What I explained was true even before he died.
Because it is not published, they are not able to use copyright protections. They want people to be able to read it; but they do not want any one to copy it. So they came up with a solution.
It is not convenient; it is just a definition. I do not understand it well enough to give you a good definition; so I suggest that you just look it up.
The contracts.
Where did I do that?
What you separated into “X” and “R”, I put as one variable in my example, in which I described why I did that.
Try to be respectful.
Why should I try to refute what I already agreed was the truth several times?
How is it even possible to not “give [me] that”?
I did not imply that no research was being done. “Less than” does not mean nothing.
It probably is easier to monitor where a producer sells their oil, what they price it at, and what their profits are than it is to figure out the first two things yourself and guess what your profits will be. In the same way, it probably also it easier to monitor what arrangement of marks a producer puts on the books that they sell than it is to figure that out yourself. I am not sayng anything controversial here. If it were just as difficult for the first producer to figure out what the do than the second, economic calculation would not be possible and the price system would not spread any knowledge.
It was an arbitrary separation, along with the one between X and R.
Because you did not try to respond to my example, I will post it again:
Producers, whether of oil or books, need to (a) choose what, where, how, and when to sell their products, which, for books, includes the author choosing what marks to put on the pages, the producer choosing which author to publish, the graphic designer choosing what to make the cover, et cetera, and, for oil, includes where to sell the oil, what to price it at, et cetera, and (b) produce it, which, for books, includes using printing presses, paper, and other materials, and, for oil, includes retrieving it, refining it, and other things. What they ultimately sell is always a finished, physical product of the external world, which, in these examples, happen to be books and oil. Now the first producer, in either case, has to decide all of the first category and has to perform all of the second category. But the second producer, although he has to perform all of the second category, does not have to do all of the second category; for they are able to just copy the practices of the first producer.
Now you may admit that it is not a different of category but it is a difference in degree; that is, you may tell me that you agree with what I am saying but that the cost of the things that the second producer is able to copy from the first is much higher in the case of books in comparison to that of oil. And, if you say that, we will be getting somewhere. For my point is just that the ‘utilitarian’ case for ‘IP’ applies to every single instance in which people are seeking profit; the only possible difference is what the difference is between the cost of the first category that the first producer has to pay and the cost of the first category that the second producer has to pay. It might be the case that, on one hand, deciding what marks to put on the page of a booking, deciding what cover to put, and other things costs a lot more than, on the other hand, deciding where to sell the oil, how to transport it, and the other things.