Thanks

” That’s right, just like ANY OTHER CONTRACT that REQUIRES you to use YOUR property in a particular manner. ”

You have no business telling me what I do with my property unless it infringes on your Liberty. Therefore, it is precisely clauses of the kind you are hinting at that will be declared null and void in court because that would be a violation of my liberty. You really seem to be saying that slavery is alright if it is contractual. Quite an interesting viewpoint.

That’s right, just like ANY OTHER CONTRACT that REQUIRES you to use YOUR property in a particular manner.

” Nothing vague about “no unauthorized reproduction”. ”

I agree. There is nothing vague about it. The infringement of Liberty and the clear intent to do so is so obvious that even a blind man can see it. I must have been worse than blind to miss it the first time around.

Simply put, the term “unauthorised reproduction” implies that in order to do something with MY property, I need to seek your authorisation. So, I am to use MY property with YOUR permission. How sweet of you!!!

I hope the problem with patents is becoming clearer.

” People are bought and sold all the time. It’s called employment. A worker sells himself for a paycheck every week. ”

Most ridiculous argument. Slavery is when a person’s Liberty is taken away. A person who can walk away from a job can by no means be said to have lost his Liberty and hence be called a slave.

By any chance, are you used to working in a place where people are chained to their seats and whipped to do the job with no option of walking off?

In summary, employment is not slavery. It is a promise to work against the commitment from the employer of payment of a specified (fixed and/or variable) amount. Failure to deliver (on the part of the employee) does not imply anything other than the loss of the job. Please show me the “slavery” bit.

Nothing vague about “no unauthorized reproduction”. You can use it but you can’t copy it as a condition for being able to use it; why is that so hard to understand?

“You need to decide whether human beings can be bought and sold and, more importantly, owned like other assets.”

People are bought and sold all the time. It’s called employment. A worker sells himself for a paycheck every week. The employer can specify whatever terms he wants, including 16 hour days with 8 hours sleep, 7 days a week, if both parties agree. If a worker doesn’t want to do it any more, he can “buy his freedom” by forfeiting future earnings.

Actually, the problem is with slavery, contractual or otherwise. You need to decide whether human beings can be bought and sold and, more importantly, owned like other assets. We do that to other animals and physical goods, but are we ready to do it to ourselves?

The point is that it is in the principle. If you accept the principle that slavery is alright if it is by contract, the same can be turned back on you. So, in enlightened self-interest, you would turn around and say precisely what I said.

Further, please specify how you would enforce “slavery by contract”. I can imagine what it would involve and it really puts me off. I would feel like the lowest life-form on earth if I were to act thus. How about you? In addition, no one who accepts Liberty as inalienable would help you enforce your contract. You will need to take the help of someone who does not see Liberty as inalienable to enforce it. That person is sure to be armed to the teeth to make this enforcement possible. Where does that leave your Liberty? Please make a choice.

Why can’t you contract away your Liberty? What is wrong with slavery by contract?

” Then you can’t ever sign a contract, because any contract would be REQUIRING and/or PROHIBITING certain things (and it’s FRAUD if you violate the contract)……. What good is a contract if it’s “up to you” whether or not you feel like keeping the terms? ”

That’s not the point. A contract may be signed and remain enforceable if it specifies what precisely each party commits to deliver to the other. There exist a whole range of areas where people may thus enter into contracts with each other. Such contracts will clearly be enforceable, including penalty clauses that are clearly specified and quantified/quantifiable.

A contract will become unenforceable if it includes vague and unspecified terms the meaning and value of which are subjective and can never be estimated with certainty. In particular, you can never “contract” away your Liberty just as I cannot do that to mine. That is tantamount to saying that slavery is alright because you agreed to it on your contract. I am sure you are not arguing for “slavery by contract”. If you do enter into a contract of that kind, it would be extremely foolish on your part to do so (now that you understand the meaning) and you would richly deserve to have your “contract” thrown out of court.

Thus, the point is that if you want to protect your invention, a contract of the kind you mentioned is a poor choice. You need to think harder. You need to come up with a new business model that serves the purpose. You need to recognise the fact that you cannot sell me a product that becomes my property and then require that I should not try to understand or replicate the idea. Laziness should not take you (or me for that matter) to seek the help of a thug to settle disputes in our favour. If you invite the devil over for a feast, it won’t be long before you become the devil’s feast yourself.

No, I’m claiming that you have partially given up those rights by signing a contract. If you violate the contract, that’s FRAUD.

“Just take a look at America’s Bill of Rights. It says that the Right to Liberty is “inalienable”.”

Then you can’t ever sign a contract, because any contract would be REQUIRING and/or PROHIBITING certain things (and it’s FRAUD if you violate the contract).

I should do the thanking. The questions I faced on these boards (from you too) led me to the answers. I always said I am here to learn. A true Objectivist will always be ready to question his premises and change them if found faulty. Thanks once again.

” And Liberty also means I have the right not to sell you my invention unless you agree not to reproduce or reverse engineer it. ”

Multiple parts to your post. Firstly, you always have the right not to sell to anyone at all.

Secondly, you need to be clear whether you are selling it to or not because as I understand it, the term “sales” means a transfer of “ownership”. That means that while the product you sold remained your property before you sold it and you were free to dispose of/utilise it as you proposed, once you sell it, it becomes my property to do with as I please.

By what standard are you trying to dictate to me what I should do with my property? Are you claiming that you have property rights in my property though you sold it to me?

Thirdly, such a contract would be held null and void in a court of law because the clauses on “reproducing” and “reverse engineering” those would be violations of my Liberty to study my property, understand how it works and then act as per the understanding. It would also be a violation of my property rights, but that’s a smaller issue.

On the ground that you are asking for my Liberty in exchange for the product alone, the court would strike down the contract as unenforceable.

Just take a look at America’s Bill of Rights. It says that the Right to Liberty is “inalienable”.

To take a slightly humorous view of it, how would you like to be in the position of a modern-day Shylock? 1 pound of flesh, but no more. Not a drop of blood shall you shed.

” I see a world without I.P. being a ‘intellectual tragedy of commons’ – people will be slow to innovate because they can’t recoup their costs in R&D or engage in ‘open innovation’ where progress will be slow and/or low quality. ”

Do you see what a bundle of assumptions you are making? And what a mistake too!!! The commons pre-exist while ideas need to be produced. The commons remained commons because no one really thought the effort of staking claim is worth the benefits they seek to get out of the commons. On the other hand, people who generate ideas do so because they have problems to solve. Since life never ceases to throw problems at man, there will always be men who will come up with ideas. What may change is the way they act on those ideas. In the absence of patent protection, they will have to work harder if they desire more benefit from the ideas they generate. That may mean that they will need to come up with all new business models and ways of producing and selling or realise that ideas alone have limited value and settle for the lower returns that the market is ready to give them. In any case, there is a lot that production and implementation add to an idea. Hence, it is not surprising if ideas get a smaller share than we are currently used to seeing.

Further, are you trying to scare advocates of Liberty by drawing a parallel to the “tragedy of the commons”? Hey!!! When we chose Liberty, we knew that there could be privations on the way, but we are also quite confident that it is the morally correct choice. And we are also confident that as in every other case, the morally correct choice will also turn out to be the practically best one. Fear should never prevent one from doing the right thing. It would not prevent us advocates of Liberty from doing so.

You now make the choice of which side you wish to be on.