|
|
#61
04-12-2007, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No...but the ability to have those ideas is scarce. Not everyone can make a breakthrough in quantum physics. Not everyone can write "Hey Jude." Not everyone can envision a new cancer treatment. Just because there is no tangible restriction on resources doesn't mean that there isn't a restriction on the ability for people to produce those ideas. [/ QUOTE ] And even without IP laws, nobody will be able to steal your "ability to have those ideas". That ability is still scarce, and yours alone. [/ QUOTE ] Terrific, as long as I keep them to myself. Unfortunately, if I wanted to, say, get paid for my idea, I'd have to share it with others. However, as soon as I do that, now it's not my idea any more, so how can I demand compensation for it? [/ QUOTE ] That's your problem, not mine. Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation? [/ QUOTE ] Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation for anything you do, either? [/ QUOTE ] I don't. 
|
|
#62
04-12-2007, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No...but the ability to have those ideas is scarce. Not everyone can make a breakthrough in quantum physics. Not everyone can write "Hey Jude." Not everyone can envision a new cancer treatment. Just because there is no tangible restriction on resources doesn't mean that there isn't a restriction on the ability for people to produce those ideas. [/ QUOTE ] And even without IP laws, nobody will be able to steal your "ability to have those ideas". That ability is still scarce, and yours alone. [/ QUOTE ] Terrific, as long as I keep them to myself. Unfortunately, if I wanted to, say, get paid for my idea, I'd have to share it with others. However, as soon as I do that, now it's not my idea any more, so how can I demand compensation for it? [/ QUOTE ] That's your problem, not mine. Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation? [/ QUOTE ] Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation for anything you do, either? [/ QUOTE ] I don't. [/ QUOTE ] Okay...so then, do you get paid? If so, do you never feel that you've earned it? Is it always because your employer is an idiot?
|
|
#63
04-12-2007, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No...but the ability to have those ideas is scarce. Not everyone can make a breakthrough in quantum physics. Not everyone can write "Hey Jude." Not everyone can envision a new cancer treatment. Just because there is no tangible restriction on resources doesn't mean that there isn't a restriction on the ability for people to produce those ideas. [/ QUOTE ] And even without IP laws, nobody will be able to steal your "ability to have those ideas". That ability is still scarce, and yours alone. [/ QUOTE ] Terrific, as long as I keep them to myself. Unfortunately, if I wanted to, say, get paid for my idea, I'd have to share it with others. However, as soon as I do that, now it's not my idea any more, so how can I demand compensation for it? [/ QUOTE ] That's your problem, not mine. Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation? [/ QUOTE ] Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation for anything you do, either? [/ QUOTE ] I don't. [/ QUOTE ] Okay...so then, do you get paid? If so, do you never feel that you've earned it? Is it always because your employer is an idiot? [/ QUOTE ] I dug a really deep hole in my yard, then I filled it up. it was a lot of work. Do you think I should be compensated for this?
|
|
#64
04-12-2007, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Having jumped in the thread early but been away from my computer, I'll just chip in with a few comments.
1. Intellectual property protections go far beyond the patent system, which is only one part of the whole IP apparatus. A large part, perhaps most, of the IP produced by firms falls under the rubric of "trade secrets." A lot of what firms are most concerned with is not that somebody will infringe on a patent, but that competition will simply hire away an employee, or otherwise acquire a lot of knowledge concerning operations, plans, R&D development, etc. These kinds of concerns are huge. 2. The merits of IP in the abstract notwithstanding, the fact is that getting rid of IP protections for any single country today is probably a terrible idea. There is a lot of evidence that the strength of IP is a huge factor in firms' decisions concerning investment and where to locate high-end processes like R&D and operational innovation. This is particularly evident in the experiences of high-flying developing countries like India and China, for which making a credible committment to IP protection has been absolutely essential.
|
|
#65
04-12-2007, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Okay...so then, do you get paid? If so, do you never feel that you've earned it? Is it always because your employer is an idiot? [/ QUOTE ] I negotiated some mutually-agreeable terms to exchange some money for some labor. Once we've negotiated a deal, I have a legitimate claim, but there is no pre-existing entitlement for me, or for the other party.
|
|
#66
04-12-2007, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So it is better to adversely affect one segment of a group of people and neutrally affect the rest of the group than to at least let some of them benefit? [/ QUOTE ] Neutral? Are you sure? [/ QUOTE ] I'm going off the model I was given. I have yet to hear how this benefits musicians on the whole. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, by "rest of the group" I thought you meant everyone, not just musicians. So why do you ignore the effects on everyone else? [/ QUOTE ] You know, you're right...everyone should have free music. After all, it's all expression, anyway. Those idiots that spend years training on their instruments should learn that they could simply wait until someone else puts out a succesful song, repackage it, and call it their own. You could make a fortune, with everyone repackaging everyone else's material. In fact, why even have your name on the package? Just say it is by "Musicians" and be done with it. Any of the proceeds can go into a big fund, then dispersements can be figured based on what an independent body thinks is fair. That way, everybody who is a musician gets their fair share, and they get to produce in peace and, no pun intended, harmony. Wait...does this sound like anything else?
|
|
#67
04-12-2007, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No...but the ability to have those ideas is scarce. Not everyone can make a breakthrough in quantum physics. Not everyone can write "Hey Jude." Not everyone can envision a new cancer treatment. Just because there is no tangible restriction on resources doesn't mean that there isn't a restriction on the ability for people to produce those ideas. [/ QUOTE ] And even without IP laws, nobody will be able to steal your "ability to have those ideas". That ability is still scarce, and yours alone. [/ QUOTE ] Terrific, as long as I keep them to myself. Unfortunately, if I wanted to, say, get paid for my idea, I'd have to share it with others. However, as soon as I do that, now it's not my idea any more, so how can I demand compensation for it? [/ QUOTE ] That's your problem, not mine. Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation? [/ QUOTE ] Why do you feel you're entitled to compensation for anything you do, either? [/ QUOTE ] I don't. [/ QUOTE ] Okay...so then, do you get paid? If so, do you never feel that you've earned it? Is it always because your employer is an idiot? [/ QUOTE ] I dug a really deep hole in my yard, then I filled it up. it was a lot of work. Do you think I should be compensated for this? [/ QUOTE ] No, because only you benefitted by the filling of the hole. Are you saying that artists are the only ones who benefit from their creations?
|
|
#68
04-12-2007, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Okay...so then, do you get paid? If so, do you never feel that you've earned it? Is it always because your employer is an idiot? [/ QUOTE ] I negotiated some mutually-agreeable terms to exchange some money for some labor. Once we've negotiated a deal, I have a legitimate claim, but there is no pre-existing entitlement for me, or for the other party. [/ QUOTE ] Ah...but let's say that someone approaches your employer with the fruits of your labor and demands payment. For the fun of it, let's say that they undercut your negotiated price. Is your contract now null and void? Do you no longer have a claim to the services that you did in fact provide, despite having lived up to your end of the bargain?
|
|
#69
04-12-2007, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Having jumped in the thread early but been away from my computer, I'll just chip in with a few comments. 1. Intellectual property protections go far beyond the patent system, which is only one part of the whole IP apparatus. A large part, perhaps most, of the IP produced by firms falls under the rubric of "trade secrets." A lot of what firms are most concerned with is not that somebody will infringe on a patent, but that competition will simply hire away an employee, or otherwise acquire a lot of knowledge concerning operations, plans, R&D development, etc. These kinds of concerns are huge. [/ QUOTE ] Such concerns can (and ARE) easily addressed with voluntary solutions: non-compete agreements, NDAs (&c). By and large, trade secrets have basically no legal protection. If the CEO of Coca-Cola issues a press release with the secret formula, Coke has no basically no recourse. They might take action against the CEO, but they have no ability to prevent other companies from using that formula once it's out in the open. Recent developments like UTSA may be a prelude to extending patent-like protections to trade secrets. This would be even worse than patents since trade secrets can be held indefinitely and are not disclosed to the public; at least things *eventually* lose their monopoly protection under patents. [ QUOTE ] 2. The merits of IP in the abstract notwithstanding, the fact is that getting rid of IP protections for any single country today is probably a terrible idea. There is a lot of evidence that the strength of IP is a huge factor in firms' decisions concerning investment and where to locate high-end processes like R&D and operational innovation. This is particularly evident in the experiences of high-flying developing countries like India and China, for which making a credible committment to IP protection has been absolutely essential. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, other places subsidize, so we must too. That's actually a tough argument. But notice, the US has a huge market of (relatively) very wealthy consumers which firms are not going to just ignore. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the R&D is done. If there's no patent protection in the US, then it doesn't matter if you develop your new little blue pill in India or the US, it's still freely reverse-engineerable here.
|
|
#70
04-12-2007, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
No, because only you benefitted by the filling of the hole. Are you saying that artists are the only ones who benefit from their creations? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't even benefit by filling the hole, nothing was accomplished. Just because something requires a lot of work doesn't automatically mean someone should be compensated. Musicians will just have to foot the bill to make sure no one copies their music.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
