As I mentioned in Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way, in In re Bilski, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) modified previous holdings regarding the patentability of software or business-method patents in upholding the rejection of patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and oral arguments were heard earlier this month. This entire area of patent law is very arcane, but the main issues and the oral arguments are explained very well by the heroic IP-abuse reporter Joe Mullin in Bilski v. Kappos Oral Arguments: Supreme Skepticism Toward Method Patents.
Take a look at Mullins’ discussion of the oral arguments–it’s fascinating seeing the Justices grapple with the absurdity of patent law. A few choice excerpts below.
I suspect the Court will choke back a bit on software and business method patents–but not too much, as I argued in Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way. One reason is that although the law is, as the Justices seem to be realizing, completely unjust and absurd, it is the law. Or, as Bilski’s lawyer said, “That’s our system … We do grant exclusive rights in exchange for disclosure.” Yes, we do. And when you implement such an abomination, that’s what you get: absurd, unjust results, such as granting monopolies on “fundamental ways of conducting business or organizing human behavior” (and yes, patents are monopolies, despite the shrill denials by patent shills and other pro-monopolists).Excerpts from oral arguments:
Across the board, the justices indicated a deep skepticism toward the invention described in the patent application at issue, which was rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and describes a method for trading commodities. Some of the justices went even further–expressing both a fair amount of disdain for the idea of granting broad “method” patents and a concern that ruling in favor of the petitioners would lead to patent grants on fundamental ways of conducting business or organizing human behavior. …
Based on the justices’ attitude during the arguments, it not only seems extremely unlikely that Bernard Bilski will ever get the patent at issue, it also seems clear that the court is poised to establish a new, and most likely stricter, test of what is patent eligible.
One after another, the justices prodded Bilski’s lawyer, Michael Jakes of Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, in search of some idea about where to draw the line. The thrust of the questions: Does absolutely everything fall within the domain of the U.S. patent system?
“So, an estate plan?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “A tax avoidance method? How to resist a corporate takeover? All of these are patentable?”
“They are eligible for patenting under section 101,” replied Jakes, referring to the section of the 1952 patent statute that governs what is patent-eligible subject matter.
… “Your argument is that anything that helps business succeed is patentable,” Breyer said. Would the framers of the Constitution, he asked, really have wanted everyone with a new idea to run to Washington to get a patent, in the process enabling them to “stop the wheels of progress” unless competitors got permission?
“Why not patent a method of speed dating?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
There are a few, limited areas, Jakes said, where patent protection isn’t available; he pointed to the fine arts as one example. Otherwise, he argued, patents encourage people to innovate, and it is via the patent system that they disclose their new creations to the public.
… Justice Sotomayor took issue with Jakes’s suggestion that patents are always a manifestation of innovation.
“A patent limits the free flow of information,” she said. “It requires licensing. You can’t argue your position is enhancing the free flow of information.”
Jakes replied: “It does, because of the disclosure requirement.”
“Even though the public can’t use [the patented invention],” noted Scalia.
“That’s our system,” said Jakes. “We do grant exclusive rights in exchange for disclosure.”
Time and again, Jakes refused to draw a line that ruled anything off-limits to the patent regime. His position left the justices questioning whether he was advocating the “ownership” of basic human activities.
“Let’s take training horses,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. “Don’t you think that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some … insights into the best way to train horses? Why didn’t anybody patent those things?”
“I think our economy was based on industrial processes,” responded Jakes.
“It was based on horses, for Pete’s sake!” said Scalia. “I would really have thought somebody would have patented that.”
… Chief Justice Roberts pushed back on an inconsistency in Stewart’s briefing of the case. On the one hand, he said, the government claims Bilski’s method just describes a way of doing business, and therefore isn’t patentable–but then posits that a computer with an “interactive website” doing the same thing might be. “That’s like saying if you use a typewriter to type out the process, then it’s patentable,” said Roberts.
If the website scheme was part of a computer program, Stewart said, “the computer would be at the heart of the innovation.”
“No, no,” said Roberts. “That’s just saying instead of looking in the Yellow Pages, you look on a computer.”
{ 147 comments }
← Previous Comments
@ktibuk:
> The question is, if there is gain to be had a profit to
> be made, who should be the one.
Actually, that’s wrong, this is the value approach to property too. There are externalities in all human activities, but that’s insufficient to claim the right to profit.
Walter Block eloquently explains the externality issue. Just read his books. My favourite examples are:
- if you use a deodorant in public transport, the others profit because they don’t need to breathe in your sweat. Should they be forced to pay you for that?
- a woman with a miniskirt walking on a street provides a satisfying service to men in the proximity. Does that mean that she can enforce payment from them?
Peter Surda,
This issue has nothing to do with externalities. A novel is not an externality it is the object itself. If the novel caused some other positive or negative externalities that would fit Blocks argument, which I myself also support.
I am saying the value is assumed, since there is the act of copying. If there was no value to be had there would be no action regarding it. And since the value is assumed, this is about who has a right on it not some specific amount of value.
If I produce something (tangible or intangible) I don’t have a right to certain profit, but if there is to be a profit it is my right rather than someone elses.
@ktibuk:
> A novel is not an externality it is the object itself.
Wrong. You still do not comprehend that the immaterial properties of goods only exist in people’s minds. Only the physical book is an object.
> I am saying the value is assumed, since there is
> the act of copying.
You still have not proven that copying can ever happen on the immaterial level and that the contents of the book can have an existence independent of human mind. In my opinion, this is the critical argument, because without that, IP cannot be natural.
> … if there is to be a profit it is my right rather
> than someone elses.
Again, there is a problem with reversing the implication. Just because someone else exploits an opportunity that you didn’t, does not mean you have a right to profit from it.
For starters, you can read the book review I posted a couple of days ago and tell me if it’s a review of Ender’s Game or Harry Potter. Unless you can find a way to objectively determine that, you need to conclude one of the following:
- they are the same book
- immaterial properties are subjective and so is IP
Bala,
It seems you are having trouble with “is-ought” dichotomy and it seems this is arising from your interpretation of Objectivism.
I also think “ought” follows “is” and there is no gap in between for agents capable of using reason. But there is still a difference between “is” and “ought” and ethics are about “ought” propositions.
“1. Life is a sequence of self-generated self-sustaining actions. The goal of the actions is sustaining life itself.”
True.
“2. Man is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. His sole guide to action is his rational mind which processes the sensory information his sense organs gather to form concepts.”
True
“3. To sustain his life, man has no choice but to act. To cease to act is to die. To be prevented from acting is to be condemned to death. To be prevented from acting as per the choices made by one’s rational mind is tantamount to enforcement of a death penalty.”
Now we have a problem here. What do you mean by “to be prevented”. This is a very broad concept. You may need something very badly and me not giving you what you need may be understood as “preventing”. Also there are other circumstances than other humans that prevent one from doing things. Are they included your definition?
The fact is, humans are individuals and isolation is enough for them to exist. On the other hand society is an abstract concept dependent on individuals to exist. So self-ownership is a very useful and uncontradictory concept especially analyzing concepts in social context..
4. A right is a moral concept sanctioning man’s freedom of action in a social context.
Actually no. This assumes rights are derived from society or other individuals forming the society.
Rights (and also crimes) are moral concepts, carried over from the isolated state of the individual to a social context. This way we can establish that, an isolated individual represents the ultimate free individual or in the ultimate state of liberty and when he enters in society he carries this liberty by the way of rights.
5. The only axiomatic right is the Right to Life. It means the freedom to act to sustain his life as per the judgement of his rational mind.
As I said, although this “right to life” is an often used concept, it is a wrong concept. Nobody has a right to life. Not in isolation nor in a social context. Everyone has a right to be treated as if he is on an isolated island. Which I prefer to frame as “right to be left alone”. You don’t have right to life so that someone else has to keep you alive, or assist you in any way. You have right to be left alone to pursue life.
6. In a social context, man may be prevented from acting by the initiation of force by other men. Thus, for a man to be able to sustain his life in a social context, he needs other men to refrain from initiating force against him.
Again prevention is not a useful concept it is too broad. It assumes there is a goal that has be reached and anything can have an effect regarding this goal. For example the shape of our arms are preventing us from flying. Or I may be preventing you from receiving healthcare by not giving you the money you lack.
In social context there may be aggression against mens property, including himself. This can not happen in isolation but only in social context.
7. This concept of non-initiation of force is the concept of Liberty.
It is a neat and simplistic concept but not enough. As in the case of fraud and unauthorized copying there is no actual or implied “force” but you seem to take fraud arbitrarily in while leaving copying out.
Anyways even if we agree on your premises and deduction, an anti IP stance is contradictory.
IP is the result of the human action. If he is “prevented” from acting to create IP this is a death sentence.
Peter Surda,
Lets say that people who can distinguish between; a nature given free good, some other persons creation and his own creation should be bound by the ethical rule that says “you can homestead the nature given free good, keep your own creation and respect the property rights of others when it comes the the creations of others”
And lets take, the delusional people who can not differentiate between these and think reality is the creation of their mind, of the hook.
Agreed?
Bala,
I tried to respond, but got censored by TPTB (the powers to be here)
Bala, Here is a retry of some parts I tried to post:
I provided a 3rd party definition of the word “property” here.
You have not refuted that definition.
Instead you go round and round in your discussion here talking about “initiation of force” and “retaliatory use of force“.
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
You assert that:
Other than you and your invisible army, who else ascribes to that definition? You have not refuted the 3rd party definition I showed you. You have not refuted my position that the concept of “property” is a man-made fiction. Thus you presumably accept it. At the time of the dinosaurs, there was no “property”, there was no “money”, there was no “man”. It is man who fabricated out of thin air and as a mere abstraction, the notions of “property”, of transfer of “title” in property and of use of “money” to effect transfer of this invisible abstraction known as title in property.
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
If I obtain this thing called “letters patent” from the US Government, first I give them something of value in the form of filing fees and a ‘written disclosure’ of how to make and use the claimed invention. I do not ‘initiate’ force against anybody. I contribute in a positive way to the general welfare of our less than perfect union. (See Preamble to USA Constitution.)
If the US Government agrees that I was first to invent or discover a new and useful machine, composition of matter, manufacture or process, the Government also agrees that I could not possibly be taking out of your “possession” that new and useful subject matter because you never possessed it to begin with.
No one is ‘initiating’ force against you. No one is engaging in ‘retaliatory’ force against you. The patent is openly and notoriously published.
If you have good cause to assert that you were in possession of the invention beforehand, you can peacefully come forth with proof of such earlier possession.
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
Your problem is that you can’t. You can’t because you never had ‘possession’ of the invention beforehand. Nothing was taken from you. You may continue to practice the prior art as you always had.
Your hang up is that you are a communist. Not only do you believe that “What’s mine is mine”. You also persist in asserting that “What’s yours is mine”. Thus you ‘initiate’ the act of force and trespass against my property. No one is asking you to do so. You do it out of sheer greed and jealousy. You were incapable in the first place of originally producing the invention on your own. You merely want to pretend that you “could have” rearranged some of the materials you now “own” into the form of this new invention.
Bala,
Here is a retry of another part I tried to post, but got censored:
That is two fibs packaged as one. Firstly, you probably did not possess all those materials beforehand. And even if you did, you could not have rearranged them into the form of this new invention. The reason is because you did not possess the know-how to do so. You want to steal the know-how from me and pretend you had it at an earlier time. That’s your position as far as I can see it. All your talk about legitimate and illegitimate property is merely the double talk of someone who is jealous that he cannot invent anything of worth on his own.
ktibuk,
” This assumes rights are derived from society or other individuals forming the society. ”
We’ve gone through this before but you are just repeating your earlier point without further justification.
So, let me repeat too…. “Social context” means that the very concept of “right” has a meaning only in a social situation. The source of the “right” is man’s nature as a rational animal with a volitional consciousness who needs, for his survival as per his nature, to choose his values using his rational mind and act to attain them.
An isolated man (such as Robinson Crusoe) has a desperate need to act to sustain his life, but there is no need for a concept “right”. On an isolated island, Robinson Crusoe faces many challenges from hostile circumstances and living beings.
It is only in a social context where man recognises that his long-range well being is ensured if he and others act as per the principle a rational beng recognises as “rights” that the said concept becomes relevant.
You also need to remember that concepts are not floating abstractions that exist independent of a human (i.e., rational) mind. So, when I say moral “concept”, I am referring to a human mind that first needs to form the concept.
You are claiming a defect in MY understanding of Objectivism. So, let me point out where you have got it completely wrong. I said Rights are a MORAL concept.
As per Rand, morality is a code of values guiding man’s actions in the face of choices. Man’s distinctive quality is that his values are not automatic or subconsciously absorbed (as is the case with most other living beings) but chosen by the application of his rational mind. Thus, in this very statement defining “rights” I have clearly indicated that the concept “rights” originates from man’s nature and not from society. That you fail to understand it is your failing, not mine. Did you, by anychance, take the word “moral” in my definition to be a social custom for you to imply that my definition indicates that rights originates from society? Then that indicates a further misunderstanding of my and Ayn Rand’s concept of “rights”.
You are making too many mistakes and just refusing to correct them by stubbornly repeating that I am wrong while giving flawed explanations all the time. Your answer is replete with misunderstandings and misrepresentations, some of which I have pointed out. I’m not sure if all that is taking this discussion anywhere at all.
Bala,
I have not figured out what vocabulary words TPTB at this site automatically object to. My original post did not include any explicative deleted’s. The above is just part of it. It’s enough for you to respond.
ktibuk
re you answers to Bala,
True? No. FALSE.
True? No. FALSE.
Let’s not quibble about (1) The meaning of Life.
But (2) is clearly False.
The evidence is all around you that man is an irrational creature no different than many other creatures on this Earth.
Bala,
I didn’t realize that you were part of the Ayn Rand cult.
So are you speaking on her behalf or on behalf of John Galt himself; inventor of the perpetual energy machine?
“If I produce something (tangible or intangible) I don’t have a right to certain profit, but if there is to be a profit it is my right rather than someone elses.”
How is this any different than the examples Peter Surda just gave, in terms of externalities? In all cases, others are able to get benefits from whatever you’re doing, without disturbing any of your property.
Another example more along the lines of what you describe: A sells a portable music player, lots of people buy it, then B starts selling protective cases that match the shape perfectly. Does A have a right to all the profit B makes?
Bala,
It appears someone has collected Ayn Rand’s thoughts about patents.
Check it out:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
Bala,
Some more apparent quotes from the high priestess of Objectivism:
source:
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.2
Bala,
Apparently, Libertarians are split on the IP issue.
See the following piece:
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
Therefore you and Kinsella do not speak for the entire Libertarian Nation, but rather only for a splinter group within it.
me:
“gates’ apples are not equivalent to hoppe’s garden-of-eden-apples because gates’ time is a scarce resource.”
ktibuk says:
“So is the time of the author who wrote the novel.”
…but unlike gates’ apples, the ownership of which is able to be ascertained objectively by enclosing fences, marking of trees etc, the author’s claim to ownership is contentious. we don’t know how scarce his ideas are. if originality is what gives rise to title in the case of ip, how much originality is required? 100%, 90%, 20%? what if the theme is the same, but the language different? how can this not give rise to endless conflict and arbitrariness? and who decides these criteria?
me:
“so how can you support legislative ip protection?”
ktibuk:
“Who said I do so? Have I ever said you need a state or legislation for a pro IP position?”
gates’ apples could be policed feasibly either by himself or by a caretaker; the author’s claim to protection could only ever by enforced by the state. otherwise, all copying would simply migrate to the geographic zone where ip is not recognized or where policing is weak.
only one-world government, or standardized international norms could prevent copying from simply shifting jurisdiction, as we see in china these days.
Newson,
“…but unlike gates’ apples, the ownership of which is able to be ascertained objectively by enclosing fences, marking of trees etc, the author’s claim to ownership is contentious”
So? The author can put name on the novel. It can be removed, you say? So can the fence. Claim to ownership is a simple signature, whether by pen or fence or some other way.
“we don’t know how scarce his ideas are. if originality is what gives rise to title in the case of ip, how much originality is required? 100%, 90%, 20%? what if the theme is the same, but the language different? how can this not give rise to endless conflict and arbitrariness? and who decides these criteria?”
You don’t need any percentages of originality to claim legitimacy Is the authors time scarce? Yes. End of story. At least regarding the “scarcity” issue. If you are talking about the actual judgement regarding a case that is another issue.
“gates’ apples could be policed feasibly either by himself or by a caretaker; the author’s claim to protection could only ever by enforced by the state. otherwise, all copying would simply migrate to the geographic zone where ip is not recognized or where policing is weak.”
The same thing can be applied to physical property. Someone can steal your stuff and take it to some place where “your property law” is not recognized. And then what? Do you think law is based on recognition of humans? Law is about the rules of this universe. You may acknowledge it or you may deny it and face the consequences.
You do not need a state to have property rights.
A man walks into the patent office with a bushel full of apples and says I want to patent these apples.
Office: What do you mean you want to patent these apples, what so special about these apples that you want to patent them?
Man: Man takes an apple from the basket, shines it up and passes to the guy at the office and says “here, take a bite”
Office: Guy takes a bite and says, WOW, tastes like bananas!
Man Says: Turn it around and take another bite.
Office: He turns it around and takes another bite, WOW, tastes like strawberries!
Man Says: Here try this one.
Office: Guy takes a bite, WOW, tastes like oranges!
Man Says: Turn it around and take another bite.
Office: WOW, tastes like coconuts!
Office: Holy cow man, this is amazing! You know, if you could make an apple that tastes like pussy, you’d become a millionaire!
Man Says: Yes I know, here, try this one.
Office: Guy takes a bite, ah, yuck, ick, gross, spits it out and exclaims, oh god that tastes like shit!
Man Says: WELL TURN IT AROUND!
ktibuk says:
“So? The author can put name [sic] on the novel. It can be removed, you say? So can the fence. Claim to ownership is a simple signature, whether by pen or fence or some other way.”
the fence can be patrolled, the property can be manned. the book, once sold, is not able to be traced by the author. how can the author enforce a non-copy contract if he cannot trace the book? that’s why ip proponents argue for legislation, because they realize contract law will get them nowhere. enforcement becomes nigh on impossible. and yes, physical property is also susceptible to theft, and that’s why there’s a vast market for security services. possession is ninety percent (at least, and maybe more, say i) of the law, so just don’t lose it in the first place. pay a guard.
i don’t understand what your answer means with respect to originality. if i change two words in an existing novel, does my work also become unique. what if i change 98% of the words? who decides these arbitrary limits, on what basis and authority?
ktibuk says:
“So? The author can put name [sic] on the novel. It can be removed, you say? So can the fence. Claim to ownership is a simple signature, whether by pen or fence or some other way.”
the fence can be patrolled, the property can be manned. the book, once sold, is not able to be traced by the author. how can the author enforce a non-copy contract if he cannot trace the book? that’s why ip proponents argue for legislation, because they realize contract law will get them nowhere. enforcement becomes nigh on impossible. and yes, physical property is also susceptible to theft, and that’s why there’s a vast market for security services. possession is ninety percent (at least, and maybe more, say i) of the law, so just don’t lose it in the first place. pay a guard.
i don’t understand what your answer means with respect to originality. if i change two words in an existing novel, does my work also become unique. what if i change 98% of the words? who decides these arbitrary limits, on what basis and authority?
step back,
You insisted that I respond to your “3rd party definition”.
This is what you were referring to, right?
******************
a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
******************
You call this a definition? What aspects of the concept “property” does it explain? The fact is – NOTHING. It is the most worthless attempt at defining that I have come across.
Just a few indicators as to the utter uselessness of your “definition”.
1. It fails to make the fundamental distinction between a possession and “property”. If a thief steals your property, it becomes his possession but not his “property”. It is because it is YOUR “property” that is in HIS “possession” that you are justified in using force to retrieve it from him. So, “definition” 1 is utter rubbish.
2. As for definition 2, it is an example. The most fundamental aspect of “definitions” is that an example never becomes a definition of the broader category. So, I wonder what fantastic truth you were getting at by using this.
3. Point 3 is worse because it makes the definition of property dependent on possessing a “legal title”. That is the ultimate in question begging, especially if one considers the larger question of ideas and patterns being granted the status of “property” through IP laws.
Thus, your attempt at “definition” has been worse than juvenile.
” You have not refuted that definition. ”
Now that I have shown your “definition” to be unadulterated nonsense, could we please have a proper definition?
Alternately, I have tried giving a definition that is a serious attempt at explaining various characteristics of the concept “property”. How about telling me why it is wrong”
So far, you have only made pronouncements like “False”….. “False” with absolutely no attempt to explain why it is so. The only one was a sad attempt to try to show that man is by NATURE not a rational animal by showing examples of human beings who you claim “failed” to act “rationally”.
Finally, on the specific quotes from Ayn Rand that you have pulled out, I have gone through them many times before and know them pretty well. It should by now be clear as to how exactly I will dismiss those specific statements as incorrect – very simply, at the point where she assumes that ideas can be and are “property” without defining what “property” is.
Bala, watching you is like watching an adult try to carry on an intellectual conversation with a child who is half the time calling the adult names and throwing toys at him. I’d like to engage “step up”, but at least half his posts contain attacks that serve no constructive purpose. I can’t shake the feeling that I’d perhaps have a meaningful exchange, but at some point he’d revert and I’d have wasted my time. At the simplest level, making no value judgements, it’s like trying to have a discussion over a bad cell phone connection, where one guy’s battery is low. Why waste time if it’s hard to get through and you might be cut off at any time?
@ktibuk:
You still miss the deeper meaning of what I’m saying. I’m not saying people aren’t able to recognise the immaterial properties of goods. I’m saying they are subjective, because they only exist in people’s minds.
If these properties were objective, it would be possible to construct an instrument to measure them. There are only two instruments that can assess immaterial properties: human mind and computers. But they both depend on the material features goods being interpreted into abstract schemata based on purely virtual standards (such as language, alphabet, cultural context etc). Outside of these standards, they have no meaning.
Compare that for example to measuring of physical properties. You can also use various standards, such as the SI-system or the imperial system. But they all are grounded in very strict physical phenomena, and there is a fixed relationship between them. Even if you create a new weight system and use that within your calculations, although you get different numbers they mean the same thing. With standards on immaterial properties, these all are virtual, can be interpreted in different ways, and change all the time.
step back,
” The evidence is all around you that man is an irrational creature no different than many other creatures on this Earth. ”
This statement alone confirms what Shay said. There’s no point talking to you. You are hellbent on spewing your nonsense all over the place. You are best treated like every troll should be – ignored.
Good bye
Shay wrote:
**********
Bala, watching you is like watching an adult try to carry on an intellectual conversation with a child who is half the time calling the adult names and throwing toys at him. I’d like to engage “step up”, but at least half his posts contain attacks that serve no constructive purpose. I can’t shake the feeling that I’d perhaps have a meaningful exchange, but at some point he’d revert and I’d have wasted my time. At the simplest level, making no value judgements, it’s like trying to have a discussion over a bad cell phone connection, where one guy’s battery is low. Why waste time if it’s hard to get through and you might be cut off at any time?
**********
You can see why I exited the discussion with Step Back a long time ago. Maybe I was stuping to his level by calling him a moron, and I kind of regret that, but I don’t entirely think the statement was unjustified.
Maybe with his “funds are created out of thin air” statement he truly didn’t understand that extra funds that are invested in research divert resources away from other fields? Maybe I should have stated it in this way in the first place? Maybe I jumped the gun a bit by assuming that he was capable of making that connection?
In any event, I apologise to the other posters on this site for lowering myself to his level and responding to him in an unlibertarian way.
Bala,
The fact that you too are an irrational being is clear from the appeal to emotions you make here.
The reason that a thief in physical possession of your property is not the owner is because legal “title” has not been lawfully transferred.
The definition I gave you is not “my” definition. It is from an online dictionary. Check and verify it out for yourself here (if you dare).
Dictionary definitions are of course brief and not intended to be the end all of defining the meanings of words as used in specific contexts. For example a chemical compound can have certain chemical “properties”. That is the word taken in a different context. The context you and I are supposed to be working in is the legal definition of “property”.
If you want to self-centrally focus only on the Bala context, that is fine. Just keep it to yourself.
JL,
Trolls do not present specific evidence to back up there assertions.
I have hyperlinked to specific 3rd party sites that say there is a split over IP in the Libertarian movement.
You don’t like facts. So you engage in name calling (in calling me childish and trollish).
Look in the mirror.
step back,
You are not unique, I got the same responses from the same people at the parallel http://blog.mises.org/archives/011076.asp thread. I have truly enjoyed your argumentation. Thanks
@ktibuk,
May I copy and use your arguments at
Published: November 27, 2009 5:33 AM
Thanks, Andras
Surda: “The issue with ownership of immaterial goods is, in my opinion, not in the scarcity. It is that in the implementations proposed by IP proponents, the property stretches throughout the whole universe, and there is no way to objective define demarcation rules (it introduces the notion of “similarity” as a demarcation criterium).”
Well, scarcity is involved in this because you first recognize how rights are assigned in scarce resources, and that in order to give someone a right in an idea, they effectively have a right to control the scarce resources already owned by others…. so it’s a type of theft or re-homesteading, a transfer of rights from owner to innovator. In Tom Palmer’s papers I cite in my Concise Guide to IP, he refers to the “things” protected by IP as “ideal objects,” I believe.
step back,
” The fact that you too are an irrational being is clear from the appeal to emotions you make here. ”
Appeal to emotions?????? ROFLMAO. You are getting truly hilarious.
” The reason that a thief in physical possession of your property is not the owner is because legal “title” has not been lawfully transferred. ”
So, in the absence of a “legal title”, property is not Property, is it? Quite an interesting point there. And what is the source of the “legal” definition of property? Human whims? You have already indicated as much in your earlier posts.
Moral relativism is oozing out of every word you have posted. You are discrediting yourself with every additional word that you utter.
” The definition I gave you is not “my” definition. ”
How does the source matter? All I was pointing out was its utter uselessness for a discussion on what constitutes “property”.
Peter Surda,
I understand what you are trying to say but even if we leave aside epistemological quarrels regarding what is objective reality and what is not, your main problem is your understanding of ethics.
Ethics are about “ought” propositions for self conscious agents regarding their actions based on their free will. There are some who believe free will is an illusion thus ethics doesn’t or can not exist but I am assuming you are not one of them.
So all you need to formulate ethical rules is the person that is acting purposefully, or consciously. A person that can differentiate what is wrong and what is right.
You keep imagining a world where a third party, a judge, is needed to establish and judge (that will measure and such to establish if a wrong has been committed or not) ethical rules but you are wrong.
In order to have meaningful ethical rule like “lying is wrong” all you need is a person that can distinguish between a lie and a truthful proposition and aware of his actions. Lying is a deliberate action and ethical rules are about deliberate actions.
When I say, you shouldn’t lie, (or any ethical rule), to you I am assuming you know what what the actual truth is and also assuming you know what your are doing. I am also assuming you have a choice on this matter and I am saying you shouldn’t make the wrong choice.
So I will repeat myself. If a person can distinguish between a nature given good, his own creation and a creation of another individual he will be bound by ethical rules regarding property.
A self conscious person knows perfectly well when he copies a novel that is written by someone else. Even when he changes some bits of it. (he may not know if the object is owned or a free gift but that is beside the point here) This changing of bits may confuse a third party judge, but the one who is copying the original knows what he is doing. And that is sufficient regarding ethics, because when we say “you shouldn’t copy without consent” we are talking to the guy who is actually copying.
So in order to refute this ethical rule ” a person shouldn’t copy another’s creation without his consent” you need to show that the person in question can never distinguish between the three possibilities I mentioned before.
Yes Andras, you may.
So in order to refute this ethical rule ” a person shouldn’t copy another’s (recorded instance of previous action) creation without his consent”
is that an ethical rule?
i can see where if i found a pattern of 5000 words, and then claimed that i developed and authored the linguistic and cognitive concepts in the 5000 words but i really didnt ……well, that would seem to be saying something that wouldnt be true…and in the ethical realm.
to repeat what i see here or read doesnt seem to be any ethical rule at all.
@ktibuk:
You still miss the point. The point isn’t whether it’s ethical or not, but whether there can be natural IP.
> A self conscious person knows perfectly well when
> he copies a novel that is written by someone else.
That alone does not make anything exist. It merely shows that people have similar mental processes (hardly a surprise, considering the biologicial and sociological heritage they share).
People also understand that currency has value, and also more-or-less “agree” on what it is at a specific moment. But that does not mean that there is a value independent of human minds.
No matter how you approach it, you must conclude that immaterial properties are the result of people’s interpretations and outside of those, have no meaning.
Let’s take for example my book summary. It could be a summary of Harry Potter, or of Ender’s Game. There is no way to tell merely from the summary itself, even if you have all the words and we agree on what they are. The only way to determine that is to ask what I was thinking when I was writing it. But, according to your theory, that can’t be, because that would make the immaterial properties depend on subjective interpretation. So we must conclude that you are wrong, immaterial properties are subjective and not natural and there is no natural IP.
Bala,
You responded:
Your very response is proof that all you’ve got left in your bag of tricks is an appeal to the emotions.
This appeal is only effective on members of your own choir (the anarchist/Librarian choir). It basically says, come oh yeah brethren anarchists/Librarians let us hypothetically engage in the emotional kumbaya reaction of all of us Rolling On [the] Floor [of the ignorant] Laughing Our A$$e$ Off (ROFLMAO). The person who is not laughing with us will feel marginalized from our group of laughing in the mud hyenas and wish that he was part of our noble gang of rationally thinking creatures.
Well that is what I visualize. A group of irrational laughing hyenas who have nothing more in their bag of tricks and thus must resort to this “natural” response as their last refuge.
You also wrote:
The fact that you are not knowledgeable about the legal definitions of “property” indicates to others that you are too lazy to look them up on your own and that you exude extreme hubris as you roll in your own ignorance. That is hardly a convincing response.
I believe your brethren hyenas are hoping that you would objectively silence yourself before you embarrass them some more.
step back,
The picture is like this. I tried defining “property”. You said “That is YOUR definition. So let’s use a 3rd party definition”.
Subsequently, I tore that 3rd party definition to shreds and showed how unsuitable it is to start any discussion on “property”.
I give arguments showing each of the 3 bits of your precious definition to be total and unadulterated nonsense and you say that is “appealing to emotions”?
And then you wonder why I am laughing so much!!! I think I have discredited you enough. So, goodbye. This time, its forever. I shall not yield to temptation.
Bravo Bala.
Now that’s over, I have something I’d like to bring up.
You wrote:
**********
3. To sustain his life, man has no choice but to act. To cease to act is to die. To be prevented from acting is to be condemned to death. To be prevented from acting as per the choices made by one’s rational mind is tantamount to enforcement of a death penalty.
**********
This all sounds well and good, but one has to define “act”. I would define “act” as the manipulation of material objects. Hence I would argue that your fundamental viewpoint is still based on the premise of property rights.
My point is that I see your opinion to be identical to Stephen Kinsella’s. Once “act” is defined, then the entire basis of your philosophy really does boil down to the definition of property and the rules by which it’s assigned to different parties.
Hence you and Mr Kinsella fundamentally believe the same things except that you both state them in different ways.
Jay Lakner,
” I would define “act” as the manipulation of material objects. ”
Or oneself. I agree with you on that. Forming concepts (i.e., producing ideas) can by no means be called action. Important and essential though it is, it can only be called the precursor to action.
” Hence you and Mr Kinsella fundamentally believe the same things except that you both state them in different ways. ”
Once again, I agree. Where I differ is in insisting that the moral concept “property” is the best starting point of any discussion on IP because once that is settled, there is (IMO) hardly anything at all left to discuss and no conclusion except that IP in not legitimate property.
p.s. I may come across as too stuck up on “morality”, but IMO, that gives a sound and consistent framework to work within, especially if it is a rational morality consistent with man’s nature.
Jay Lakner,
” the rules by which it’s assigned to different parties. ”
I would differ a little on this. I would rather use the phrase “how ownership is identified” rather than talk of “assigning” ownership. IMO, the idea that ownership is “assigned” is erroneous. Ownership is fundamentally a moral issue – the issue being who “ought” to be in possession of an object – and can only be identified, not assigned.
@Bala.
Fair enough. It’s not my personal disposition to base my philosophy of the universe on moral foundations. Hence the differences in our methods of debunking IP and use of the words assigned/identified regarding property.
In general your views are usually consistent with mine so there’s no great need to try to break down each others fundamental starting points (yet!). I’m sure we’ll have a raging debate about it at some point. But for now, peace.
“look them up on your own”
well, you just put a wiki page lik without even questioning or quoting the wiki concept of property. a correct as you go web-tionary.
do the ip advocates basically say that since a numerous copies of an original decreases the valueness of the original that the original content is indeed scarce? i guess along the lines of , if you have two hammers then the value of each is reduced ?
It seems some of the pro-IP gentlemen who have been posting here have a valiant fear of “copycats” and how eliminating our current Patent law would spawn a industry of copycats.
While it is true that those who currently benefit greatly from making curent IP law a big part of their business plan and that “copycat” firms would spring up and rapidly grow many industries, I think mayeb you should look into the benefits as well as teh negatives of this.
It would be nice to have some growing inustries inthis coutnry right? “copycat” industries would be making a lot of stuff cheaply that would improve the lives of many people in this country. It is true that many lawyers would have to find entirely new jobs, but aren’t lawyers and the rapid growth in lawyers over the last 50 years kind of a symbol for what has gone wrong in this country?
I also think that IP law violates physical property rights…suppose I hear you talking about a new ingenius algorithm for solving some problem that I find to be very useful. It enters my ears through sound waves…my brain proccess it and interprets the info in a certain way…my synapses and neurons physically transform in new ways as my understanding takes hold and I become obsessed with the idea(your genius idea) I then start to act on it and create a book. Then your lawyers call the state and have them send men with guns to tell me what I can do with my brain, my hands etc. All these violations of my personal property rights even though nothing I am doing would be illegal on it’s own…only because you and your lawyers claim to have had the idea first?! knowing how the law usually works, won’t this result in lots of politically powerful folks with lawyers actually getting the “rights” to ideas that non-lawyery types who actually invent stuff actually thought of in the first place? how do you deal with this besides saying, “sucks to be you, should have saved more money to pay lawyers”? now do what the government tells you, they do literally own your brain and you have to be granted a special right in order to use it the way you want.
Doesn’t the IP law come down to bigger barriers to entry for creators who aren’t lawyered up enough? protectionism for big corporations from individuals? and jobs programs for do-nothing lawyers, beuracrats?
I assume you are for some time limit…on this non-tangible property right or else we’d all be paying prometheus’s decendents for their fire idea…so are you pretty set on the 17 year right? or are you for shorter time limits?
If I am forced to accept IP law…which I kinda am, then I’d at least always argue for much shorter time limits on these rights granted over the brains of fellow humans. Do you think the current expiration times are set too long?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }