any means to protect your IP which doesn’t involve coercion, by all means do so. However, if in order to protect something you call IP you need to violate physical property rights, then it seems that you’re the violent criminal here, not the IP pirates…
The simplest explanation is the one to use. I assume I own that which I create. Thats easier than saying that I only own physical objects I create, not works of writing or music or any other creations of my mind. You’re assuming that your argument is correct and that I have a burden of proof. Logic claims otherwise. I’m really open to arguments against my position, but thus far you’ve done nothing but make clear that you dont like the ipod. Give me an argument based on logic and reason. LS presented a video, which I responded to. Juan, give me something other than telling me I’m wrong and need to prove otherwise.
You’re insisting that we argue from a false premise. You don’t have the right to exclude other people from using your ideas, because you don’t own other people, to any extent or in any form. If you had that right, then you would necessarily have to own other people’s minds to the extent that they may not act upon an idea that you had first. You would have to own other people’s bodies for the same reason. And you also presume to own an indefinate amount of what other people might or might not spend on the physical manifestation of your idea. If someone wanted to spend their money on a knockoff of your product, then you would exercise effective ownership of that person by preventing him from doing so, and of your competitor by forcing him not to compete with you.
Your ideas only belong to you so long as they remain in your head. Someone else using them is not theft.
And I wonder why you won’t answer specific objections to your premise? If a reductio ad absurdum disproves a concept, then the concept has been disproven. Or otherwise, if a concept is true, then it is always true. There is no difference between the ipod and the wheel, other than the degree of complexity. And if you, accepting that, persist in defending IP, then you surely must know (or at least be able to call on someone who does) at what point a complex idea becomes property, whereas a single unit of complexity (since such things would have to exist) in the other direction makes the idea unownable.
The concept of IP is completely arbitrary; rationally indefensible. But putting rational ethics aside, I am still sure that in the absence of institutions with the power to tax or inflate to fund themselves, IP would wither away entirely. Sure, some people feel like they are entitled to a guaranteed profit from their work. Such people use the government to shut down any competition. That’s why mercantilism lasted so long. But in a free society, those people would not only have to deal inevitably with competition, but also with hundreds of millions of consumers who would not be willing to be forced by patent holders into buying only from them. They would buy from the person who makes it best and cheapest, which would almost certainly not be the patent monopolist. In a free market, people profit from excellence. Not from the accident of having an idea first.
Ah. Through a legal system. You would be punished financially. That is not physical coersion. You steal the income potential from me, the court rewards me the income you stole, and probably an additional amount as punishment for your immoral actions. See, stealing my idea and making money off it IS violating physical property rights, because you’re stealing the income I would have made. If you say that income taken from me before I saw it isnt theft, then you’re refuting your own argument about taxation…
The idea that you have any right to potential income is a ridiculous concept. If you own a used car lot and somebody opens another one across the street, by your reasoning they are stealing. What nonsense. Consumers own your potential income, and they alone have the right to decide how to use it. Not you. You don’t own other people.
Thank you MacFall for finally addressing my questions. And there is merit to the argument, for sure. But this falls back to my original post, not protecting peoples rights to their creations will destroy a free market. Companies will develope to do nothing but rip off peoples products and produce them for less because they haven’t the burden of R&D. How is this rewarding excellence?
I know I can’t make the argument that this will stifle innovation, because the situation has never happened, so how could anyone know? But still, would you spend time writing a book if you knew you would never earn a penny for it? Maybe. But would it be your career? How would sacrificing my hypothetical great invention to the alter of government be any different than sacrificing it to the alter of anarchism as you’re demanding I do? If truly this were how an anarchistic society would work, who would do business there? Where is the sustainability? I would much rather live under a limited government that protected my and everyone else’s rights to the product of their minds. But this is probably just our different viewpoints on government. I’m not a true anarchist, so the base of both our arguments don’t align, and probably never will.
Anyway, the reason I’m rejecting the reductio ad absurdum arguments is because they’re all based upon US patent law, which I fully disagree with. It’s akin to people saying a free market wont work because in the US its not working. They assume incorrectly that the US is a free market. Juan is assuming incorrectly that the US patent laws are what I’m basing my argument around. I dont know what the laws should be, I’m just saying that we own the products of our mind, just as the products of our hands.
So, your court would tell ‘pirates’ to either pay up or go to jail ? That sounds like coercion and robbery to me.
As a side note, do you know that the patent system is a left-over from the old conservative system of legal monopoly ? Patents were privileges granted by the king…
No, i don’t see that - I’m not using violence against you, nor taking anything from you that you physically own.
No, if they open one and sell my cars without my consent, they’re stealing from me. But again, arguments using physical property dont equate to IP. I’m making this argument mostly upon copyright law. So selling books across the street isnt a problem. Selling the book I wrote without my consent, is.
This court would be no different than the arbiters that every anarchist on the board say will be in their society to settle disputes. Without both parties consenting to these arbiters, whats to stop people from doing whatever they feel like in such a society?
This goes back to me beleiving in a limited government a la Rand rather than a true anarchistic society.
A government which uses violence against non-violent people is not a “limited government a la Rand” – and regarding potential income as actual physical property is a sophism.
I never called for violence. I called for a court system to determine legal ownership. But forget it, neither of us will ever be swayed in our opinions. But the logical end result of the society you’re representing is that business will die. Not I, nor any other businessman who wants to sell their products, will ever try and exist within your society. It would rob us of our minds, which you’re claming are not our property. If, as you claim, the ideas are only ours so long as they never leave our heads, then screw your society, the idea will never leave my head. You’ve trampled innovation and business just as much, if not more so, than any government in the world today has. I see your argument and understand where you’re coming from, I simply disagree. I propose we end this thread before it deteriorates past the good conversation we’ve had to this point.
I suggest you take a look at the history of the transistor, the integrated circuit, silicon valley and the microelectronics industry - you may learn some facts that contradict your theory.