Killing off the little guy (this time it's internet radio)

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
What you haven't shown is why an inventor is entitled to X value instead of Y<X.

[/ QUOTE ]

A starting point for determining x would be the value the inventor's labor of innovation adds to production.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they won't concede that ideas are scarce, they won't agree that there can't be property rights in ideas. So the semantic debate over what scarcity means is the heart of the issue.

[NeBlis]

It is my position that property rights as they apply to normal, physical property, do in fact apply to ideas, and the reason is value. Utility created by an idea is no less valuable than wheat or oil. When you diminish the value of the idea through uncompensated use this is exactly the same as eating all of PVNs ice cream conicals without permission.

[Skidoo]

Indeed. And "ice cream conicals" is funny (though PVN is still wrong about AC).

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my position that property rights as they apply to normal, physical property, do in fact apply to ideas, and the reason is value. Utility created by an idea is no less valuable than wheat or oil. When you diminish the value of the idea through uncompensated use this is exactly the same as eating all of PVNs ice cream conicals without permission.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're begging the question. This is only true if you assume that the inventor is entitled to a monopoly on the use of his idea. Otherwise how is this different than Honda selling cars int eh US and lowering the value of Ford's business prospects?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted first, it was my idea, your post is infriging on my IP. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Paging John Locke to the thread.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever you're arguing, it is entirely different from what I'm talking about.

If you concede that an idea is not scarce, then there cannot be property rights for an idea. Property rights arise out of a need to deal with possible conflict over scarce resources. No scarcity, no property.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
If you concede that an idea is not scarce, then there cannot be property rights for an idea. Property rights arise out of a need to deal with possible conflict over scarce resources. No scarcity, no property.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one view, but approaching the concept of property from labor theory doesn't have to lead you to that conclusion. I generally don't expect minds to change, but this difference is so fundamental and core to a lot of our values that debating this centuries old question is truly fruitless.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my position that property rights as they apply to normal, physical property, do in fact apply to ideas, and the reason is value. Utility created by an idea is no less valuable than wheat or oil. When you diminish the value of the idea through uncompensated use this is exactly the same as eating all of PVNs ice cream conicals without permission.

[/ QUOTE ]
Property rights arise out of conflicts over scarce resources, not how valuable something is. If you could create more oil simply by thinking it, oil wouldn't be property anymore. This is called abundance, which is the opposite of scarcity.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever you're arguing, it is entirely different from what I'm talking about.

If you concede that an idea is not scarce, then there cannot be property rights for an idea. Property rights arise out of a need to deal with possible conflict over scarce resources. No scarcity, no property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep going back to "ideas are not scarce" rather than addressing my points? I'll say it again. The scarcity lies in the labor that contributes the value added of innovation to production.