ok, so the reason that you made false statements was that you were lazy. and the effort you then took to not concede the point was because you arent lazy. i get it.
hopefully, you will stop favouring the kind of nonsense that passes for the wikipedia encyclopedia entry. i qoute :
Intellectual property (IP) are legalproperty rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.<<
obviously outrageous, you and i could both of us never agree to this ? could we?
I don’t have time to write much, but, I claim ownership over ideas that spring into my head (the thoughts, memories, ideas, etc.), meaning I own them (the specific bit of information). Just as you can claim ownership of the specific thoughts in your head. From this we get the concept of an inventors copyright, that grants the first thinker the right to decide how the information (through a buyers contract) is propagated as well as how the information is used in action. So, in response to your earlier question, I believe there is no problem with the word combination “Intellectual Property”, since I believe that I own my self, and then homesteaded those ideas. Just like I can go outside, fill a bottle with air, and claim ownership over that division of air.
So, once again, if anyone outside of this buyer contract (inventors copyright) creates, within his own intellect, the same concept or idea, then he is free to do with that idea whatever he wants (since he owns the idea within his own self).
Which is why I can contract certain things relating to the divulgence said information. Now, of course, i still own the individual idea in my head - but say I go tell you my idea without contract, you now have full ownership of the idea in your head - but if I do contract you, then you have conditional ownership of that information and must abide by the contract.
The calcualtion argument, follows directly from the economic conditions of relative pricing. I do not think you understood it well enough to truly disagree (but I may be wrong), since it is purely causality related and not based on any theory of rights or legal framework.
when you first raised your misesian calculation argument you framed it as an analysis of a situation involving Complementary Goods. I think for the argument to have force, the good cant be a good in the wide sense, but only in the economic sense. it must be a property. as such Complementary Goods analysis must fail as it tries to shoe horn a not-property into a property
No, I still own the information in my head… you just now own the information in your head plus the information I divulged (assuming you were not subject to a contract limiting how you can act with that information, then you would posess conditional ownership of the information).
No, the complementary good argument was completely different than the economic calculation argument, I made that clear in another post. The problem with the way you are seeing the issue is that you see a IP based good only on the market side of the disconnect (as in a price of 0, due to infinite supply), but do not see the other side of the disconnect, where the idea (by definition) must be super scarce and scarce resources must be allocated in order to facillitate development.
Does anyone have anything to say about my definition of property?
This is so ridiculous.
IP is not property. If it’s not property, then it can’t be stolen. If it can’t be stolen, then there is little purpose to contracting to protect it. Oh sure, you can contract, just like you can contract a “money back guarantee” or a “lifetime warranty”. Doesn’t mean it is a good idea (hint: it is not a good idea to make contracts like that).