|
|
#161
03-09-2007, 12:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Copyrights and patents
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The product of innovative labor, i.e. the resulting novelty, is private property. [/ QUOTE ] The actual thing, yes. The idea of that thing, no, because it is not scarce. By definition. [/ QUOTE ] Innovative labor produces the added value of innovation. [/ QUOTE ] I've already agreed that labor is scarce. That doesn't mean the concept of what that labor produces is scarce. Because the concept can be infinitely shared without reducing the ability to use the concept. Which, by definition, means that the concept cannot be economically scarce. [/ QUOTE ] While it is true that the results of the labor of innovation can be shared without reducing their USE, their VALUE to the laborer is most certainly diminished when anyone can adopt them. 
|
|
#162
03-09-2007, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] More confusion over value vs scarcity. No one here is arguing that ideas can't be valuable. We're arguing that they are not economically scarce. [/ QUOTE ] Obv. an unused or unactualized idea has no value exept to the thinker. The act of rendering the idea in a book, painting, computer program, or even a speach turns the idea into a tangible thing. [/ QUOTE ] That tangible thing is your property, the idea you used to make it is just an idea and not subject to the concept of property by virtue of its non-scarcity. If you sell the tangible item to me without me agreeing to specific terms first, then it's my property, and as such I can copy it, reverse-engineer it, throw it in the trash, give it to pvn for free, or whatever I want.
|
|
#163
03-09-2007, 12:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The product of innovative labor, i.e. the resulting novelty, is private property. [/ QUOTE ] The actual thing, yes. The idea of that thing, no, because it is not scarce. By definition. [/ QUOTE ] Innovative labor produces the added value of innovation. [/ QUOTE ] I've already agreed that labor is scarce. That doesn't mean the concept of what that labor produces is scarce. Because the concept can be infinitely shared without reducing the ability to use the concept. Which, by definition, means that the concept cannot be economically scarce. [/ QUOTE ] While it is true that the results of the labor of innovation can be shared without reducing their USE, their VALUE to the laborer is most certainly diminished when anyone can adopt them. [/ QUOTE ] Red herring. We're talking about scarcity, not some individual's subjective valuation. If something can be used by many people at the same time, it cannot be scarce, by definition. I'm going to keep saying that till you get it. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#164
03-09-2007, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The product of innovative labor, i.e. the resulting novelty, is private property. [/ QUOTE ] The actual thing, yes. The idea of that thing, no, because it is not scarce. By definition. [/ QUOTE ] Innovative labor produces the added value of innovation. [/ QUOTE ] I've already agreed that labor is scarce. That doesn't mean the concept of what that labor produces is scarce. Because the concept can be infinitely shared without reducing the ability to use the concept. Which, by definition, means that the concept cannot be economically scarce. [/ QUOTE ] While it is true that the results of the labor of innovation can be shared without reducing their USE, their VALUE to the laborer is most certainly diminished when anyone can adopt them. [/ QUOTE ] And crops are worth more to farmers when subsidies and price supports are in place. So what? I prefer to subsidize neither Pacific Ethanol nor Pfizer. I think we can all agree that patents increase value for the patentholder arbitrarily. What you haven't shown is why an inventor is entitled to X value instead of Y<X.
|
|
#165
03-09-2007, 12:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
[ QUOTE ]
Red herring. We're talking about scarcity, not some individual's subjective valuation. If something can be used by many people at the same time, it cannot be scarce, by definition. I'm going to keep saying that till you get it. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Instead of endlessly arguing semantics we should be discussing the heart of the IP matter. It is my position that property rights as they apply to normal, physical property, do not apply to ideas, and the reason is non-(economic) scarcity. Specifically, if I steal your property, you have been wronged, you have less than you had before I stole it (because it is scarce). If I "steal" your idea you still have the idea every bit as much as you did before, and therefore have not been wronged. It is not worth as much to you as it would be if you had an artificial and arbitrary monopoly on the use of the idea, but the onus is on you (patent defenders) to demonstrate that inventors are entitled to such a monopoly in order to show that you are wronged when someone copies your idea.
|
|
#166
03-09-2007, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
MB got the 100 post ramble he wanted after all. The whole thing is becoming wildly circular, so maybe if a statist comes out and says this, we'll reach a conclusion?
Ideas aren't scarce. Labor is scarce. Despite that labor produces ideas, if property must be defined as non-scarce things then ideas certainly aren't property. Anyone trying to convince the ACists otherwise simply isn't right. That doesn't mean your definition of property (in a state) must be "non-scarce things".
|
|
#168
03-09-2007, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
I posted first, it was my idea, your post is infriging on my IP. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#169
03-09-2007, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The product of innovative labor, i.e. the resulting novelty, is private property. [/ QUOTE ] The actual thing, yes. The idea of that thing, no, because it is not scarce. By definition. [/ QUOTE ] Innovative labor produces the added value of innovation. [/ QUOTE ] I've already agreed that labor is scarce. That doesn't mean the concept of what that labor produces is scarce. Because the concept can be infinitely shared without reducing the ability to use the concept. Which, by definition, means that the concept cannot be economically scarce. [/ QUOTE ] While it is true that the results of the labor of innovation can be shared without reducing their USE, their VALUE to the laborer is most certainly diminished when anyone can adopt them. [/ QUOTE ] Red herring. We're talking about scarcity, not some individual's subjective valuation. If something can be used by many people at the same time, it cannot be scarce, by definition. I'm going to keep saying that till you get it. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Me too, though with a slight clarification: While it is true that the results of the labor of innovation can be shared without reducing their USE, their MARKET VALUE to the laborer is diminished when the anyone can adopt them.
|
|
#170
03-09-2007, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Copyrights and patents
[ QUOTE ]
Me too, though with a slight clarification: While it is true that the results of the labor of innovation can be shared without reducing their USE, their MARKET VALUE to the laborer is diminished when the anyone can adopt them. [/ QUOTE ] The market value of my Ford stock was diminished when Honda entered the market. So what? Respond to my last 3 posts before this one please, they have a little substance.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
