Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Intellectual Property a legitimate concept?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I did notice that, and I tried to respond to that specifically. Honestly, I think the 'naturally occurring' might be a good framework for IP in general. Knowledge about the world, regardless of discipline, should be classified as naturally occurring and therefore free to all. That would encompass development of the physical laws of the universe, mathematical equations, archaeological finds, etc.
    I disagree. Creativity and learning is an intellectual pursuit. It is not "naturally occurring" - You don't come up with the theory of relativity by osmosis.

    I think people should get credit for discovering something like the gene that causes green eyes or something, but they shouldn't have exclusive rights to that gene so that somehow "own" the gene itself. If they come up with a way to change the gene to create blue eyes, for instance, then they should have the IP rights for that process though because it is something done creatively with their discovery.

    The reason governments give out patents and copyrights is to foster creativity and captitalism. If no matter what you invented or created you had no rights to it and anyone could just take what you did and resell it, or use it for themselves, then you basically end up with a society where there is no incentive for creativity. It is the same problem of capitalism vs socialism/welfare. If the government takes all the benefits away from those who work and gives it to everyone equally in some sort of welfare state, then you end up with nobody working and everyone sitting around waiting for their government paycheck.

    Comment


    • #77
      I don't know if anyone thinks this. But if a company allows you to invent something, the patent should go to the syndicate or company that gave you the equipment. Since you have used their resources, and expensive equipment to make it. The engineer and scientific labors of a company should always be patented by the company.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        I don't know if anyone thinks this. But if a company allows you to invent something, the patent should go to the syndicate or company that gave you the equipment. Since you have used their resources, and expensive equipment to make it. The engineer and scientific labors of a company should always be patented by the company.
        It depends on the employment contract they have with their employer. Some places do as you say above, others will share the patents or profits from the invention.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I disagree. Creativity and learning is an intellectual pursuit. It is not "naturally occurring" - You don't come up with the theory of relativity by osmosis.
          Let's not conflate creativity and learning. While learning and discovering things about the world certainly can require creativity, it's still in relation to things that already exist. Physical laws don't have to be stated to be in effect.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I think people should get credit for discovering something like the gene that causes green eyes or something, but they shouldn't have exclusive rights to that gene so that somehow "own" the gene itself. If they come up with a way to change the gene to create blue eyes, for instance, then they should have the IP rights for that process though because it is something done creatively with their discovery.
          People do get credit for their discoveries, though, nor would I suggest changing that. However, your example of the process for changing a gene is a place where discovery meets innovation. The underlying principles are free to all. The specific application is not. If you can come up with a different application that is more efficient or cheaper than someone else's, more power to you.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          The reason governments give out patents and copyrights is to foster creativity and captitalism. If no matter what you invented or created you had no rights to it and anyone could just take what you did and resell it, or use it for themselves, then you basically end up with a society where there is no incentive for creativity. It is the same problem of capitalism vs socialism/welfare. If the government takes all the benefits away from those who work and gives it to everyone equally in some sort of welfare state, then you end up with nobody working and everyone sitting around waiting for their government paycheck.
          This is basically a false dichotomy, but more importantly it ignores the applications of creativity that exist. It's one thing to say that patents and copyrights should be granted for those who create some object. It's another to say that patents and copyrights should be granted to those who discover something about the world around us. In point of fact, creativity is still fostered for the latter even without patents and copyrights because universities use those things to attract students.

          In point of fact, the current use of copyrights and patents can actually stifle creativity and capitalism by allowing the wealthy to purchase said patents and render them inoperable, thus eliminating their potential competition.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            The reason governments give out patents and copyrights is to foster creativity and captitalism. If no matter what you invented or created you had no rights to it and anyone could just take what you did and resell it, or use it for themselves, then you basically end up with a society where there is no incentive for creativity. It is the same problem of capitalism vs socialism/welfare. If the government takes all the benefits away from those who work and gives it to everyone equally in some sort of welfare state, then you end up with nobody working and everyone sitting around waiting for their government paycheck.
            First I'd object to the "had no rights to it" language. It's not the case that absence of IP laws would mean he "had no rights to it". It would only mean he doesn't have a monopoly/exclusive right. He would still have every right to use his invention/creation.

            Then, as I've pointed out earlier in the thread, there are ways in which IP laws hinder or prevent further creativity/innovation. E.g., with IP laws, firms holding IP have reduced incentive to stay one step ahead of the competition, because they can rest on their monopoly right to prior inventions. Often derivative works by competitors are illegal, thus legally halting innnovation (which in practice is nearly always derivative). IP laws have also resulted in vast amounts of resources wasted on legal issues. A vast amount of R&D investment is also wasted on redundant research to come up with substitutions just to get around patents held by others, but having no added economic value.

            So it cannot be concluded a priori which way these conflicting incentives will lean on the whole (whether IP laws will incentivize a net increase or a net decrease of creativity/innovation). And there is a mountain of empirical evidence that creativity/innovation is actually greater where there is lesser or no IP laws! (e.g. see Against Intellectual Monopoly)


            Also your argument regarding capitalism vs a total welfare state doesn't apply the same in both cases because tangible goods are rivalrous goods, while ideas are non-rivalrous. If you grow a bushel of wheat and the government takes it away (to dole out as it wishes), then you are deprived of the use of your wheat. If, on the other hand you invent the hammer, and other people see you and think that's a good idea and make their own hammers, that does not deprive you of your own ability to hammer.

            Comment


            • #81
              You are deprived from profiting from your idea of a hammer because everyone just makes their own instead of buying them from you. You should be able to benefit from coming up with the idea to use a hammer and nail to hold two pieces of wood together to make a building stronger, for example. If someone comes up with a better way then they should be able to profit from their idea. Say they invent a screwdriver and screws instead. And someone else invents riveting. Each idea's expressions should be protected to allow the creator to benefit most from their hard work in coming up with the concept.

              Now a lot of our IP laws have gone way overboard, and should be retooled. But the basic idea (no pun intended) of IP is a good one.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                Originally posted by Joel
                Originally posted by Carrikature
                Originally posted by Joel
                Originally posted by Carrikature
                Joel, rather than quoting your entire post, I pose a question. What happens when intangible, non-rivalrous ideas (R&D) are used specifically for rivalrous production (medication)? Part of the copyright concept, so far as I know, is designed to protect those entities that pour resources into new discoveries.
                Ideas (i.e. non-rivalrous) are always used in the production of rivalrous goods.
                The existence of open source anything seems to make this statement false as long as you're claiming 'always'. I would grant 'most of the time'.
                At minimum the production of a rivalrous good necessarily makes use of the idea of the product, and it makes use of the idea of the process--the 'recipe' for combining the various factors of production to produce the product.

                I don't see how open source affects what I've said.
                Ideas, being non-rivalrous, can be used to produce other ideas, which are non-rivalrous. Ideas can be used to produce goods which are freely disseminated and such goods are thus non-rivalrous. The very process by which the goods are produced can be disseminated and so be non-rivlarous. That's open source in a nutshell. If your stance revolves around rivalry, you have to show that all goods are always rivalrous in nature. I think open source serves as a counter-example.
                At some point you shifted the line of discussion from talking about the production of rivalrous goods to the production of non-rivalrous goods.

                Of course not all goods are rivalrous. I was the one who brought up the distinction in the first place.
                I also don't see what problem you are seeing. Yes, ideas are also used in the production of other ideas. So?

                Oh wait, I maybe see the confusion. In my first quoted reply here I said, "Ideas (i.e. non-rivalrous) are always used in the production of rivalrous goods." I just noticed that this is perhaps ambiguous. Perhaps you thought this meant that the production of rivalrous goods is the only use of ideas. Rather, I meant every production of rivalrous goods uses ideas. Does that clear things up?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Joel View Post
                  At some point you shifted the line of discussion from talking about the production of rivalrous goods to the production of non-rivalrous goods.

                  Of course not all goods are rivalrous. I was the one who brought up the distinction in the first place.
                  I also don't see what problem you are seeing. Yes, ideas are also used in the production of other ideas. So?

                  Oh wait, I maybe see the confusion. In my first quoted reply here I said, "Ideas (i.e. non-rivalrous) are always used in the production of rivalrous goods." I just noticed that this is perhaps ambiguous. Perhaps you thought this meant that the production of rivalrous goods is the only use of ideas. Rather, I meant every production of rivalrous goods uses ideas. Does that clear things up?
                  That's what I thought you were claiming, yes.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    You are deprived from profiting from your idea of a hammer because everyone just makes their own instead of buying them from you. You should be able to benefit from coming up with the idea to use a hammer and nail to hold two pieces of wood together to make a building stronger, for example. If someone comes up with a better way then they should be able to profit from their idea. Say they invent a screwdriver and screws instead. And someone else invents riveting. Each idea's expressions should be protected to allow the creator to benefit most from their hard work in coming up with the concept.

                    Now a lot of our IP laws have gone way overboard, and should be retooled. But the basic idea (no pun intended) of IP is a good one.
                    This shifts the argument away from the argument of IP being property. No property right includes the right to a profit or the right to have one's competition stopped by force. The right to your bushel of grain means your right to personal use of your grain (e.g., to eat it, feed it to your cow). Thus the corresponding property right (if any) for an idea is your right to personal use of it. Thus I don't see how your line of argument here defends the validity of the concept of intellectual property.

                    Secondly, you aren't deprived of profiting. Yes, your opportunity to profit may decrease due to competition, but that is true of all production and all market activity. It is true of property rights in general. You'd need to justify why some entrepreneurs have a right to a monopoly while entrepreneurs normally do not. (e.g., the farmer producing grain does hard work too but has no right to have his competition stopped by force)

                    Note also your opportunity to profit may decrease due to lots of things: e.g. changing consumer desires, changes in other things that affect consumer desire for your product, changes in supply lines and their prices, changes in complementary goods and their prices, other changes in technology. Singling out competition as a factor seems arbitrary.

                    If IP were really a kind of property, we should take it to its logical conclusion, and there should be nothing but monopolies in the market. You shouldn't be able to legally do anything that makes use of anything that someone else has already thought of before. But that would grind human action (including innovation) to a halt.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Joel View Post
                      This shifts the argument away from the argument of IP being property. No property right includes the right to a profit or the right to have one's competition stopped by force. The right to your bushel of grain means your right to personal use of your grain (e.g., to eat it, feed it to your cow). Thus the corresponding property right (if any) for an idea is your right to personal use of it. Thus I don't see how your line of argument here defends the validity of the concept of intellectual property.

                      Secondly, you aren't deprived of profiting. Yes, your opportunity to profit may decrease due to competition, but that is true of all production and all market activity. It is true of property rights in general. You'd need to justify why some entrepreneurs have a right to a monopoly while entrepreneurs normally do not. (e.g., the farmer producing grain does hard work too but has no right to have his competition stopped by force)

                      Note also your opportunity to profit may decrease due to lots of things: e.g. changing consumer desires, changes in other things that affect consumer desire for your product, changes in supply lines and their prices, changes in complementary goods and their prices, other changes in technology. Singling out competition as a factor seems arbitrary.

                      If IP were really a kind of property, we should take it to its logical conclusion, and there should be nothing but monopolies in the market. You shouldn't be able to legally do anything that makes use of anything that someone else has already thought of before. But that would grind human action (including innovation) to a halt.
                      Your entire argument can be applied with equal validity to all property.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        Your entire argument can be applied with equal validity to all property.
                        Explain?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Joel View Post
                          Explain?
                          Sure.

                          Originally posted by Joel View Post
                          Secondly, you aren't deprived of profiting. Yes, your opportunity to profit may decrease due to competition, but that is true of all production and all market activity. It is true of property rights in general. You'd need to justify why some entrepreneurs have a right to a monopoly while entrepreneurs normally do not. (e.g., the farmer producing grain does hard work too but has no right to have his competition stopped by force)
                          This is not actually true. The farmer has competitors who may seek to invade his lands and take his crops by force stopped by the law. The reason why we allow this intrusion is because we generally recognize that the farmer does productive work whereas the invader is a parasite. This is the same rationale for intellectual property. A man who writes a book has produced something useful. A publisher who copies said book and overwhelms the otherwise marketing clueless writer with copies of his own is a parasite. Like the conqueror he has a skill, but his skill does not contribute to creation, only theft.

                          Note also your opportunity to profit may decrease due to lots of things: e.g. changing consumer desires, changes in other things that affect consumer desire for your product, changes in supply lines and their prices, changes in complementary goods and their prices, other changes in technology. Singling out competition as a factor seems arbitrary.
                          Opportunity to profit might also decrease due to losing products to natural disasters, or thieves, but we still protect private property from thieves and robbers. There's a difference between losing profit due to circumstances and losing them due to malice or parasitism.
                          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                            Originally posted by Joel
                            Secondly, you aren't deprived of profiting. Yes, your opportunity to profit may decrease due to competition, but that is true of all production and all market activity. It is true of property rights in general. You'd need to justify why some entrepreneurs have a right to a monopoly while entrepreneurs normally do not. (e.g., the farmer producing grain does hard work too but has no right to have his competition stopped by force)
                            This is not actually true. The farmer has competitors who may seek to invade his lands and take his crops by force stopped by the law.
                            I was talking about market competition. The farmer doesn't have the right to stop other farmers from growing and selling their own grain (i.e., exercising their property rights).

                            The reason why we allow this intrusion is because we generally recognize that the farmer does productive work whereas the invader is a parasite. This is the same rationale for intellectual property. A man who writes a book has produced something useful. A publisher who copies said book and overwhelms the otherwise marketing clueless writer with copies of his own is a parasite. Like the conqueror he has a skill, but his skill does not contribute to creation, only theft.
                            First, copying is not theft. Their essential difference has been simply and excellently argued in song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
                            "Stealing a thing leaves one less left; copying it makes one thing more."

                            "If I copy yours you have it too, One for me, one for you"

                            "If I steal your bicycle you have to take the bus.
                            But if I just copy it, there's one for each of us."
                            If copying is ever immoral, it is for some reason other than being theft.

                            Second, you suggest here that it is analogous to theft in that it is parasitical. But, of course, it can't be in the same way as theft, as I just pointed out. Copying, rather than diminishing your goods, is a productive act, producing more of something, and thus is not wholly parasitical.

                            If we are going to say it is parasitical, it is only in part, and only in the sense of standing on the shoulders of giants. Innovation and creativity too is virtually always derivative and thus parasitical in the same sense. So I don't think you can take your condemnation of parasitism in this sense to its logical conclusion.

                            Market activity is also generally "parasitical" in this same sense. Those businessmen who become first-movers--the first to see and supply an under-supplied market will tend to make the largest profits, but others will quickly see the first movers, get the idea, and jump in too. Far from being a negative thing, this process (of copying good ideas) helps mankind by speeding up market corrections and more quickly meet unmet demand. Market competition is primarily a competition among ideas, where the best ideas become the most used and the less "fit" ideas fall by the wayside. The free copying and trying of ideas speeds this process of progress. If all ideas conferred monopolies, then progress and human action would grind to a halt. There would be virtually insurmountable barriers to entry on everything.

                            Agriculture was an invention. Under your theory, there would be a monopoly on cultivating grain. Nobody else would have been able to try out that new invention (and thus perhaps improve it), because that would be parasitical. Mankind would have never made it out of the stone age. But even if others copying the idea/innovation of agriculture is parasitical in this restricted sense, the widespread copying of the idea agriculture is a great benefit to mankind, greatly increasing the supply of food, and spurring new agricultural innovations. The reason monopolies are looked down on is that they achieve monopoly prices by restricting their production/output, thus providing a smaller supply to mankind than would occur if competition were permitted.

                            For another (modern) example, Bill Gates once pointed out that if software patents (which exist today) had existed from the beginnings of software, the software industry would have been frozen in a complete standstill and would still be so today.

                            Opportunity to profit might also decrease due to losing products to natural disasters, or thieves, but we still protect private property from thieves and robbers. There's a difference between losing profit due to circumstances and losing them due to malice or parasitism.
                            I see your point. But this "parasitism" is regular market competition. So I think unless you are going to take it to the logical conclusion of eliminating all market competition, then I'd say market competition (and changes in that) fall into the category of market "circumstances", and not that of injustice. After all, in the case of "normal" property, e.g. the person growing grain, producers don't have the right to have market competition stopped.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              So I should be able to just copy US currency, that way I am just making more money and nobody gets hurt?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Just a quick qualifying note that I'm still very much on the fence regarding this issue. Thanks to all for their continued input.


                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                So I should be able to just copy US currency, that way I am just making more money and nobody gets hurt?
                                This is an interesting question that I could take two ways. What is harm, in the context of this thread? If, by producing money, you are reducing its value for all people, is that considered harm? If, by increasing competition, you reduce profit, is that considered harm? If, by increasing competition, you make a given object more widely available, is that considered harm?




                                On a side note, I think I'm becoming somewhat of a limited capitalist, though I'm honestly not sure that's a real term...
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                510 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X