you are failing to make an important distinction. between things that can have the label ‘property’ attached to them, and for this to be proper. and between things that cant be called property, (on pain of contradiction)
why dont you want to let go of your pet contradiction?
Just to be clear, you are saying that this contract would not be enforceable? Is that right?
rubbish… i may then leave with my piece of paper, but I am unable to dictate what they can and cannot do with the idea? Max is right to say that you are confusing the issue.
i think this would be fine to go into on another thread, but it doesnt seem to address whether there is sense to the word combination ‘intellectual property’ or not. which has become the hot topic on this thread.
Indeed, which is why I’m not much interested in discussing it right now. Start a new thread. I don’t want to involve a property debate with Max’s indefensible position on IP. I’m not even sure we disagree with each other, which is why I warned you against assuming you knew my argument based on how Max framed it.
Cheers.
Can you contract to control someone’s mind? Can you own their thoughts, even by contract?
What I am saying is that as a practical application only ideas that are shared are relevant to the discussion. For ideas to be shared there has to be a medium of sharing the idea whether this is written or spoken. It is at the moment of sharing the idea that we are discussing. Ideas never shared or manifested in some physical form are not relevant to the discussion. So your distinction is pointless.
you didnt mention the word property in your answer. which makes you appear silly
Gutless, where do you get this stuff from. No one has suggested anything even close.
it has been suggested earlier in this thread, maybe it was Jack who said it, that ‘all things’ could be contracted. that would seem to be wide enough to cover mind control and thoughts etc. So thats probably where he got it from. And i havent yet seen all that mucch that seperates your from Jack on this topic
What they can do with their idea is besides the point. What they can do with their body is the issue. And what they may not do is use their body to convey the idea.
The piece of paper is an economic good, the idea isn’t.
And I apologise.
Whether or not it would be enforcable is besides the point. But no, it shouldn’t be to get back to the issue.
No worries.
If both parties agree to one party thinking only what the other party tells them to think, why can’t they do that? There would still be the burden of proof on the one claiming that the other did not fulfill his role in the contract.
But that is not what I am suggesting in my blueprint example, instead I am talking about contracting the disallowance of taking action based upon knowledge that I will impart as a result of entering into this contract.
ok, but you are shying away from saying wether its IP is a useful concept to have to answer such questions and indeed whether there is any sense to IP at all. because perhaps what you are now thinking about does not concern IP (as it couldnt)
Think of it this way. I can make a forward contract with you telling you that in a year I will purchase good X from you for $25, because that refers to tangible property. I can not, however, tell you that at the specified date you will value the good at that much…
Then we are arguing semantics, I would define IP protection as any measure to limit the supply of of a good subject to the temporal scarcity disconnect.
you would be wrong, bcause you would be using contradictory concepts.
Yes, we can. If you agree to value a good at a certain amount at a certain time, then you must (to the best of your ability) try to meet that obligation. If you do not truly value that item at that price, then you sure as hell not show it, since the burden of proof rests on the one who would claim you did not fulfill your duties you agreed to in the contract.