How would product differentiation work in an IP-less world?

[Anenome]

@hashem

@ Anenome,

You can give it away infinitely without diminishing your knowledge of that idea.

So you can produce more of the scarce resource, that doesn’t make it not scarce, just less scarce. If one person has an idea, and 6,999,999,999 people don’t, it’s very scarce. If 6,999,999,998 people now have it, it’s still scarce, just to a lesser degree.

I basically agree there. That’s why one can obtain a price for selling transmission of that idea, ie: teaching, etc.

@hashem

But you don’t control an idea

No. You’re making stuff up. You have exclusive control over ideas in your head. You DO control them. You have vast control over them. Others don’t.

I mean in a cosmic sense. If you know an idea, you don’t control that idea in someone else’s head. You may possess an idea but you don’t control it like you might control a piece of property. It would be equally nonsensical to say that because you own some air that you can tell others what to do with their air.

@hashem

books are scarce. But the ideas in them are not because they’re infinitely copyable.

No, books don’t contain ideas, brains do.

Books contain ideas put there by brains. Books are communications separated in time and place from their communicator.

@hashem

Books contain symbols or data that brains may (or may not) process and interpret to form ideas. And no, ideas aren’t “infinitely copyable”, whatever that means. They require brains, and effort, energy, memory, etc etc etc. Nothing is infinite.

If you had infinite brains you could put any idea into each of those brains. So yes, it’s infinitely copyable. Transmission of an idea does not reduce that idea’s ability to be transmitted again. Which is to say ideas are not scarce.

@hashem

In the sense that everything is subjective. Sure.

No, in the sense that I demonstrated what you were saying (about so-called “objective” validity) is wrong.

Anenome: X is a valid business contract.
Hashem: “Valid” on what grounds? Not any objective grounds.
Anenome: Yes, on objective grounds.
Hashem: No, subjective grounds.
Anenome: I don’t think anyone’s claiming there’s such a thing as an objectively valid contract.

I’m sort of confused about why you were disagreeing when you actually agree, but we don’t have to linger on this point any longer.

Again, I assumed a libertarian context. Should have been obvious. You decided to ignore that context and take philosophical exception. If I then agree that looking at the issue from your perspective your statement is correct, doesn’t necessarily mean my unspoken context makes it wrong. It depends on your premises. If we taken libertarian ideals as a premise, it’s a valid contract in the sense that it doesn’t violate libertarian principles. That’s what I was saying, and I’m sure everyone but you read it that way.

@hashem

It doesn’t cease to exist so much as it has now been broken

You mean broken figuratively. LITERALLY, the contract ceases to exist to the extent that it’s been abandoned. A contract is an idea, a concept, within the minds of people. Even if some people still have a drive to enforce their conception of a party regardless of the thoughts of those actually involved, that doesn’t mean the contract therefore still exists.

What is it about the contract you’re saying ceases to exist when it’s been broken? Surely not the means by which that contract was recorded. Nor the provisions of that contract. The agreement the contract signifies has been broken, yes figuratively, but I have no idea what you mean by saying it ceases to exist as a concept or as an agreement.

@hashem

I would disagree that it “ceases to exist”

Then I invoke the spaghetti monster. Prove the contract exists in the first place. It exists WITHIN A MIND, or WITHIN MINDS. It is an idea. When someone abandons it, it ceases to exist to that extent.

Lol, here you going off on silly philosophical tangents again. The way proof of contract has typically been handled on the market is by embodying the contract, usually in written form, then recording that or witnessing it by an impartial third party. If it’s abandoned, that record still exists, so I still have no idea why you’re choosing to use the phrase “ceases to exist” as if both parties suddenly forgot it somehow. A broken agreement does not constitute the cessation of existence of anything meaningful. It constitutes only a failure to perform. The idea of it remains unchanged, broken or not.

@hashem

If you agree to sell me a barrel of fish for $25 and I give you $25 and you break the contract and walk away, the contract doesn’t magically disappear. You’ve now stolen $25.

If you agree to sell me a barrel of fish for $25
I make a promise
I give you $25
You voluntarily transfer property to me with the expectation of a return
you break the contract
You mean that figuratively. What actually happened was I failed to follow through with my promise
and walk away
Then I walk away
the contract doesn’t magically disappear
The contract existed in our minds, I abandoned it, it ceased to exist in my mind
You’ve now stolen $25.
No, YOU GAVE ME $25.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

I see. You have an invalid conception of a contract. A contract is not a promise, it is a mutual title transfer. If I say I agree to transfer to you title to $25 in exchange for title to your barrel of fish, and you agree. Then what’s happened is I put forth an offer, which is a title transfer conditional on acceptance. If you accept, a dual title transfer has happened in that moment. If you decline, that offer ceases to exist or can be said to be off the table. You cannot accept it again later unless it is proposed again by me.

This stuff is handled very cogently in a basic contract 101 course at your local college, and Rothbard goes over it as well iirc in Ethics of Liberty.

Therefore if I make that offer, and you accept, and give you $25 and you refuse to hand over the fish, you have indeed stolen a barrel of fish from me.

[limitgov]

“We’d have to limit it to GPS coords, because there’s nothing stopping anyone from making a new street and giving it the same name and address as the copied company. But GPS coords cannot be fooled.”

Whoaaa…we just went DEEP…yep. I think its nailed down and glued now.

Can you imagine? 10 different companies. All named the same thing. Located in the same city. All located in different parts of the city, but operating on the same street names. All making the exact same product?