Two points against Intellectual property laws

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the OP is a particularly strong argument against IP.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not really an argument, just a couple points that go against what pro-IPers predict would occur without respect for IP.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how much mobnies ppl make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right before that, you just wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
the actual amount of monetary loss is hard to define but it is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


yes i did .... the who cares coment was in response to his premise that because record comanies make a lot of mobney it is fine to steal from them

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, what if they weren't? Would it still be ok? What if artists couldn't make a living, despite being immensely popular?

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it very unlikely that someone could be immensely popular and still not be able to get any of his fans to actually buy the work he is popular for. However, if this did happen it might make it profitable for organizations that represent the artists and the labels (the RIAA for instance) to litigate against copyright infringement. My stance though, is that unless it gets to that fringe point, it's ineffecient to attempt to protect your ideas, and without the government doing it I highly doubt the RIAA or the labels would.

Basically what I mean is that people can protect their ideas, but it would probably be selected against in a market, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing as it hasn't led to a collapse of the industry. If it did lead to some collapse of industry then it most certainly be profitable to use voluntary means such as copyrights and suing those that violate it.
[ QUOTE ]
What if there was no funding for innovative new drugs, because there was no money in it? Would patent infringement still be ok?


[/ QUOTE ]
Similar to what I said to above. If it reaches a point of there being no money in it business may pursue damages. My point is that unless it reaches a certain point it's simply not profitable.
[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere else is there this relativistic approach to the integrity of property.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it was ineffecient to protect actual property like say your house and yard, I might argue against actual property. One of the reasons I support private property in real form is because it is so effecient.
[ QUOTE ]
One could make a similarly structured argument for involuntary taxation, if one believed that a state could manage a small percentage of wealth more effectively than those who produced it, or use it in a more beneficial way.

[/ QUOTE ]
It takes resources to collect taxes, it doens't take resources to not sue someone for DLing a free cd.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Musicians will just have to foot the bill to make sure no one copies their music.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What rubs me wrong about his post is that he's basically arguing against IP protection because someone else is still willing to pay for it, and people are still relatively well-off from it. Well, what if they weren't? Would it still be ok? What if artists couldn't make a living, despite being immensely popular? What if there was no funding for innovative new drugs, because there was no money in it? Would patent infringement still be ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Results-oriented much? This argument is bogus because it presumes that the current outcome (looking only at one narrow group of people) is the desirable one, and judges alternatives by how they stack up to it. It ignores any discussion of legitimate actions.

Eliminate unjust, illegitimate actions, and let the chips fall where they may. Trying to micromanage your way to particular outcomes is a poor strategy.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how much mobnies ppl make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right before that, you just wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
the actual amount of monetary loss is hard to define but it is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


yes i did .... the who cares coment was in response to his premise that because record comanies make a lot of mobney it is fine to steal from them

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. You'll have to point that part out to me.

[tolbiny]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]





Both these groups encouraged people to record their music and sell, trade, give it away on their own. Yet both bands managed to be successful for decades. Strange, huh?

[Bremen]

Boro, thank you for that post. You're one of a very few people on this forum who are actually worth reading.

A few thoughts:
[ QUOTE ]
that still would not justify the existence of patents, because there is no a priori "correct" amount of innovation

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough, however I do not think I go out on a limb when I say that the majority would prefer the case where innovation is maximized. Obviously you feel this is the case where time_of_patent = 0.


[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the idea that entrepreneurs and businesses would simply throw up their hands and not innovate to stay ahead of the competition is, quite frankly, farcical to me. What are they going to do, sit on their capital and not invest it? Not try to turn a profit? Not attempt to beat out the competition? Whatever entrepreneurs and businessmen where that stupid would indeed stop innovating, rapidly go out of business and be replaced by entrepreneurs and innovators who chose not to sit on their hands and bitch that someone else "stole their idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree the idea that anyone would sit on capital is nonsense. However we must ask what they would do with it? In situations where we can "protect" our innovation with contracts not much will change. But if our innovation is obvious from our product we have no way of doing this (even if we have each customer sign a contract we have no viable recourse if they break the contract since the competitor isn't party to the contract). Thus we have a situation where the market will select against using capital for innovation (excepting situations such as when your competitor's lag time will be long enough to allow you to recoup your investment).

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with patents is that the idea leads to ridiculous scenarios where nothing is done. Imagine if you had to pay a fee to the estate of Og, the inventor of the wheel, every time you wanted to build a device with a wheel. Now multiply that by every innovation in history. Nothing would ever get done. The solution is that patents only last a certain amount of time. But how much time? It's totally arbitrary. Property rights based on things that are totally arbitrary inevitably lead to conflict, which defeats the purpose of property in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I can homestead your garage while you're at work or is there some non-arbitrary length of time land must be un/occupied before it becomes un/owned? How much non-arbitrary amount of labor must I “mix” with land before it’s mine? I think the bolded is the argument of most statists. Everything outside of might makes right is arbitrary. Give might to the state and everyone suffers equally.

[ QUOTE ]
Patents also act to destroy real property rights. If you claim that I cannot use my materials to build a wagon because you "own" the "idea" of the wagon wheel, you have obviously reduced my rights in my own physical property. Destroying rights in tangible property in deference to rights in some completely itagible concept seems incredibly dangerous to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the way patents work at all. If I invent the wagon wheel, you can build one and use it. You cannot however build them and sell it, without my permission, until the patent expires. If the wagon wheel improves something you already sell, you cannot simply add my wheel, and sell them. With copyrights, I think it's called "Fair Use" I can make as many copies of music as I want, I cannot sell them, distribute them or make money for playing them.

[ QUOTE ]
A patent is essentially a legalized monopoly granted by the state. If there is one thing that all economists agree on, it is that monopoly is bad for the consumer. "Idea monopoly" is bad it allows the monopolist to a) "rest on his laurels", i.e. not innovate to stay ahead of the competition, because potential competition is legally barred, b) charge monopoly prices, c) provide poor quality because there is no threat of competition, and d) invest more in patent protection litigation than is invested in innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Idea monopoly is good for commerce because it gives the inventor enough time to become a competitor. If I invent the modem, and ATT simply buys one, and starts producing them en masse with impunity, innovation is being actively discouraged. Can you give an example of a) b) c) d) with any utility patent (outside of pharmaceuticals)? Generally speaking, inventors who are also entrepreneurs are in a frenzy to improve quality, efficiency, and price so they can maintain market share once the patent expires. Those who are not are in a frenzy to license it. Without patent protection ACland will eventually have a small number of large manufacturers who have enough capital to completely discourage anyone from even trying to compete. I find it a bit paradoxical that someone who goes through the effort of coming up with a solution to a problem will "rest on his laurels".

[ QUOTE ]
Even if one were to concede that all else being equal there would be absolutely less innovation in the absence of patents than with them (which I do not concede, there is no possible way to know this a priori because there are competing incentives that point in opposite directions and no way to ascertain which ones would "win" and under what conditions), that still would not justify the existence of patents, because there is no a priori "correct" amount of innovation. We cannot conclude that because there would be more innovation that this somehow justifies the granting of idea monopolies, any more than the idea that subsidizing research increases the amount of research done somehow justifies the subsidy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems a contradiction to me that you can "own" something because you use it, but you don't if you create it. Patent protection is not a shield it's a sword. It gives the small, new guy a weapon to protect his ability to become a competitor from the big established companies. In the modern world, patent protection may seem to restrict competition because high technology patents generally require resources for development only available at large companies, but there are still many opportunities available for "backyard inventors." I'm pretty sure Tesla didn't invent the AC generator to simply to watch Edison or Westinghouse make millions for his troubles.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the idea that entrepreneurs and businesses would simply throw up their hands and not innovate to stay ahead of the competition is, quite frankly, farcical to me. What are they going to do, sit on their capital and not invest it? Not try to turn a profit? Not attempt to beat out the competition? Whatever entrepreneurs and businessmen where that stupid would indeed stop innovating, rapidly go out of business and be replaced by entrepreneurs and innovators who chose not to sit on their hands and bitch that someone else "stole their idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

Companies that don't have to respect prior art would not go out of business, but no new companies would be able to compete at all. Entrepreneur, businessman and inventor are not synonymous (not a slight by any means). Inventors/artists should and must have some protection of their property arbitrary or not, without it AC turns into Anarcho-Oligarchy.

The idea that I don’t have to pay for Windows XP because my free copy doesn’t take away Microsoft’s copy is pretty farcical to me.

IP is broken in our current system; AC without IP is enough to make me a statist (not really I’m still all for individual sovereignty. I never did like the term “anarcho-capitalist” anyway).

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with patents is that the idea leads to ridiculous scenarios where nothing is done. Imagine if you had to pay a fee to the estate of Og, the inventor of the wheel, every time you wanted to build a device with a wheel. Now multiply that by every innovation in history. Nothing would ever get done. The solution is that patents only last a certain amount of time. But how much time? It's totally arbitrary. Property rights based on things that are totally arbitrary inevitably lead to conflict, which defeats the purpose of property in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I can homestead your garage while you're at work or is there some non-arbitrary length of time land must be un/occupied before it becomes un/owned? How much non-arbitrary amount of labor must I “mix” with land before it’s mine? I think the bolded is the argument of most statists. Everything outside of might makes right is arbitrary. Give might to the state and everyone suffers equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abandoned land in fact will always be a source of conflict, because any length of time is in fact rbitrary, and hence absolute lengths of time are probably not the best, or at least not the best if they are the only criteria, whereby land is judged to be unowned. My claim is not that because something is arbitrary and hence a source of conflict that the market will not still select for it; I have said elsewhere that if culturally the majority believe that ideas can be owned, then they will be owned. My argument is that IP will always be a source of conflict and it is not justifiable. But whether or not it is justifiable is irrelevant if most people believe it should exist. If they do, the market will certainly provide it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patents also act to destroy real property rights. If you claim that I cannot use my materials to build a wagon because you "own" the "idea" of the wagon wheel, you have obviously reduced my rights in my own physical property. Destroying rights in tangible property in deference to rights in some completely itagible concept seems incredibly dangerous to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the way patents work at all. If I invent the wagon wheel, you can build one and use it. You cannot however build them and sell it, without my permission, until the patent expires. If the wagon wheel improves something you already sell, you cannot simply add my wheel, and sell them.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this not exactly the problem that I stated? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] You "owning" the idea of the wagon wheel diminishes my rights in my own physical property. Including the right to build what I want with it and sell it to someone else.

[ QUOTE ]
With copyrights, I think it's called "Fair Use" I can make as many copies of music as I want, I cannot sell them, distribute them or make money for playing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which obviusly reduces your rights in your own physical property.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A patent is essentially a legalized monopoly granted by the state. If there is one thing that all economists agree on, it is that monopoly is bad for the consumer. "Idea monopoly" is bad it allows the monopolist to a) "rest on his laurels", i.e. not innovate to stay ahead of the competition, because potential competition is legally barred, b) charge monopoly prices, c) provide poor quality because there is no threat of competition, and d) invest more in patent protection litigation than is invested in innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Idea monopoly is good for commerce because it gives the inventor enough time to become a competitor. If I invent the modem, and ATT simply buys one, and starts producing them en masse with impunity, innovation is being actively discouraged. Can you give an example of a) b) c) d) with any utility patent (outside of pharmaceuticals)? Generally speaking, inventors who are also entrepreneurs are in a frenzy to improve quality, efficiency, and price so they can maintain market share once the patent expires. Those who are not are in a frenzy to license it. Without patent protection ACland will eventually have a small number of large manufacturers who have enough capital to completely discourage anyone from even trying to compete. I find it a bit paradoxical that someone who goes through the effort of coming up with a solution to a problem will "rest on his laurels".

[/ QUOTE ]

You find it paradoxical that people granted monopolies will seek to exploit them and devote resources to their protection rather than devote those resources to competition? You're joking, right?

All you've done is point out that there are competing incentives, which I have already stated. And yu cannot claim that the incentives that point in one direction will be stronger than the incentives that point in the other direction a priori, because they are entirely culturally dependent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if one were to concede that all else being equal there would be absolutely less innovation in the absence of patents than with them (which I do not concede, there is no possible way to know this a priori because there are competing incentives that point in opposite directions and no way to ascertain which ones would "win" and under what conditions), that still would not justify the existence of patents, because there is no a priori "correct" amount of innovation. We cannot conclude that because there would be more innovation that this somehow justifies the granting of idea monopolies, any more than the idea that subsidizing research increases the amount of research done somehow justifies the subsidy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems a contradiction to me that you can "own" something because you use it, but you don't if you create it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Who said you can't own something you create? All I'm saying is that ideas are not scarce (in the economic sense); if someone "steals" your idea, you still have it, unlike any other kind of property.

[ QUOTE ]
Patent protection is not a shield it's a sword. It gives the small, new guy a weapon to protect his ability to become a competitor from the big established companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, it is state-sanctioned violence, it is a monopoly granted by the state that must be enforced by violence or threat of violence to prevent other people from doing with their physical property what they wish. It is a taking of some portion of the bundle of rights inherent in their physical property in deference to your "right" in some intangible concept.

[ QUOTE ]
In the modern world, patent protection may seem to restrict competition because high technology patents generally require resources for development only available at large companies, but there are still many opportunities available for "backyard inventors." I'm pretty sure Tesla didn't invent the AC generator to simply to watch Edison or Westinghouse make millions for his troubles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the idea that entrepreneurs and businesses would simply throw up their hands and not innovate to stay ahead of the competition is, quite frankly, farcical to me. What are they going to do, sit on their capital and not invest it? Not try to turn a profit? Not attempt to beat out the competition? Whatever entrepreneurs and businessmen where that stupid would indeed stop innovating, rapidly go out of business and be replaced by entrepreneurs and innovators who chose not to sit on their hands and bitch that someone else "stole their idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

Companies that don't have to respect prior art would not go out of business, but no new companies would be able to compete at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally contrary to your previous arguments. Patent is a *monopoly*; it *excludes* competition.

[ QUOTE ]
Entrepreneur, businessman and inventor are not synonymous (not a slight by any means). Inventors/artists should and must have some protection of their property arbitrary or not, without it AC turns into Anarcho-Oligarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're simply assuming your conclusions (that ideas are "their property") and making bold-faced assertions that are not backed up by any kind of empirical evidence, nor the bulk of history. Throughout history people have innovated without the crutch of patent protection AND managed to get compensated for their work.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that I don’t have to pay for Windows XP because my free copy doesn’t take away Microsoft’s copy is pretty farcical to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Convince everyone else you are right and copyright protection would certainly exist in the free market. But don't pretend that you having rights in intangible concepts that supercede the rights of every owner of physical property in the world is something that should be beyond dispute, because it isn't. As I have stated before, in my opinion copyrights would probably exist in a free market, but patents probably would not.

[ QUOTE ]
IP is broken in our current system; AC without IP is enough to make me a statist (not really I’m still all for individual sovereignty. I never did like the term “anarcho-capitalist” anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't even make sense. "AC without IP is enough to make you a statist"? What does that even mean? If you think the market wants IP, then there will be IP. Beyond that, you would really prefer that there exists a monopolist of violence so that you personally could use violence and the threat of violence against people so that they don't use their physical property to implement "your" idea? You invent the wagon wheel, you spot Og making and selling wagons, and you're going to go beat him up or kill him to "protect" your idea?

Talk about farcical.