Copyrights and patents

[exchemist]

Isn't it all just big government interfering with competition?

Isn't this a symptom of the nanny state?

No. The purpose of intellectual property law is to ensure that creators and innovators have a way to be recompensed for their work. In exchange for a monopoly for a limited period, to allow them to exploit it, they make their work public knowledge, so that the world can ultimately benefit from it.

It is not a perfect system and is inevitably gamed by large corporations, but it is a lot better than a law of the jungle in which the only protection from people ripping off your idea is to keep it secret.

 

[Revoltingest]

Copyrights and patents are a form of monopoly.

They apply only to particular works or technologies.
It's as absurd as saying I have a monopoly on a building I own.
Monopoly in this context refers to a business monopoly.

 

[Curious George]

It's not about the exclusivity of knowing about it,
but rather the right to use it for commercial purpose.

Huh....I thought was obvious to all.
Perhaps not.
As an engineer, I pursued patents for that very reason.
It was never to keep things secret.

I think you misunderstood my point. Because you no longer can exclusively possess an idea or a process once other know that idea or process, we created a legal fiction that would allow you exclusive rights.

I in no way suggested that this was about keeping others from knowing. I just said that you cannot exclusively possess an idea the same way ypu can exclusively possess a dead fox.

 

[Curious George]

No. The purpose of intellectual property law is to ensure that creators and innovators have a way to be recompensed for their work. In exchange for a monopoly for a limited period, to allow them to exploit it, they make their work public knowledge, so that the world can ultimately benefit from it.

It is not a perfect system and is inevitably gamed by large corporations, but it is a lot better than a law of the jungle in which the only protection from people ripping off your idea is to keep it secret.

I see what you are writing but you are contradicting yourself. What you wrote is exactly the government interfering with competition and the free market system. Isn't that what a nanny state does?

 

[Revoltingest]

I just said that you cannot exclusively possess an idea the same way ypu can exclusively possess a dead fox.

Well, spluh.

Out of kindness, I'll caution you against slipping into that mode
where you bicker over things based upon personal definitions,
& try to win against an argument no one else is actually making.

 

[Curious George]

They apply only to particular works or technologies.
It's as absurd as saying I have a monopoly on a building I own.
Monopoly in this context refers to a business monopoly.

If you owned all the land in MI i don't think it would be too farfetched to say that you have a monopoly on land in MI.

But ideas and processes can extend far beyond a single building.

 

[exchemist]

I think you misunderstood my point. Because you no longer can exclusively possess an idea or a process once other know that idea or process, we created a legal fiction that would allow you exclusive rights.

I in no way suggested that this was about keeping others from knowing. I just said that you cannot exclusively possess an idea the same way ypu can exclusively possess a dead fox.

It's not a fiction. Intellectual property has been recognised as important to protect, for a limited period of time, since the reign of James I. You can get substantial fines for copyright or patent infringement. And quite right, too. Without this protection, people would not be able to earn money from writing books, music or making technological inventions.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you owned all the land in MI i don't think it would be too farfetched to say that you have a monopoly on land in MI.

But I don't.
No one does.

You're avoiding the real issue, ie, that of intellectual property
rights being useful to incentivize creating such works.
Have you anything to say about that?

 

[Curious George]

Well, spluh.

Out of kindness, I'll caution you against slipping into that mode
where you bicker over things based upon personal definitions,
& try to win against an argument no one else is actually making.

I don't think I am using any personal definitions here. My comment was based on the text I quoted of yours. Your comment was indicative of a misunderstanding. I simply elaborated.

When you think I am using personal definitions for terms like nanny state, SJW, or the like, then you shpuld probably clue in that I have no desire to win such arguments. Rather I am amusing myself at the absurdity of such terms (lovingly, of course).

 

[Curious George]

It's not a fiction. Intellectual property has been recognised as important to protect, for a limited period of time, since the reign of James I. You can get substantial fines for copyright or patent infringement. And quite right, too. Without this protection, people would not be able to earn money from writing books, music or making technological inventions.

It is a fiction. Ownership of something you cannot possess enforced by the government to reach a desired end. That is a fiction.

 

[Curious George]

But I don't.
No one does.

You're avoiding the real issue, ie, that of intellectual property
rights being useful to incentivize creating such works.
Have you anything to say about that?

I am addressing your words. If you would prefer I do not address certain words, don't use them.

Regarding whether protecting intellectual property is beneficial in some respects. Yes. As beneficial as regulating industry with respect towards injury, environmental damage, public health safety, employee rights, etc etc.

 

[exchemist]

I see what you are writing but you are contradicting yourself. What you wrote is exactly the government interfering with competition and the free market system. Isn't that what a nanny state does?

Not really. If you think a state that operates a law of property is a "nanny state", then you are using a strange definition of the term, unique to yourself. To me, and to most people, the term "nanny state" indicates unnecessary and counterproductive interference with individual freedom.

I have given you reasons why a system of intellectual property rights is a public good, just as a system of law of tangible property is. If you think it is unnecessary or counterproductive, you ought to be able to produce some reasons for your thinking. Simply attaching the label "nanny state", apparently arbitrarily, does not constitute a solid argument.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Sounds like capitalism to me.

On the contrary, without patents we wouldn't have capitalism. Who's going to put a lot of time and money into developing new technology if anyone can simply copy your ideas?

Patents were introduced in the Middle Ages by Venice and copied in England under James I. Both states were developers of new technology. The first US patent act was specifically entitled "An act to promote the progress of the useful arts."

Obviously you can go to far. The US will patent things that other countries won't — ideas rather than actual technology.

As for intellectual property being a fiction, the law is full of fictions. Just think of the fact that IBM and Microsoft are persons under the law!

 

[Revoltingest]

On the contrary, without patents we wouldn't have capitalism. Who's going to put a lot of time and money into developing new technology if anyone can simply copy your ideas?

Patents were introduced in the Middle Ages by Venice and copied in England under James I. Both states were developers of new technology. The first US patent act was specifically entitled "An act to promote the progress of the useful arts."

Obviously you can go to far. The US will patent things that other countries won't — ideas rather than actual technology.

As for intellectual property being a fiction, the law is full of fictions. Just think of the fact that IBM and Microsoft are persons under the law!

A bigger fiction is that money has value.
We could go on & on identifying such "fictions".
But it's pointless.
These things are useful. To call them "fiction" is mere
mischief, designed to argue against them by labelling them.
It reminds me of some believer's attempts to claim that atheists
have deep "faith" too, eg, that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Btw, corporations are not persons in every sense...just in limited ways.
For example, corporations cannot marry or vote.
But they may speak, & be represented in court as plaintiff or defendant.
It's a concept that dates back centuries. But the media have been very
effective in de-educating people about what corporate personhood actually is.

 

[Curious George]

Not really. If you think a state that operates a law of property is a "nanny state", then you are using a strange definition of the term, unique to yourself. To me, and to most people, the term "nanny state" indicates unnecessary and counterproductive interference with individual freedom.

A patent or a copyright interferes with an individual from commercializing or using in commercialization a specific idea or process. That is absolutely interference with an individuals freedom. A society can function without this therefore it is not necessary. Counterproductive? That is your term you have added. It seems you are the one using your own definition of nanny-state.

I have given you reasons why a system of intellectual property rights is a public good, just as a system of law of tangible property is. If you think it is unnecessary or counterproductive, you ought to be able to produce some reasons for your thinking.

You have in no way shown it necessary. That protecting intellectual property has benefit does not make it necessary.

Simply attaching the label "nanny state", apparently arbitrarily, does not constitute a solid argument.

I don't think I have made a solid argument except for that intellectual property is a fiction, that copyrights and patents amount to interference with the free market, and that the term nanny state is meaningless.

 

[Curious George]

On the contrary, without patents we wouldn't have capitalism.

That is not true. Intellectual property is in no way necessary for a capitalist system. If you remove intellectual property capitalism will still function.

As for intellectual property being a fiction, the law is full of fictions. Just think of the fact that IBM and Microsoft are persons under the law!

The law is full of fictions. That IP is a fiction simply leads credence to my point that this is government interference with the market and individual freedom. Don't assume I have said something I haven't.

 

[exchemist]

A patent or a copyright interferes with an individual from commercializing or using in commercialization a specific idea or process. That is absolutely interference with an individuals freedom. A society can function without this therefore it is not necessary. Counterproductive? That is your term you have added. It seems you are the one using your own definition of nanny-state.

You have in no way shown it necessary. That protecting intellectual property has benefit does not make it necessary.

I don't think I have made a solid argument except for that intellectual property is a fiction, that copyrights and patents amount to interference with the free market, and that the term nanny state is meaningless.

Stopping you from breaking into a house and squatting in it, or stealing your neighbour's car, is an interference with your freedom too. But nobody calls preventing that the action of a nanny state.

Look, I've made the proposition that IP law is a public good, by encouraging innovation. There is also an argument in terms of simple fairness. Suppose you write a piece of music, or invent a better type of vacuum cleaner. Without IP law, anyone can just copy it and make money out of your creativity, right? So you, who have done all the work, have to compete against a bunch of freeloaders who have copied it, the moment you publish the music or put your vacuum cleaner on the market. Is that fair? If you think it is, the natural consequence will be that people stop writing music for a living and see no point in inventing things. How is that better for society than what we have now?

 

[sun rise]

I'm in favor of a reasonable, rational system of copyrights and patents. But in this era of patent trolls and big business trying to get extremely long copyrights, my take is that it's gone too far. Gigantic corporations try to suppress innovation based on too long existing legal protection by lawsuits that a small business or individual can't fight.

So keep them but reform them.

 

[Curious George]

I've made the proposition that it is a public good, by encouraging innovation. There is also an argument in terms of simple fairness. Suppose you write a piece of music, or invent a better type of vacuum cleaner. Without IP law, anyone can just copy it and make money out of your creativity, right? So you, who have done all the work, have to compete against a bunch of freeloaders who have copied it, the moment you publish the music or put your vacuum cleaner on the market. Is that fair? If you think it is, the natural consequence will be that people stop writing music for a living and see no point in inventing things. How is that better for society than what we have now?

Lol, people wrote music long before IP was a thing.

I have never said that patents and copyrights are not fair, I never even said that we ought not have them. I thought I have been pretty clear in my words. I just don't get why people aren't say hold the phone George cars can be blue copyrights and patents are part of the nanny state.

 

[suncowiam]

Idk i do not live there. Though, you are aware that China has both patents and copyrights?

They do, but no where comparable to other nations.

So if you did have an idea of how nanny of a state China could be, would it correlate with nanny states imposing IP laws. But you don't...

I personally do not see a correlation between IP laws and how nanny a state can be.

I believe we should be able to protect our ideas and inventions. There is a statute of time imposed so eventually the rest of society can bank on it also. It's a necessity of invention, being able to own "intellect."