Do Patent Rights allow Monopolies in Capitalism?

[Anenome]

@Autolykos

@Anenome

One cannot steal an idea if it is not divulged, this is true.

But, let’s say that an idea is like a tract of land that is unscarce but can only produce a certain amount of money despite its unscarcity, and the more people use it, despite its unscarcity, the more diluted its value becomes.

It is the use of that idea that gets diluted. The producer of an idea would normally have to keep that idea completely secret in order to profit from it.

First off, no one can know in advance how much money an idea can “produce”.

Neither can one know in advance how much money a plot of land can produce.

@Autolykos

Second, I don’t see how anyone is prima facie entitled to any particular amount of money from an idea.

Nor is anyone entitled to any particular amount of money from any piece of property. Neither of these facts negate or affect ownership in any way.

@Autolykos

The same is true for houses. For example, I own a house. And while I’d like to sell it for at least as much as I bought it, 1) there’s no guarantee of that happening, and 2) no one is stealing from me if it doesn’t happen. In other words, what I own is the house itself, not any particular value imputed to it.

But if someone took your house or your land and began draining value from it, let’s say by pumping oil out of the ground, then you would be entitled to restitution.

@Autolykos

Keep in mind that claiming something isn’t the same as homesteading it. Homesteading something requires actually using it in some way. Plowing an area of land is certainly one way to use it. I think fencing off an area of land is also a way to use it.

Sure, but there’s always a time lage between intended use and the completion of that use, and this is where the claim becomes an important facilitator. One could equally claim a patent is fencing off an idea, barring others from its use.

And because ideas are non-scarce and infinitely replicateable, that “fence” cannot therefore exit in perprtuity, for it would be silly to claim someone can own X idea forever.

Of course one can own X idea forever if one simply does not disclose it to others. Thus, the patent encourages disclosure in exchange for a limited monopoly on that idea which expires after a term.

@Autolykos

But yes, homesteading something carries risk. If someone else homesteads something you were planning on homesteading, tough luck. The same goes for all other forms of acquiring ownership. Reality is not obligated to meet one’s expectations.

Except that in real world cases, the “claim” has been used to prevent this undesirable scenario, even though it is only adjunct to the homestead.

@Autolykos

@Anenome

With an idea, like an invention, though ideas are not scarce we make this bargain with people: disclose your invention or idea such that anyone can use it, and in return we’ll give you an exclusive right to use that idea for a set term.

Who do you mean by “we”? I’m certainly not making that bargain with people.

Whatever society chooses to implement patent protection. I assume you are part of some society for the purpose of this argument. It would be only implicit agreement in a non-libertarian society, but certainly explicit in a libertarian one.

@Autolykos

In any event, I think the notion that technology can progress only by leaps and bounds is ridiculous. There are no truly original ideas - everything is a remix. So why are minor remixes bad while major remixes are good?

You would have a hard time making the case that quantum mechanics was “only a remix” of existing ideas.

There’s plenty of new out there, new combinations are in fact new, despite this deconstructive painting of newness. It will probably always be possible to discover a new principle or fact about science and reality which can enable some new invention beneficial to humanity.

New in the context of a product is new in the same way that it will always be possible to write a book that is unlike any other book ever written, despite the fact that you’re only using 26 letters and punctuation.

‘New’ transcends the medium in which that newness originates. If it did not, then it would be impossible to own a book that you have written, because you would sit here telling me that it’s impossible to own letters of the alphabet, and that a book is only a remix of letters.

I would certainly reject that.