What about patents?

[AutoDas]

I am vehemently against patents and just as much as copyright laws for "intellectual property." (thought crime)
I am against anything that restricts competition, innovation, and free trade.


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

I proudly embrace the term Yankee because during Jefferson's presidency, America ignored international patent laws and the people overseas thought of that as piracy.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Sounds good to me. I don't believe in IP.

[magicmike]

Well they definitely need to be reworked, software needs to be reduced drastically like to 2 or 3 years.
There is a little bit of a benefit of patents, it does encourage people to think of other ways of accomplishing the same goal.
It does add value to motivate someone who does have good ideas, (like Tesla) but in the end look at where that got him.
And patenting living things (genome DNA patents) is a outright dumb idea. Though several people in protest were able to secure vital patents that would prevent cloning, at least until it expires.

[coyote_sprit]

There is a little bit of a benefit of patents, it does encourage people to think of other ways of accomplishing the same goal..

Companies use them to gain monopolies and other companies only exist to own patents and enforce them. Patents are a plague to free market economy and to the consumer.

[magicmike]

Copyright however I am for, it just needs to be more like the Creative Commons format. To better explain how what you make can be used for.
Having done some films and animations I would definitely be pissed if somebody tool my work and claimed it was theirs.
In fact I did release some Ron Paul animations for people to use in their videos copyright free, but only a few used it. Go figure, maybe I should have said "here's some animation files I'll sue you if you use them"

[coyote_sprit]

Copyright however I am for, it just needs to be more like the Creative Commons format. To better explain how what you make can be used for.
Having done some films and animations I would definitely be pissed if somebody tool my work and claimed it was theirs.
In fact I did release some Ron Paul animations for people to use in their videos copyright free, but only a few used it. Go figure, maybe I should have said "here's some animation files I'll sue you if you use them"

I don't mind intellectual property either but I don't think an idea should be copyrightable. Especially if the idea is broad and is easy to milk money out of.

[LibertiORDeth]

I don't mind intellectual property either but I don't think an idea should be copyrightable. Especially if the idea is broad and is easy to milk money out of.

"I copyright grass".

[magicmike]

Companies use them to gain monopolies and other companies only exist to own patents and enforce them. Patents are a plague to free market economy and to the consumer.

Well isn't that more of a problem of corporatism than patents? I actually have a few good friends with patents filed, and they definitely are not out to monopolize, they need to protect themselves. Genuine individual inventors may be a small percentage now of what patents are used for, But I would defend patents on that single basis.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well isn't that more of a problem of corporatism than patents? I actually have a few good friends with patents filed, and they definitely are not out to monopolize, they need to protect themselves. Genuine individual inventors may be a small percentage now of what patents are used for, But I would defend patents on that single basis.

Protect themselves from what? Keep it a secret.

[magicmike]

I don't mind intellectual property either but I don't think an idea should be copyrightable. Especially if the idea is broad and is easy to milk money out of.

Exactly, ideas should never be panted or copyrighted. But how you accomplish that idea is the only place for copyright and patent.

There needs to be redefining of how that determination is made, the standard "If it's obvious it does not apply" needs to be reworked

[magicmike]

Protect themselves from what? Keep it a secret.

From having their ideas outright stolen by a corporation. Talk of free market, but how can a little guy that only has $2,000 capital and a awesome idea compete with a multi million giant?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

From having their ideas outright stolen by a corporation. Talk of free market, but how can a little guy that only has $2,000 capital and a awesome idea compete with a multi million giant?

Corporations are not natural elements of a free market anyway.

[LibertiORDeth]

Corporations are not natural elements of a free market anyway.

They aren't?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

They aren't?

Look it up.

[LibertiORDeth]

Look it up.

What exactly am I looking up.

[magicmike]

Corporations are not natural elements of a free market anyway.

But they exist, and I don't want to see my friends get hurt after all the money they invested.

If there was some other construct to protect my friends I would fully endorse it, but for now I have to support the patent idea, and hope for a reworking of how they are issued.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

But they exist, and I don't want to see my friends get hurt after all the money they invested.

If there was some other construct to protect my friends I would fully endorse it, but for now I have to support the patent idea, and hope for a reworking of how they are issued.

Yup. They exist. But we're talking about my own beliefs here.

[magicmike]

Yup. They exist. But we're talking about my own beliefs here.

Well I'll take my friends livelihood reality over your beliefs, even though I agree that corporatism needs to go, Libertarianism still has a while before it becomes a complete reality.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well I'll take my friends livelihood reality over your beliefs, even though I agree that corporatism needs to go, Libertarianism still has a while before it becomes a complete reality.

Or maybe you have a lot to learn. ;)

[magicmike]

Or maybe you have a lot to learn. ;)

Could you direct me to some good sources (Learning is a lifelong love for me).

But I get the feeling more that we are having two different arguments, yours is more abstract than my personal feelings for the well being of my friends.

Is there a Libertarian idea on how to protect the individual who creates a unique product? Say for instance the hammer is not invented, I invent it sell a single one for $2 to another guy, he has more money and mass produces it, makes billions, and I make $2. Do you think I want to invent anything else?
How exactly do you solve that problem? (And you can't cheat no abstractions!)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Could you direct me to some good sources (Learning is a lifelong love for me).

But I get the feeling more that we are having two different arguments, yours is more abstract than my personal feelings for the well being of my friends.

Is there a Libertarian idea on how to protect the individual who creates a unique product? Say for instance the hammer is not invented, I invent it sell a single one for $2 to another guy, he has more money and mass produces it, makes billions, and I make $2. Do you think I want to invent anything else?
How exactly do you solve that problem? (And you can't cheat no abstractions!)

Keep it a secret. That's how. Depends on how the system works. Pure free market/anarchic society? Free market minarchist society? This society? Look at how things were before IP laws.

[magicmike]

Keep it a secret. That's how. Depends on how the system works. Pure free market/anarchic society? Free market minarchist society? This society? Look at how things were before IP laws.

Well keeping a secret is for magicians, I should know it's a lifelong hobby. But what you may not know is that despite the secretive nature we do keep fairly accurate records of who invented a particular move or slight. And generally look down upon people who don't quote sources. Not nearly as chaotic as most would think.

So that could be an example of a system. Maintain records of individual inventions and who improved upon them and so on. A bit like the Open Source model, yet that still needs some more thought on how to be profitable.

[Banana]

Keep it a secret. That's how.

This is useless. Reverse engineering? De-compiling? Buying a product and studying it?

Patent existed because without patent, nobody would make money off for their new products- it'd be immediately stolen by existing companies with more resources as soon as the idea hit the market.

Now, I have some misgivings, especially with pharma patents but do not know enough to make an informed argument beyond that patent does have a reason for its existence.

Intellectual property, OTOH, is a quagmire and probably best disposed of.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well keeping a secret is for magicians, I should know it's a lifelong hobby. But what you may not know is that despite the secretive nature we do keep fairly accurate records of who invented a particular move or slight. And generally look down upon people who don't quote sources. Not nearly as chaotic as most would think.

So that could be an example of a system. Maintain records of individual inventions and who improved upon them and so on. A bit like the Open Source model, yet that still needs some more thought on how to be profitable.

Well, we should look to solutions that don't involve the mafia (government). I find it hard to believe that inventors won't invent anything, just because they fear their ideas being stolen lol. "I would love to invent things, but I fear my ideas being stolen, so I guess I just won't invent anything."

[AutoDas]

What is this person with $2,000 capital going to do with some patents? It doesn't sound like he has the resources and know-how to produce it so he's going to sue companies who violate the patent. What he should have done is found some people that would be interested in his IDEA and try to get them to pay for it. He should keep it a secret. Patents are government granted monopolies. Corporatism is not part of the free market. People make money buy actually bringing their ideas to life. Having multiple ways of doing the same thing is just a waste of resources.

About copyright laws, do you actually think laws are what makes the world go 'round? People will know that if they like a program, but don't support it then it is likely to go away. It's not theft, no one is poorer for downloading a video.

[Banana]

"I would love to invent things, but I fear my ideas being stolen, so I guess I just won't invent anything."

No. It's more like:

"If I invent this, someone will copy it and make money off it and I'll be still at square one financially. Why bother pouring my money and taking a risk just to see it get picked up by a bigger company and peddled as their? What's the use?"

[magicmike]

What is this person with $2,000 capital going to do with some patents? It doesn't sound like he has the resources and know-how to produce it so he's going to sue companies who violate the patent. What he should have done is found some people that would be interested in his IDEA and try to get them to pay for it. He should keep it a secret. Patents are government granted monopolies. Corporatism is not part of the free market. People make money buy actually bringing their ideas to life. Having multiple ways of doing the same thing is just a waste of resources.



You don't seem to understand, he needs some kind of recourse if somebody takes his UNIQUE idea and outright steals it!
You seem to be a very trusting person if you believe that can never happen.


People make money buy actually bringing their ideas to life.
Really! I've got one word for you, Linux. Where's the direct money to idea pattern there? they make money solely off support.

I believe if more thought is put into this there will be a solution, But it is definitely insulting to put down genuine innovation and original work as if it did not matter.

Maybe it's a hard point to understand, so many of these Ron Paul videos on youtube used copyright material (legally under fair use of course) but imagine you had to capture every bit of that footage yourself? Fly to Iraq to capture original war footage, then off to debates, rallys, and crying parents.

[magicmike]

It's not theft, no one is poorer for downloading a video.

Really? how about an instructional video? How about a video explaining original magic tricks that took a lifetime to invent? The "Secret" immediately looses value then.
That's kind of like a persons livelihood. and thus theft of property.

I have trouble understanding where you are coming form, are you for Digital Rights Management? Because i'm not.

Maybe a more reasonable idea is a strict enforcement of NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements)

[IPSecure]

Gates wants patent power... This was 2004!

Microsoft's chairman said Thursday that the company expects to file 3,000 patent applications this year, up from a little over 2,000 last year and 1,000 just a few years ago.

http://www.news.com/Gates-wants-patent-power/2100-1014_3-5288722.html

[magicmike]

Gates wants patent power... This was 2004!

Microsoft's chairman said Thursday that the company expects to file 3,000 patent applications this year, up from a little over 2,000 last year and 1,000 just a few years ago.

http://www.news.com/Gates-wants-patent-power/2100-1014_3-5288722.html

Well that has more to do with playing the patent office system, I have been told before by some scientists that the Patent office is more of a "resubmit till you get it" kind of system now. It's being played and overly abused, the Idea of patents has merit, just not to this extent. A very big concern is changing the system to "first come first serve" which looks like it may have passed in the house or is close to. This would give corporates pretty much the power to draw official looking doodles and claim patent of absurd things.

[AutoDas]

You don't seem to understand, he needs some kind of recourse if somebody takes his UNIQUE idea and outright steals it!
You seem to be a very trusting person if you believe that can never happen.


Really! I've got one word for you, Linux. Where's the direct money to idea pattern there? they make money solely off support.

I believe if more thought is put into this there will be a solution, But it is definitely insulting to put down genuine innovation and original work as if it did not matter.

Maybe it's a hard point to understand, so many of these Ron Paul videos on youtube used copyright material (legally under fair use of course) but imagine you had to capture every bit of that footage yourself? Fly to Iraq to capture original war footage, then off to debates, rallys, and crying parents.
What the hell are blabbing about? Read what I said. You're even against fair use? DRM has it's use in subscription music so screw off. Because we really need laws to tell us how to buy stuff? By your logic, Amazon and iTunes shouldn't be selling more than one DRM-free track since it can be shared. People are not as ignorant as you, they know to support what they like to get more of it. You cannot prove that someone would've bought something they downloaded. Why the hell would somebody invent something if they are not going to market it?

[magicmike]

What the hell are blabbing about? Read what I said. You're even against fair use? DRM has it's use in subscription music so screw off. Because we really need laws to tell us how to buy stuff? By your logic, Amazon and iTunes shouldn't be selling more than one DRM-free track since it can be shared. People are not as ignorant as you, they know to support what they like to get more of it.

I never said I was against fair use, just that it's hard to understand how much work goes into something when you get it for free.

And DRM is a backwards corporate idea, there are better solutions that ensure rights are transfered to individuals rather than to a piece of hardware.
Look up some of the watermark ideas out there, tie this in with a NDA contract and you have a better solution than hardware tied DRM.

[magicmike]

Look at how things were before IP laws.

I would like to get back to your point there Joseph, Natural examples could be cowboys branding their cattle with a specific logo, how did they naturally maintain distinctiveness to ensure cattle were not stolen and claimed (intentionally or unintentionally) by another cowboy with a similar logo?

[TastyWheat]

I have nothing against patents and the like, but the duration should probably come down. Songs can be copyrighted for 100 years in America. How many people live to get the full benefit of that? How many sons and daughters live off their parents royalties? How many writers substitute royalty checks for a real retirement fund? Such long durations for copyrights only encourages laziness.

[nickcoons]

There is an excellent article that I found several years ago titled The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. I found the page for it here:

http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

However, it's now coming up with a 404 error. But it is available in Google's cache here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zmiQTiqu1SUJ:www.libertariannation. org/a/f31l1.html+libertarian+arguments+against+patents+a nd+copyrights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en

I have no idea how long it will be there, so go to it quickly, and save a copy of it on your own system if you want to be able to reference it in the future.

[angelatc]

Maybe it's a hard point to understand, so many of these Ron Paul videos on youtube used copyright material (legally under fair use of course) but imagine you had to capture every bit of that footage yourself? Fly to Iraq to capture original war footage, then off to debates, rallys, and crying parents.



How about reimbursing the person that actually did all those things for you?

I think that copyrights and patents should only belong to individuals, and not to organizations or corporations. (Like that will ever happen.....)

[Kade]

I am vehemently against patents and just as much as copyright laws for "intellectual property." (thought crime)
I am against anything that restricts competition, innovation, and free trade.



I proudly embrace the term Yankee because during Jefferson's presidency, America ignored international patent laws and the people overseas thought of that as piracy.

I have thought long and hard about IP and patents specifically.

I think along the same lines as Ayn Rand on this issue... as long as patents avoid organizations and corporations, and belong to only individual people, you are protecting the individuals claim to innovation.

"The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it -- i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal. A man is not forced to apply for a patent or copyright; he may give his idea away, if he so chooses; but if he wishes to exercise his property right, the government will protect it, as it protects all other rights. ... The patent or copyright notice on a physical object represents a public statement of the conditions on which the inventor or author is willing to sell his product: for the purchaser's use, but not for commercial reproduction."

-Ayn Rand

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There is an excellent article that I found several years ago titled The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. I found the page for it here:

http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

However, it's now coming up with a 404 error. But it is available in Google's cache here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zmiQTiqu1SUJ:www.libertariannation. org/a/f31l1.html+libertarian+arguments+against+patents+a nd+copyrights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en

I have no idea how long it will be there, so go to it quickly, and save a copy of it on your own system if you want to be able to reference it in the future.

How do I save it? Or do you mean copy & paste to wordpad?

[Zarxrax]

I don't really believe in IP, but I can accept that it can be beneficial to a society within limitation.

I think patents should be limited to 10 years, and we need much stricter limits on what can actually be patented. Software patents should definitely not be allowed, and of what remains, they should probably not grant at least half of them. If someone invents an awesome new invention and brings it to market, let them have their monopoly for a short time, they earned it. If multiple people independently come up with the same idea, then it probably shouldn't be patentable, since it wasn't all that original after all. 10 years is plenty of time to make money on a new invention or technology, and if you can't do anything with it by then, well its time to forfeit your right to it and let someone who knows what they are doing take over.

I think the patent office should also keep a running tab of how many patents are submitted by a company. Each time you submit a patent and it is rejected, your fee for filing a patent will go up. This would keep companies from spamming the system with nonsense patents. Of course, this might be circumvented by setting up dummy companies or something, so maybe that idea needs to be re-thought, but its a good start, I think.

Copyright also needs to be seriously reexamined. Works should have to be specifically copyrighted--no more of this "automatic copyright" nonsense. Copyright should also come in 5 year terms, renewable to a maximum of 20 years. That would be lovely.

[nickcoons]

How do I save it? Or do you mean copy & paste to wordpad?

Yes, copy and paste. I have it saved in a document on my local system as well, in case it disappears from the Google cache and doesn't come back.

It looks like the Wayback Machine picked it up, so it should be there indefinitely:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070817223432/http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

[synapz]

I admit I am a bit nervous focusing on these issues when there are "more important" things going on (war, imprisonment, taxation), but maybe everyone needs to focus on their own thing. Anyway, I'd like to set the record straight about what I feel is the "proper" (hard to be more divisive than that!) libertarian view towards patents, copyrights, and all other forms of "intellectual property".

This all comes down to the non-aggression axiom (like everything else in the libertarian philosophy) - "Do not use aggressive force," or, "Only the use of aggressive force is a crime." This means that you may not use force against another person except in self-defense, which is clearly not a use of aggressive force. Note here that the libertarian includes the property of an individual as a potential object of this force, and so may rightfully be protected.

In addition, the libertarian defines property as that natural resource that is collected freely (without the use of force) and changed into something through the labor of the individual who now owns it. This could be ore that is refined into metal, or even just the ore itself, as it has been altered from its natural state by the one who collected it.

Now, let's examine a case of "intellectual property infringement" in this light.

Sam invents the hammer. Sam builds and sells his hammer to Bob. Joe has witnessed this event and decides he can build a hammer better, faster, or just more of the same to reach a wider market that Sam has not managed to reach. Joe builds many hammers and begins to sell them. Sam is incensed that Joe would steal his idea, and accuses him of infringing upon his intellectual property.

But Joe has used no force against Sam. Neither has he stolen any genuine property of Sam's. In fact, Joe has done no wrong; he has attempted only to create more wealth in the market.

Now suppose Sam sees Joe selling a hammer to Bob. He is so angry that he shoots Joe. But what has happened here? Joe and Bob are engaging in mutually voluntary trade, a cornerstone of the free market. Sam is inhibiting the free market, not promoting it through his invention.

So, after considering core libertarian principles, I would conclude that IP is an unethical farce. Whether or not this results in a better or worse market for consumers is irrelevant to me at this point; I want the right thing to be done, I don't want some better market that comes at the cost of liberty. So when I go on to explain how Sam could make a pretty penny from his invention without indulging in unethical constructs, I want you to understand that ultimately, this is irrelevant. IP would still be wrong with or without this explanation. The ends do not justify the means.

So, back to Sam...

Sam invents the hammer. He realizes that he has a great idea, but that it would be very difficult for him to produce very many hammers and sell them at a profit. He does, however, know a fellow named Joe who could produce hammers quite easily. Sam talks to Joe and tells him that he has a splendid idea, and that he will share it with him under contract to receive a portion of the profits Joe yields from the idea, should he ever use it. Joe agrees, provided Sam doesn't sell his idea to anyone else before Joe has the opportunity to introduce them into the market. They agree, Sam tells Joe about the hammer, Joe builds many hammers, and sells them to the Bobs of the world.

Sam probably does not make as much money as he could have under an IP monopoly. He does get rewarded handsomely for his idea, however, along with Joe. In all, I would deem this result far more materially fair to everyone involved, all the way down to the consumer. I don't think Sam should be living the high life for the next 17 years because he monopolized the idea of the hammer.

You see, this is just one more case when doing the right thing leads to good results. The problem is that we cannot always foresee that things will indeed be better in the future when we do the right thing. Most of us, for example, admit that things will probably be better in the future if drugs are legalized. Bust most people think doom and gloom when they consider such a thing. The point is, it doesn't matter what you fear happening because of doing the right thing, what matters is that you do the right thing. This is what separates true libertarians from "utilitarian libertarians", in my humble opinion. True libertarians will never believe that the ends justify the means. They will always claim that doing the right thing is, in fact, the right thing to do. It just so happens to turn out that this also leads to the best social situation, lucky us. ;)

[Zarxrax]

Sam invents the hammer. He realizes that he has a great idea, but that it would be very difficult for him to produce very many hammers and sell them at a profit. He does, however, know a fellow named Joe who could produce hammers quite easily. Sam talks to Joe and tells him that he has a splendid idea, and that he will share it with him under contract to receive a portion of the profits Joe yields from the idea, should he ever use it. Joe agrees, provided Sam doesn't sell his idea to anyone else before Joe has the opportunity to introduce them into the market. They agree, Sam tells Joe about the hammer, Joe builds many hammers, and sells them to the Bobs of the world.

Just a little devil's advocate here, but couldn't it be argued that, like Sam's contract with Joe, a patent is a contract with the rest of society? Essentially, you have the option of keeping your idea to yourself, or putting your idea out on the market. If you choose to put your idea on the market, then the public is accepting this benefit to themselves, and in exchange, implicitly agreeing not to take your idea.

[Banana]

synapz,

Your arguments are quite interesting. But what about the economic argument?

If you'll bear with me-

Suppose we have three actors; Acme company, Ace company, and an inventor. Assume we have no patents, IP, nothing.

The inventor invents a widget. He tries to bring it to market. As soon as it arrives, both companies immediately start churning out their own widgets, shutting out the inventor.

Inventor could try to get a contract with one of the company, since they're far more better positioned to market the widget. He goes to Acme, gets a contract, and it hits the market. Ace immediately comes up with the widget and because it isn't encumbered by royalty fees, it gets to sell them at a discount. Once again, the inventor get shut out again.

At the end of day, the inventor will think to himself, "gee, there's no profit in inventing things. I might as well be a laborer because then I can at least collect wages."

In both scenarios, no force were initiated, but the capital of bringing about a invention was lost and it was the inventor who bore the full cost of R & D while the companies got a free ride. This means that there are no incentives for people to invent new things and therefore the capital invested toward innovation would be shunned in favor of capital toward labor or something else so the society develop at much more slower rate, inventing only what is necessary rather than leap-bounding on what is possible.

Ideally, the patent law should only guarantee that the capital invested into innovation will be guaranteed that there will be no stolen returns on the investment. This should give anyone an incentive to try something new; the risk of failure is still there, but there is no risk of it being used by someone else who never bore the burden of bringing it to the fruition.

[synapz]

Just a little devil's advocate here, but couldn't it be argued that, like Sam's contract with Joe, a patent is a contract with the rest of society? Essentially, you have the option of keeping your idea to yourself, or putting your idea out on the market. If you choose to put your idea on the market, then the public is accepting this benefit to themselves, and in exchange, implicitly agreeing not to take your idea.

I wouldn't view it that way, exactly. It seems to me that when you invoke "society" the way you have here, that you're forcing others to agree to a contract that they have not really agreed to. While Sam may apply for a patent, Joe has not entered into a contract with him. Neither has Sam entered Joe into a contract with "society".

[nickcoons]

Sam probably does not make as much money as he could have under an IP monopoly.

I would contend that Sam would actually make more money in your scenario than he would with an IP monopoly. As you've mentioned previously, Sam did not have the resources to produce hammers as quickly or inexpensively as Joe did, and an IP monopoly will not magically give him that resource. He would slowly sell more expensive hammers on his own and keeping all of the money, instead of taking a smaller portion of a much more voluminous position.

[nickcoons]

Just a little devil's advocate here, but couldn't it be argued that, like Sam's contract with Joe, a patent is a contract with the rest of society?

The only way "society" can enter into a contract is if the contract contains 6 billion signatures. No one can enter into a contract on anyone else's behalf. Likewise, the government cannot enter into a contract (the patent) with Sam on my or your behalf.

[synapz]

synapz,

Your arguments are quite interesting. But what about the economic argument?

If you'll bear with me-

Suppose we have three actors; Acme company, Ace company, and an inventor. Assume we have no patents, IP, nothing.

The inventor invents a widget. He tries to bring it to market. As soon as it arrives, both companies immediately start churning out their own widgets, shutting out the inventor.

Inventor could try to get a contract with one of the company, since they're far more better positioned to market the widget. He goes to Acme, gets a contract, and it hits the market. Ace immediately comes up with the widget and because it isn't encumbered by royalty fees, it gets to sell them at a discount. Once again, the inventor get shut out again.

At the end of day, the inventor will think to himself, "gee, there's no profit in inventing things. I might as well be a laborer because then I can at least collect wages."

In both scenarios, no force were initiated, but the capital of bringing about a invention was lost and it was the inventor who bore the full cost of R & D while the companies got a free ride. This means that there are no incentives for people to invent new things and therefore the capital invested toward innovation would be shunned in favor of capital toward labor or something else so the society develop at much more slower rate, inventing only what is necessary rather than leap-bounding on what is possible.

Ideally, the patent law should only guarantee that the capital invested into innovation will be guaranteed that there will be no stolen returns on the investment. This should give anyone an incentive to try something new; the risk of failure is still there, but there is no risk of it being used by someone else who never bore the burden of bringing it to the fruition.

Hi Banana,

I would like to say before beginning that despite the fact that I am about to offer an argument that answers the questions implicit in the questions you have posed here (I hope!), I consider these questions largely irrelevant. I consider them irrelevant because I believe it should be more important to "do that right thing" than "have the desired outcome". There will inevitably be some situations that are too difficult for me to address. Had this been one, I would still view it as unimportant whether or not the inventor got some proceeds from his idea next to the use of force preventing others from doing as they please when not using force against others.

That said...

Inventor would be wise to go to the company that is best poised to bring his idea to market quietly, en mass, and efficiently. The company (and Inventor) will reap large profits by being the only supplier on the market while other companies try to bring their production online to begin to compete with the initial supplier. So yes, while the royalties the original company is paying to Inventor does cut into their profits, other companies have not yet begun to move towards production. Once they do, this could have a negative impact on the original producer. It would be in the interest of Inventor to reduce the royalties at this point, and I would expect this to be part of the original contract the inventor enters into. I suspect the original producer will estimate how long it will take for a competitor to enter the market, and either cut off or greatly reduce the royalties at that point.

Which is fine, in my opinion. The inventor should get a just reward for his invention, and he will be rewarded properly if he handles his invention properly.

Also, do not discount the research the entering competitors will have to engage in in order to reverse-engineer the product and reproduce it. While copying a hammer will be simple, and the reward to the inventor appropriately reduced, pulling off the same stunt with a CPU from Intel would be a colossal undertaking. The reward to the inventor of that product would be appropriately increased.

I'm certain that there are some issues that I have not foreseen and quite possibly could not find immediate solutions for. But the point is, this is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that doing the right thing is always more important than getting the desired outcome. I would rather live in teepees and in peace than in mansions and in a police state.

[nickcoons]

The inventor invents a widget. He tries to bring it to market. As soon as it arrives, both companies immediately start churning out their own widgets, shutting out the inventor.

And here's the flaw. This doesn't have much to do with patents, but more with marketing practices. Let's say that in your scenario, patents exist and are thoroughly enforced. If the inventor did not file for a patent on his invention, then he's in the same position. This has more to do with an inventor taking due diligence to protect his idea, because the existence of a patent system doesn't help him.

An inventor should be an inventor, and a production company should be a production company. If I invent something, I would realize that I am not a producer, so I would not be so naive to think that I can just start churning my widgets out in my garage and think that no one will have the means to out-produce me.

Instead of bringing my idea to market, I would approach various companies, making all of them sign NDAs (which is a contract, and perfectly enforceable in a libertarian society) such that none of them could use my idea without paying an agreed-upon royalty. Then I'd choose the company that would give me the best results (both in royalties and ability to produce large enough quantities quickly enough that by the time a competitor caught on the market would be saturated and it wouldn't be profitable). Heck, I could make a non-exclusive agreement, with a lower royalty, with the five largest producers such that there would be no way that a competitor of theirs would be able to produce this item in any profitable way.

[synapz]

I would contend that Sam would actually make more money in your scenario than he would with an IP monopoly. As you've mentioned previously, Sam did not have the resources to produce hammers as quickly or inexpensively as Joe did, and an IP monopoly will not magically give him that resource. He would slowly sell more expensive hammers on his own and keeping all of the money, instead of taking a smaller portion of a much more voluminous position.

I'm no economist, but I wouldn't be surprised if you turn out to be correct. I'd vote for you, Nick. :)

[Banana]

I consider them irrelevant because I believe it should be more important to "do that right thing" than "have the desired outcome".

Fair enough. The only unfortunate thing about it is that reality has a tendency to rear its ugly head.

Otherwise, your idea of having a contract with limited royalty (factoring in the competition) and the fact that reverse engineering does cost time & money is quite valid.

Let's see and if we agree on this analogy...

A painter Joe has been hired to paint Sam's house. After a long and hard work, Joe is finally finished, and will return when Sam is home to collect his bill.

It so happens that a painter Bill stops by Sam's house before Joe does, and presents Sam with a bill, and Sam agrees with the amount due and pays it. Ordinarily, Joe should able to take Sam to court and force Sam to pay the bill even if Sam paid Bill; it's Sam's fault for having paid the wrong painter.

But suppose the judge ruled that since Bill is a painter, it was expected that he should charge for his service and it's basically Joe's fault for not getting the bill from Sam before Joe did.

Would that be the case if we didn't have patent laws?

[magicmike]

I'm certain that there are some issues that I have not foreseen and quite possibly could not find immediate solutions for. But the point is, this is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that doing the right thing is always more important than getting the desired outcome. I would rather live in teepees and in peace than in mansions and in a police state.

This is definitely one of the problems, look up Prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) if you are not already aware of it. It matches very much with your idea, taking the scenario of two prisoners escaping.
There are only two options to cooperate or defect (brake trust/kill/snitch)
Best chances for success are to cooperate, but best payoff would be to defect.

The wikipedia article goes into good detail about the scenario. But I would like to add the the game becomes even more interesting if one prisoner claims to know the location of stolen bank money.

The possibility of punishment (Patents/NDA's/etc...) for defecting insures cooperation though.


I admit I am a bit nervous focusing on these issues when there are "more important" things going on (war, imprisonment, taxation), but maybe everyone needs to focus on their own thing.
Though talking of IP/Patents/Copyright/ right now is not a pressing issue, it will be soon. And may be too late if we don't start now, many things will be coming in the future that I believe should not be patentable like DNA, and anything that is a "living creation" this opens up some horrible possibilities where parts of your custom designed body could be "owned" by somebody.
While the pressing issues could be considered the branches of a monstrous overgrown tree, hacking at the roots may be a more effective route.

[synapz]

Fair enough. The only unfortunate thing about it is that reality has a tendency to rear its ugly head.

Otherwise, your idea of having a contract with limited royalty (factoring in the competition) and the fact that reverse engineering does cost time & money is quite valid.

Let's see and if we agree on this analogy...

A painter Joe has been hired to paint Sam's house. After a long and hard work, Joe is finally finished, and will return when Sam is home to collect his bill.

It so happens that a painter Bill stops by Sam's house before Joe does, and presents Sam with a bill, and Sam agrees with the amount due and pays it. Ordinarily, Joe should able to take Sam to court and force Sam to pay the bill even if Sam paid Bill; it's Sam's fault for having paid the wrong painter.

But suppose the judge ruled that since Bill is a painter, it was expected that he should charge for his service and it's basically Joe's fault for not getting the bill from Sam before Joe did.

Would that be the case if we didn't have patent laws?

Can you word this another way? I'm a little confused.

[synapz]

Though talking of IP/Patents/Copyright/ right now is not a pressing issue, it will be soon. And may be too late if we don't start now, many things will be coming in the future that I believe should not be patentable like DNA, and anything that is a "living creation" this opens up some horrible possibilities where parts of your custom designed body could be "owned" by somebody.
While the pressing issues could be considered the branches of a monstrous overgrown tree, hacking at the roots may be a more effective route.

I can't argue with this logic!

[satchelmcqueen]

I didn't read anything but the OPs post. i like patents if it is a real original ideal. that needs protection from thieves looking to steal ones ideas. If you come up with an original ideal, you should be able to secure that same ideal until YOU are ready to sell or use it.

[Banana]

Can you word this another way? I'm a little confused.

Sorry for losing you.

I was trying to test water but apparently I muddled it instead.

The basic question was if you paid a guy for work that he didn't do besides showing up with an invoice, it's a given that the guy who did the actual work should be able to sue you to get his full payment even if you say you've already paid for the work, but simply to wrong person and he has to go after that person; wouldn't that basically be the patent law's intent?

Helps any?

[synapz]

Sorry for losing you.

I was trying to test water but apparently I muddled it instead.

The basic question was if you paid a guy for work that he didn't do besides showing up with an invoice, it's a given that the guy who did the actual work should be able to sue you to get his full payment even if you say you've already paid for the work, but simply to wrong person and he has to go after that person; wouldn't that basically be the patent law's intent?

Helps any?

Well, I think I understand the scenario you are painting, but I can't seem to connect patent law to it.

[Banana]

The premise was that if you paid someone else for the work they didn't, this is considered immoral and theft.

When a company copycats a inventor's work, company essentially did no work in R & D (of course, we should factor in the fact that reverse engineer will cost some time & money... see below), wouldn't that be a theft of the inventor's capital invested into the innovation?

In first scenario, it's easier for us to resolve in the court; all we need to show that we actually did work and didn't get paid as per our agreement. In second scenario, it depends on patent laws being present, no?

Does that help or am I making this clear as mud?

[synapz]

The premise was that if you paid someone else for the work they didn't, this is considered immoral and theft.

When a company copycats a inventor's work, company essentially did no work in R & D (of course, we should factor in the fact that reverse engineer will cost some time & money... see below), wouldn't that be a theft of the inventor's capital invested into the innovation?

In first scenario, it's easier for us to resolve in the court; all we need to show that we actually did work and didn't get paid as per our agreement. In second scenario, it depends on patent laws being present, no?

Does that help or am I making this clear as mud?

For me, this comes down to the use of force. If you use force to steal someone's idea, then that's wrong. If you use force to prevent someone from peacefully manufacturing and selling something, then that's wrong. I think with regard to patent law, the situation will be the latter.

[jpa]

I have thought long and hard about IP and patents specifically.

I think along the same lines as Ayn Rand on this issue... as long as patents avoid organizations and corporations, and belong to only individual people, you are protecting the individuals claim to innovation.

"The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it -- i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal. A man is not forced to apply for a patent or copyright; he may give his idea away, if he so chooses; but if he wishes to exercise his property right, the government will protect it, as it protects all other rights. ... The patent or copyright notice on a physical object represents a public statement of the conditions on which the inventor or author is willing to sell his product: for the purchaser's use, but not for commercial reproduction."

-Ayn Rand


my employer requires me to sign a voluntary contract to work for them. That contract states that I have to assign any IP that I create while employed that applies to thier industry to the company. Most technology companies require that.

So Ayn Rand's proposal doesn't prevent our current situation. In fact, AFAIK patents are assigned to people, not corps today.

[Dequeant]

I am against anything that restricts competition, innovation, and free trade.

As a business major, the biggest restriction on innovation is to NOT have a patent system or a system of intellectual property rights. Without the patent system, there is no motivation to invent something new, because those with more money and resources than yourself can simply copy your design and gain the profits. You will never have a chance to profit off your innovation because you will never have as many resources as the microsofts of the world....who will use those resources to capitalise on your idea/invention before you have a chance.

Like it or not, the patent system protects the "little guys" and encourages innovation.

[synapz]

As a business major, the biggest restriction on innovation is to NOT have a patent system or a system of intellectual property rights. Without the patent system, there is no motivation to invent something new, because those with more money and resources than yourself can simply copy your design and gain the profits. You will never have a chance to profit off your innovation because you will never have as many resources as the microsofts of the world....who will use those resources to capitalise on your idea/invention before you have a chance.

Like it or not, the patent system protects the "little guys" and encourages innovation.

That's just it. I'm not interested in a system that "protects" me if I must give up my liberty in exchange. For example, If Bob sells Sam a product that Joe invented without compensating Joe in any way, neither Bob nor Sam are using force against Joe. In fact, the whole thing has nothing to do with Joe at all! It's a mutually voluntary exchange in which Joe has no say.

What about Joe's innovation? If he were wise, he would have approached a producer with a nondisclosure agreement and asked them to make and sell his product for a royalty. The producer, being the only one privy to the knowledge of Joe's invention before it hits the marketplace, could rapidly flood the market with the product and make it difficult for competitors to enter. They would, eventually, of course, but not before Joe received a handsome sum for his work. Further, companies would be able to bring prices on the product down sooner than in the arbitrary 17-year (or whatever it is) life span of current patents. Instead of focusing on a cheaper product than the original producer, they would also be forced to innovate on the idea in order to find a profitable niche.

All that is fine, but the point to take away from all this is that it is important to do the right thing, not look for some outcome that you think is the best. Stick to the nonaggression axiom, and your political philosophy will generally be extremely sound.

Also, if you have not yet read it, look into Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." It is the most astounding book on political philosophy I have read in my entire life.

[Banana]

For me, this comes down to the use of force. If you use force to steal someone's idea, then that's wrong. If you use force to prevent someone from peacefully manufacturing and selling something, then that's wrong. I think with regard to patent law, the situation will be the latter.

and you wouldn't say patent law prevent the former scenario? In that scenario the "force" would be the absence of capital & risk of developing the product.

[nickcoons]

A painter Joe has been hired to paint Sam's house. After a long and hard work, Joe is finally finished, and will return when Sam is home to collect his bill.

It so happens that a painter Bill stops by Sam's house before Joe does, and presents Sam with a bill, and Sam agrees with the amount due and pays it. Ordinarily, Joe should able to take Sam to court and force Sam to pay the bill even if Sam paid Bill; it's Sam's fault for having paid the wrong painter.

But suppose the judge ruled that since Bill is a painter, it was expected that he should charge for his service and it's basically Joe's fault for not getting the bill from Sam before Joe did.

Would that be the case if we didn't have patent laws?

No.. there would have been a voluntary contract between Joe and Sam, to which Joe would paint Sam's house, and Sam would paint Joe's house. If Sam does not pay Joe (whether or not he pays anyone else), then he is in breech of this agreement.

Your analogy is more closely related to the way the patent system works now. If Joe invented painting and that secret leaked out to Bill, and Bill beat him to the patent office, then Bill would own the invention of painting simply because he showed up first.

[nickcoons]

The possibility of punishment (Patents/NDA's/etc...) for defecting insures cooperation though.

Grouping NDAs with patents is disingenuous, because they are not the same at all. In a society free of patents and copyrights, NDAs are contracts and would continue to exist, and enforcing them would be a legitimate function of government in a libertarian society.

[Banana]

No.. there would have been a voluntary contract between Joe and Sam, to which Joe would paint Sam's house, and Sam would paint Joe's house. If Sam does not pay Joe (whether or not he pays anyone else), then he is in breech of this agreement.

That's what a sensible Judge would have ruled, yes. I wanted to test whether this analogy can be extrapolated to an inventor inventing something with his labor only to see someone else get paid for that product.


Your analogy is more closely related to the way the patent system works now. If Joe invented painting and that secret leaked out to Bill, and Bill beat him to the patent office, then Bill would own the invention of painting simply because he showed up first.

FWIW, I understand that patent office of US, unlike EU's, doesn't necessarily go by who filed first; if there are challenge, the patent office will investigate into who actually invested in the development first. Of course, just because that's what they claim to do, doesn't mean this is done in practice, though...

[nickcoons]

As a business major, the biggest restriction on innovation is to NOT have a patent system or a system of intellectual property rights. Without the patent system, there is no motivation to invent something new, because those with more money and resources than yourself can simply copy your design and gain the profits.

Except that your argument holds no basis in history, because there was no lack of innovation before a patent system. Of course, given the choice, a business will take a monopoly on their idea over no monopoly, because it's in their self-interest. But that in no way means that, in the event that everyone is on a level playing field, there would be no innovation. That argument has a logical disconnect.


You will never have a chance to profit off your innovation because you will never have as many resources as the microsofts of the world....who will use those resources to capitalise on your idea/invention before you have a chance.

Which again, has no basis in history. Open source has provided much more to the technical world than Microsoft has. While open source software is technically copyrighted in the sense that the original author owns it, that copyright doesn't have much teeth to it since it pretty much gives any recipient of the software the ability to use it any way they'd like.


Like it or not, the patent system protects the "little guys" and encourages innovation.

Then why is it that the "big guys" own the majority of patents?

[angelatc]

I didn't read anything but the OPs post. i like patents if it is a real original ideal. that needs protection from thieves looking to steal ones ideas. If you come up with an original ideal, you should be able to secure that same ideal until YOU are ready to sell or use it.

Apparently it was Ben Franklin who pushed for this to be included in the constitution. He saw how men were being robbed of their ideas and how important it was to balance the power. He also knew how important it was to put a time limit on the protection to keep monopolies from assuming control.

I'm far more likely to defend patent rights than I am copyrights though. "Useful arts" is certainly a debateable context.

[SimpleName]

It is a property right. If you create a process of doing something, surely you deserve to own the rights to that process for some length of time. Huge companies could easily steal ideas, mass produce them, and you don't even have a chance to start manufacturing them with any sufficient pace. When a corporation takes your process for producing something, they are stealing your property. As long as it is a physical object, it is certainly your property. Patents, looking at it this way, seem necessary.

In addition, copyrights are 100% necessary to establish property rights. If I produce music or a movie, I need to have protection from other people selling my work...MY PROPERTY. It is like other people taking my income. It is MY property. I should have the right to do as I please with it. While "sharing" it is a different problem, no one should be allowed to take my works and make profit from them.

[magicmike]

Except that your argument holds no basis in history, because there was no lack of innovation before a patent system.

Before when? The concept has existed for at least 500 years. And if you are talking that far back, there could be prestige and honor as a motivation to invent.




Open source has provided much more to the technical world than Microsoft has.
Technical? Yes , Consumer end user? No



While open source software is technically copyrighted in the sense that the original author owns it, that copyright doesn't have much teeth to it since it pretty much gives any recipient of the software the ability to use it any way they'd like.

(Before I start I am against long term software patents and handing them out in cracker jack boxes.)
Open source (in the way you wrote of it, i'm assuming the GNU and variants) is not the best example to use for this, BSD has done more commercial success (Apple, Solaris, Microsoft's TCP/IP, and literally unknown others.) Than traditional GNU and variant licenses. So if you are approaching this from a commerce standpoint then yes it's obvious that giving something away without restrictions creates markets, but I don't believe the creators of BSD are in the fortune 500. They made that choice based upon the philosophy of what software should be. (Which I agree with). The GNU/variants model however, closes (larger margin) profitability because of the requirement to release the source code with distribution. Thus many distributions rely on support contracts or binary distribution to make a buck, (And I believe also hold off on improvement in some areas to ensure support contracts are maintained) Which may explain why it has not done so well in a consumerism model.
In the road ahead though I see the idea of software patents as irrelevant, most of the power will lie in who controls the networks and their hardware. You could conceivably be using some type of terminal access and not really care what it's running on. The divide would come by computers reaching a DNA or Quantum state as to be too dangerous or expensive to own. At that point it's useless to have the source code when you can't even recompile on your own computer.

On an off note I would love to see someone create a business model based upon Open source principals.



Then why is it that the "big guys" own the majority of patents?
That's like asking why whales eat more fish...
Because they buy it outright from the "little guy", have more engineers, research funds, acquisitions (especially Microsoft), and as a generalization real inventors are using their brain power for inventing, not for common business sense.
The question also leads to the impression that there are no more "genuine individual inventors" whose livelihood depends on continuing to invent, rather than the average Joe who gets an idea in the shower?

Also I want to raise a issue that is more academic then business, but how do you recognize who invented something? Ask who invented the hamburger and you can get 7 different answers. On the other side of the argument ask who invented the wiring method in your house and most will say Thomas Edison, you would be wrong though it was Tesla (not the rock band). And yet Tesla had over 700 patents, it is disappointing how that part of patents have failed.

I know that I am arguing both ways, but my view is why throw the baby (protection) out with the very dirty bathwater (the muddled mess of what patents have become)?

[magicmike]

Here is an idea, create an alternative to patents but require something "Open source like" of a license agreement whereby anybody can produce this product but have to agree to X% of profits to original inventor and any improvements can allow the "improver " to add to this license to charge a x% to future producers. On top of this shorten the span to 10 years so that it encourages innovators to quickly add on to it.

hmmmmm I think I have something here..... I better patent it....:D JK

[AutoDas]

How can you protectionists define the lifespan of patents? Your whole argument is the belief that an idea is property. The solution is always to revamp the patent office to stop frivolous lawsuits, but then the government gets to decide on what is obvious. How is that not regulating thought? Who's to say that someone else couldn't think of the same improvement or process? Companies spent more money on lawsuits last year than they did on research and development.

[synapz]

I'd like to note here that everyone supporting the idea of patents appears to be doing so because of some results that they want, not out of some principle.

Sam builds a hammer and sells it to Joe. This transaction has nothing to do with Bob, who invented the hammer. What natural right does Bob have to step in between them and say, "No! Sam, do not build that hammer and sell it to Joe!" It's none of his business, despite it being his invention.

If Bob wants to make money from his idea, he needs to market it properly (just like every other product), not set up a government-enforced monopoly of his idea.

[magicmike]

How can you protectionists define the lifespan of patents? Your whole argument is the belief that an idea is property. The solution is always to revamp the patent office to stop frivolous lawsuits, but then the government gets to decide on what is obvious. How is that not regulating thought? Who's to say that someone else couldn't think of the same improvement or process? Companies spent more money on lawsuits last year than they did on research and development.

[magicmike]

AutoDas ^ how do you feel about me copying everything you said exactly without credit to you?

[magicmike]

I'd like to note here that everyone supporting the idea of patents appears to be doing so because of some results that they want, not out of some principle.

Sam builds a hammer and sells it to Joe. This transaction has nothing to do with Bob, who invented the hammer. What natural right does Bob have to step in between them and say, "No! Sam, do not build that hammer and sell it to Joe!" It's none of his business, despite it being his invention.

If Bob wants to make money from his idea, he needs to market it properly (just like every other product), not set up a government-enforced monopoly of his idea.

[magicmike]

And synapz what makes you feel that you own the words you just said? ^^^

[magicmike]

And there is a underlying principle, that genuine inventors are an asset to a nation. That innovation drives economy, and that Real Inventors need to be doing what comes naturally to them rather than setting up businesses for the 5 or 6 ideas they get everyday.

[synapz]

And synapz what makes you feel that you own the words you just said? ^^^

What makes you think I feel I own those words? How can I "own" something like that? If someone asks me if I typed them, I will say yes, but I won't say that they can't use them.

[synapz]

And there is a underlying principle, that genuine inventors are an asset to a nation. That innovation drives economy, and that Real Inventors need to be doing what comes naturally to them rather than setting up businesses for the 5 or 6 ideas they get everyday.

Inventors can and do benefit others, this is true; I don't think anyone is arguing this. What I am arguing about is whether or not the use of force is justified in order to prevent someone else from manufacturing and selling a product without the inventor's "permission". It is clear to me that using force in this scenario is not justified.

It is not okay to use force against Sam for selling a hammer to Joe when Bob invented the hammer. The transaction has nothing to do with Bob. He has no natural right to prevent this voluntary and mutual exchange from occurring. Bob only has the right to use force in self defense, and that can only be done when someone uses aggressive force against him. That is not happening here, so Bob can neither morally use force against Sam or Joe, nor can he morally enlist others (no matter how many agree with him) to use force against Sam or Joe.

Once again, if Bob has a product he wishes to market (in this case, his invention of the hammer), then it is upon him to market it wisely. Wise marketing is clearly moral, where enlisting the government to help you monopolize your idea is not.

[AutoDas]

AutoDas ^ how do you feel about me copying everything you said exactly without credit to you?

Can I not quote you or do you copyright everything you say? After all, no one but you could possibly string some words together and come up with a thought that is so unique.

I don't feel like I own words. You just happen to arrange them in the same order. Now, I'm sure public image may be hurt if you continue to plagiarize and no one will trust what you're saying. Is that really in your rational self-interest?

[magicmike]

Can I not quote you or do you copyright everything you say? After all, no one but you could possibly string some words together and come up with a thought that is so unique.

I don't feel like I own words. You just happen to arrange them in the same order. Now, I'm sure public image may be hurt if you continue to plagiarize and no one will trust what you're saying. Is that really in your rational self-interest?

Well obviously the example I was trying to prove did not come out right, add to the example that by some means I was able to post exactly what you said seconds before you and take credit for your posts?

I'm trying to help the understanding of taking of someones idea and claiming credit.

[magicmike]

It is not okay to use force against Sam for selling a hammer to Joe when Bob invented the hammer. The transaction has nothing to do with Bob. He has no natural right to prevent this voluntary and mutual exchange from occurring. Bob only has the right to use force in self defense, and that can only be done when someone uses aggressive force against him. That is not happening here, so Bob can neither morally use force against Sam or Joe, nor can he morally enlist others (no matter how many agree with him) to use force against Sam or Joe.

Once again, if Bob has a product he wishes to market (in this case, his invention of the hammer), then it is upon him to market it wisely. Wise marketing is clearly moral, where enlisting the government to help you monopolize your idea is not.

Ok How about this...
I'll re-post an earlier post I made because it may have goten overlooked.

Here is an idea, create an alternative to patents but require something "Open source like" of a license agreement whereby anybody can produce this product but have to agree to X% of profits to original inventor and any improvements can allow the "improver " to add to this license to charge a x% to future producers. On top of this shorten the span to 10 years so that it encourages innovators to quickly add on to it.

Under the change from "By force patent" change to a open to everyone to make/manufacture BUT must enter into a license agreement to ensure a percentage payment.
If this idea is further thought out with the requirement that all patents under this model must be available to everyone, and open to improvements with potential to make profit for your added improvements. this can also ensure continued innovation with credit and if chosen payment to the "improvers". Which can also allow for free market competition of which is a better improvement,
Management of these improvements would have a trademark type of system to prevent confusion of originators.

Basically a free market system with a method of tracking the innovators/improver's and giving them credit and monetary value (if they so chose)

[synapz]

Ok How about this...
I'll re-post an earlier post I made because it may have goten overlooked.

Here is an idea, create an alternative to patents but require something "Open source like" of a license agreement whereby anybody can produce this product but have to agree to X% of profits to original inventor and any improvements can allow the "improver " to add to this license to charge a x% to future producers. On top of this shorten the span to 10 years so that it encourages innovators to quickly add on to it.

Under the change from "By force patent" change to a open to everyone to make/manufacture BUT must enter into a license agreement to ensure a percentage payment.
If this idea is further thought out with the requirement that all patents under this model must be available to everyone, and open to improvements with potential to make profit for your added improvements. this can also ensure continued innovation with credit and if chosen payment to the "improvers". Which can also allow for free market competition of which is a better improvement,
Management of these improvements would have a trademark type of system to prevent confusion of originators.

Basically a free market system with a method of tracking the innovators/improver's and giving them credit and monetary value (if they so chose)

I don't have a problem with any system that is not imposed by the use of force. Many of us on this thread believe not only that such a system would arise from the free market, but that it would ultimately benefit everyone involved (inventor, producer, retailer, consumer) far more than today's arbitrary and government force-imposed patent system.

All of us want to see inventors rewarded for their work. Some of us would simply prefer to see that take place in an ethical way, versus the government idea monopolies we have today.

Mike, your primary concern seems to be that huge companies would swoop in and steal the profit from the inventor. Several of us gave examples of how the inventor could avoid such a thing by entering into a nondisclosure agreement with a producer. Did you get the chance to read these examples?

[nickcoons]

It is a property right. If you create a process of doing something, surely you deserve to own the rights to that process for some length of time.

Stating a natural law is not a property right. Just as it is a law of nature that copper conducts electricity (therefore I can't patent that), it is also a law of nature that a given amount of copper arranged in such a way with a certain chemical creates a battery.


Huge companies could easily steal ideas, mass produce them, and you don't even have a chance to start manufacturing them with any sufficient pace.

You seem to be entering this thread in the middle without having read previous posts first, as we've already given examples of how inventors can avoid this.


When a corporation takes your process for producing something, they are stealing your property.

No they aren't. Ideas are not property. If I steal your property (car, house, shoes), I'm depriving you of them. If I "steal" your idea, I have deprived you of nothing.


As long as it is a physical object, it is certainly your property. Patents, looking at it this way, seem necessary.

No one is arguing "for" stealing a physical object. And patents don't protect against theft of those objects.


In addition, copyrights are 100% necessary to establish property rights.

So you're saying that property rights don't exist without government force?


If I produce music or a movie, I need to have protection from other people selling my work...MY PROPERTY.

You need to protect your own ideas, not ask the government to impose force on your behalf.


It is like other people taking my income.

It is like nothing of the sort.


I should have the right to do as I please with it.

And you have that right.. including the right to market it intelligently so that you do so in such a way as to prevent competition from profiting with it.

[nickcoons]

Before when? The concept has existed for at least 500 years. And if you are talking that far back, there could be prestige and honor as a motivation to invent.

Could that not be a motivating factor today?


Technical? Yes , Consumer end user? No

Without the technical end of computers, there is no consumer end. The bulk of the internet is run using open-source software. Without this infrastructure, there would be no end-user.

Many people believe that the internet and consumer-level computer usage is where it is today because of Microsoft. I believe that it's where it is in spite of Microsoft, but that's a different topic.


On an off note I would love to see someone create a business model based upon Open source principals.

http://www.sugarcrm.com
http://www.canonical.com

Are these not what you're looking for?


That's like asking why whales eat more fish...

Because they buy it outright from the "little guy", have more engineers, research funds, acquisitions (especially Microsoft), and as a generalization real inventors are using their brain power for inventing, not for common business sense.
The question also leads to the impression that there are no more "genuine individual inventors" whose livelihood depends on continuing to invent, rather than the average Joe who gets an idea in the shower?

Sure it is.. but the comment that the question related to was sort of absurd, claiming that patents protect the little guys, when it's the big guys that are far more protected with patents.

There certainly are individual inventors. I've come up with many product ideas, some of which I've implemented and profited from, none of which I've patented. Not only do I not patent them, but I publicly post how others can replicate them.. because in my specific situation, I don't see a threat in competition. That's not always the case. But again, examples have been given in this thread how an inventor can protect himself without patents.


Also I want to raise a issue that is more academic then business, but how do you recognize who invented something?

I'm not sure that it really matters, other than academically, as you point out, or for prestige. It probably depends on how it was marketed. If it used the NDA method mentioned earlier in this thread, credit could be a clause in the contract. Maybe the inventor would require that the producer stamp his name on each of the products.

[SeanEdwards]

Ideas are the product of your time, your intellect, and your hard work. They are every bit as real and tangible as any physical product you can hold in your hand. Just as you don't have a right to steal your neighbors property, you don't have a right to steal their ideas.

Look you assholes, pay for the freakin music CD if you want to listen to it. Or at least if you are going to steal from someone, don't try to pretend it isn't theft, or that you are somehow more enlightened for your thievery. You're not. You're just a cheap, parasitic piratical bastard.

[synapz]

Ideas are the product of your time, your intellect, and your hard work. They are every bit as real and tangible as any physical product you can hold in your hand. Just as you don't have a right to steal your neighbors property, you don't have a right to steal their ideas.

Look you assholes, pay for the freakin music CD if you want to listen to it. Or at least if you are going to steal from someone, don't try to pretend it isn't theft, or that you are somehow more enlightened for your thievery. You're not. You're just a cheap, parasitic piratical bastard.

What natural law is Sam breaking when he sells Joe a hammer, which was invented by Bob? I see none. Unless Sam uses force against Bob to wrest from his mind the invention of the hammer, Sam has done no wrong. What I do see wrong is Bob enlisting the strong arm of the government to enforce a monopoly on an idea. Sam need not use force to accomplish his ends of manufacturing and selling a product, but Bob must use force to prevent Sam from manufacturing and selling a hammer.

[Banana]

and you don't think Sam is using force in sense of omission to profit off Bob's capital of developing the product?

[magicmike]

Stating a natural law is not a property right. Just as it is a law of nature that copper conducts electricity (therefore I can't patent that), it is also a law of nature that a given amount of copper arranged in such a way with a certain chemical creates a battery.
Doesn't that dispel the discovery of that natural fact? Not going to say it's patentable BUT it still is a (maybe unintended) solution. This is where the DNA patents come in and the needs to be clarification of "Solution" at this point.

Also would like to clarify some of the other words to get on the same page.

Ideas = well anybody can have an idea, even fantastic ones (look at science fiction) that can become real. This should never be patentable

Invention = This is taking raw material and through engineering, creating the process to achieve the idea. The solution to an idea should have the option to be protected, and by my definition not by monopoly of patent, but through a system I outlined earlier managed by a internationally recognized non-profit organization

Innovation = Improving the invention, to meet with changing market demand.
This is where patents mess everything up, and stunt economic growth. And where most of us have issue.


Without the technical end of computers, there is no consumer end. The bulk of the internet is run using open-source software. Without this infrastructure, there would be no end-user.

Many people believe that the internet and consumer-level computer usage is where it is today because of Microsoft. I believe that it's where it is in spite of Microsoft, but that's a different topic.
Nick I would love to debate you on computers on a different topic, I can't argue on the networking side BSD is to thank for that end. Determining how much market Apple or Microsoft would have had without patents is hard to debate though I would say Microsoft would have done better from their business practices. I do know for certain that very few of us would have had the patience in the 90's to even re-compile a program to get it to work. GNU/Linux was still young then, and without software patents I would say it would have shortened the "Critical mass" dream to 2002 - 2003.



http://www.sugarcrm.com
http://www.canonical.com

Are these not what you're looking for?
Actually I am fully aware of both of them, SugarCRM is one I over viewed and chose to go with vTiger (Forked full open source version) for a client.

And Canonical is harder to understand their business model. (unless they are expecting to be at the forefront of linux's "Critical Mass" stage)

My question was more towards creating a more bottom up efficient corporation model. IBM and SUN seem to be experimenting with this.

[magicmike]

Look you assholes, pay for the freakin music CD if you want to listen to it. Or at least if you are going to steal from someone, don't try to pretend it isn't theft, or that you are somehow more enlightened for your thievery. You're not. You're just a cheap, parasitic piratical bastard.

Well I agree that it's stealing, But if you visit musicians websites it is common for them to offer free downloads of a couple of songs. And look at Creative Commons, opening up options for artists shows that a lot of them are not as "bust down your door with a swat team" type of people.

And looking at those differences shows how different they are in business practice.

I would prefer to pay Radiohead $90 for their deluxe box set that they made than $18 for a CD from a label.

[synapz]

and you don't think Sam is using force in sense of omission to profit off Bob's capital of developing the product?

I really don't see any use of force by Sam at all in this scenario.

[Banana]

I really don't see any use of force by Sam at all in this scenario.

Ok. Let's try this way.

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?


(Please do bear with me, I'm not trying to be a contarian; I just wanted to make sure I fully understand the issues involved)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ok. Let's try this way.

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?


(Please do bear with me, I'm not trying to be a contarian; I just wanted to make sure I fully understand the issues involved)

hmm. So by your logic, if I take a picture of someone without the person's consent, I could be charged with kidnapping?

[Banana]

Well, no, since you can't manufacture a kid (at least not a replica of that kid you photographed). But this definitely fails if it was a copy of digital music, though.

Interestingly enough, consent is required to take a photograph at an event, as I understand it. Not that I'm arguing for/against the idea of asking for consent to be photographed- that's entirely different topic.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well, no, since you can't manufacture a kid (at least not a replica of that kid you photographed). But this definitely fails if it was a copy of digital music, though.

Interestingly enough, consent is required to take a photograph at an event, as I understand it. Not that I'm arguing for/against the idea of asking for consent to be photographed- that's entirely different topic.

That would really get in the way of my upskirting business lol

[synapz]

Ok. Let's try this way.

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?


(Please do bear with me, I'm not trying to be a contarian; I just wanted to make sure I fully understand the issues involved)

I would say that if Sam breaks into Bob's house and photographs the blueprint, then he could be tried in civil court for loss of profits and criminal court for breaking-and-entering. But if Bob is walking around on the street with his blueprints in plain view and Sam photographs it and makes a profit with it, well, Bob is just being unwise and paying the price.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I would say that if Sam breaks into Bob's house and photographs the blueprint, then he could be tried in civil court for loss of profits and criminal court for breaking-and-entering. But if Bob is walking around on the street with his blueprints in plain view and Sam photographs it and makes a profit with it, well, Bob is just being unwise and paying the price.

Good case for trespassing ;)

[Banana]

I would say that if Sam breaks into Bob's house and photographs the blueprint, then he could be tried in civil court for loss of profits and criminal court for breaking-and-entering. But if Bob is walking around on the street with his blueprints in plain view and Sam photographs it and makes a profit with it, well, Bob is just being unwise and paying the price.

We are in total agreement then; I had forgotten the point about needing to break and enter to make this crime. However, the act of copying doesn't in itself necessitate breaking and entering.

That said, I'm afraid I'm still stuck with the idea that there is an act of force involved in copying off another's invention. I tried to express it and failed with the painter analogy back there because the way I look at it, capital had to be invested in the invention, while copying it requires a different kind of capital and therefore can be substantially cheaper than the capital to develop a working prototype, so when someone copies an invention, they're essentially stealing the capital invested in developing that invention.

[SeanEdwards]

What natural law is Sam breaking when he sells Joe a hammer, which was invented by Bob? I see none. Unless Sam uses force against Bob to wrest from his mind the invention of the hammer, Sam has done no wrong. What I do see wrong is Bob enlisting the strong arm of the government to enforce a monopoly on an idea. Sam need not use force to accomplish his ends of manufacturing and selling a product, but Bob must use force to prevent Sam from manufacturing and selling a hammer.

Sam used force of theft to steal the product of Bob's intellect without compensation. Let's say it wasn't a hammer tha Bob invented, but a novel. Your argument is that Sam should be able to buy a copy of Bob's novel, and then reprint it and sell the same novel without compensating the author. Can you not understand how that is theft?

[AmericaFyeah92]

"oh no i've gone cross-eyed..." :confused:

good debate tho. I say that since it is not in the constitution, these laws should be left to the states. Kinduv a copout...but watev

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"oh no i've gone cross-eyed..." :confused:

good debate tho. I say that since it is not in the constitution, these laws should be left to the states. Kinduv a copout...but watev

can they be left any other way? I don't think there's a way for the Federal government to pass laws on behalf of every state?

[synapz]

Sam used force of theft to steal the product of Bob's intellect without compensation. Let's say it wasn't a hammer tha Bob invented, but a novel. Your argument is that Sam should be able to buy a copy of Bob's novel, and then reprint it and sell the same novel without compensating the author. Can you not understand how that is theft?

What has been stolen? Profits? If profits, then you are speaking of, essentially, money. But this money had never entered the hands of the author, so how has it been stolen?

No, I do not recognize as stolen goods anything that anyone has come to without using force or coercion against another person.

[nickcoons]

Sam used force of theft to steal the product of Bob's intellect without compensation.

How? What force?


Let's say it wasn't a hammer tha Bob invented, but a novel. Your argument is that Sam should be able to buy a copy of Bob's novel, and then reprint it and sell the same novel without compensating the author. Can you not understand how that is theft?

Right, that would not be theft. When you steal something (if I take your shoes), you deprive someone of the use of their property. If I use someone's idea, I have not deprived them of the use of that idea.

[nickcoons]

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Yes, because he deprived Bob the use of it.


Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Yes, again, because he has deprived Bob the use of it.


Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?

No, because Bob still has full use of his property (the blueprint).

[nickcoons]

I say that since it is not in the constitution, these laws should be left to the states. Kinduv a copout...but watev

Unfortunately, it is in the Constitution.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Unfortunately, it is in the Constitution.

The Constitution can be changed.

[jyakulis]

How can you protectionists define the lifespan of patents? Your whole argument is the belief that an idea is property. The solution is always to revamp the patent office to stop frivolous lawsuits, but then the government gets to decide on what is obvious. How is that not regulating thought? Who's to say that someone else couldn't think of the same improvement or process? Companies spent more money on lawsuits last year than they did on research and development.

the government just doesn't say something is obvious. legal obviousness does not equal literal obviousness. you just can't say anything is obvious if you are an examiner. i should know i've been doing it for 3 years. and it's not something i can explain to you in two sentences.

as an examiner, i believe getting rid of intellectual property would be a really bad move. some companies were single handedly formed based on one patent. others have succeeded by keeping things trade secrets. the system itself does promote the sciences though.

if company A makes a new widget that prevents companies from producing that widget. in exchange for the monopoly the companies gives a full disclosure of how to make the widget to the government. this however, doesn't prevent company B from adding a new and useful feature to that widget or a method of manufacturing said widget more efficiently, hence the promotion of sciences.

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.


my main gripes with the current system are:

i feel the the patent term is a little too long in this day in age with technology is doubling so fast. (though it would help if we weren't 3-4 years behind)

i disagree with a lot of biological patents

big companies tend to bombard us with repetitive patents having 100's of redundant claims hoping to patent any combination they possibly can. of course when the office tried to stop this and limit the claims they can file the pharmaceutical companies complained and got the courts to put an injunction on the new rules.

i also find it unfortunate that corporations have gotten so large that nearly 95% of inventors don't see a dime from their inventions.

i believe in theory this wasn't how it was supposed to work though. but i hardly think it's the patent systems fault, but more having to due with the federal reserve allowing big government to come about and big government allowing for massive corporations to exist. just my two cents....

this is unrelated but i don't know if you realize how the medical industrial complex operates. the reason they don't promote "natural" remedies is because there ain't no money in natural remedies. they'd much rather create a drug that mimics something in nature that they can create chemically in a laboratory because they can patent it. you can't patent herbs.

[AutoDas]

this is unrelated but i don't know if you realize how the medical industrial complex operates. the reason they don't promote "natural" remedies is because there ain't no money in natural remedies. they'd much rather create a drug that mimics something in nature that they can create chemically in a laboratory because they can patent it. you can't patent herbs.

I want to talk about this because I believe I've already addressed everything you talked about earlier (what is new and an improvement is arbitrary). This is why the health care system in America is so screwed up as it is. If we don't address the problem causing this then we'll end up with national health care by corporate America.

Herbs and vaccines follow the rules of mother nature so both shouldn't be patentable. AIDS treatment in Africa can't be done because world patent laws won't allow it.

If you're worried about foreign competitors stealing inventions from America then I would put tariffs up because they do not compete on a fair level. I fear most of this rhetoric comes from fear of the Marxists who wanted to abolish the patent system. Not everything they do is planned evil, but only when it's forced upon.

[jyakulis]

I want to talk about this because I believe I've already addressed everything you talked about earlier (what is new and an improvement is arbitrary). This is why the health care system in America is so screwed up as it is. If we don't address the problem causing this then we'll end up with national health care by corporate America.

Herbs and vaccines follow the rules of mother nature so both shouldn't be patentable. AIDS treatment in Africa can't be done because world patent laws won't allow it.

If you're worried about foreign competitors stealing inventions from America then I would put tariffs up because they do not compete on a fair level. I fear most of this rhetoric comes from fear of the Marxists who wanted to abolish the patent system. Not everything they do is planned evil, but only when it's forced upon.

hmm not sure how to respond. i also agree that herbs and natural remedies shouldn't be patentable or any naturally occuring thing from nature for that matter. don't know how you took my statement from your response. but yeah that's why health care is messed up.

it's kind of funny heroin is illegal. drug companies make oxycontin and it's legal with prescription? it makes no god damn sense. it's like every drug that comes from the damn drug companies is the gospel and completely safe. i guess when you have billions of dollars to lobby the fda that's what happens heh.

[jyakulis]

I want to talk about this because I believe I've already addressed everything you talked about earlier (what is new and an improvement is arbitrary).



no it's not. again if it is non-obvious it's considered new and useful. and there is a supreme court decision we use all the time in determining this. it's not just some arbitrary thing that the examiner decides. we need references, motivation for combining the references and, reasonable predictability of success amongst other tests. and they have 3 different courts to appeal through if they are unhappy with our decision. anyway, i would advocate reforming the system as opposed to outright doing away with it. i think limiting the patent term wold especially be a good start. i think corporations would think twice about trying to patent every little thing and we would see more "groundbreaking" patents more regularly. again just my two cents...feel free to disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.

also, you can only obtain a patent for something tangible that you create not "ideas".

[AutoDas]

no it's not. again if it is non-obvious it's considered new and useful. and there is a supreme court decision we use all the time in determining this. it's not just some arbitrary thing that the examiner decides. we need references, motivation for combining the references and, reasonable predictability of success amongst other tests. and they have 3 different courts to appeal through if they are unhappy with our decision. anyway, i would advocate reforming the system as opposed to outright doing away with it. i think limiting the patent term wold especially be a good start. i think corporations would think twice about trying to patent every little thing and we would see more "groundbreaking" patents more regularly. again just my two cents...feel free to disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.

also, you can only obtain a patent for something tangible that you create not "ideas".

uhhhh

Have you been to a blog? What's all this I read about Apple patenting some new and simple schemes?

An improvement is not definite like a property right.
kthxbai