Patents and other intellectual property

[Trotskylvania]

This is a tangent off the libertarian "seasteading" thread

While many modern libertarians are not fans of intellectual property rights, it seems clear that they perform a very important purpose in a capitalist economy. Specifically, they reduce the risk to investors when funding research and innovation. It's a basic truism that copying someone else's idea is cheaper and faster than innovating it yourself. Absent patents, any innovation would be up for grabs in the free market, and the firms that spent no capital to develop the innovation could, once they catch up to the lag with the innovator, produce the innovation cheaper, having not had to recover the R&D investment.

This creates a perverse incentive to not innovate and just copy others. Each individual firm acting in its rational self-interest would, however, create an aggregate diseconomy, with R&D and innovation drying up because the competitive costs are just too great. In the face of such clear market failure, I don't see how any reasonable person could be opposed to patents, of all things.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Well, you could have the government doing all R&D, where none of its results are patented. Technically, it doesn't violate the free market if the government provides a service, so long as it doesn't simultaneously prevent others from providing the same service if they want. Not that I'm a free market junkie anyway.

[Intellectual Pornography]

funding for research and innovation by the private sector is a total waste of time when you could have it funded by a totalitarian government
then if it is profitable the totalitarian government profits no matter what

[Sibirsky]

I can see the merits of both arguments. I lean against IP, but it's... a mild lean.

[Moral Libertarians]

There is a disagreement among libertarians about this, some favouring the abolition of IP, others its retention. I'm not well-read enough on this subject to offer a substantive opinion; but I lean away from it. It's essentially a restriction on individual freedom, telling people they cannot produce a certain good. It should be the individual's decision how to allocate their resources.

[ZombieRothbard]

This is a tangent off the libertarian "seasteading" thread

While many modern libertarians are not fans of intellectual property rights, it seems clear that they perform a very important purpose in a capitalist economy. Specifically, they reduce the risk to investors when funding research and innovation. It's a basic truism that copying someone else's idea is cheaper and faster than innovating it yourself. Absent patents, any innovation would be up for grabs in the free market, and the firms that spent no capital to develop the innovation could, once they catch up to the lag with the innovator, produce the innovation cheaper, having not had to recover the R&D investment.

Intellectual property is simply a grant of monopoly privilege, which is not compatible with a capitalist system. It is a policy decision based on an assumption that cannot be proven or even supported, that grants of monopoly incentivize innovation. Shakespeare wrote without copywrite protection, so can everybody else.

This creates a perverse incentive to not innovate and just copy others.

It is sad that copying others is considered perverse. Innovation is all about copying others, building upon their ideas and making them slightly better. In the history books you hear about the Wright Brothers inventing aircraft, but actually there were many other people who may have even flown before them. They simply built on others ideas, just as most other successful entrepreneurs do. And the Wright Brothers went around suing people over intellectual property violations for years, ensuring the U.S. didn't even have an adequate air force to enter into WWI! (According to Jeffrey Tucker).

Each individual firm acting in its rational self-interest would, however, create an aggregate diseconomy, with R&D and innovation drying up because the competitive costs are just too great. In the face of such clear market failure, I don't see how any reasonable person could be opposed to patents, of all things.

I don't like the term "rational self interest", I think it is some sort of sleight against Randroids. Even so, it isn't applicable here because most Randroids I know are in favor of intellectual property. Austrian Schoolers don't believe "irrationality" in an economic sense exists, since every action that is completed by the actor was, at the time, perceived to be in their own self interest. So pointing out "rational self interest" is a bit useless considering there is no such thing as irrationality.

And I believe a majority of human history was lived without patents or copywrite. The monarchies started granting them as ways to benefit favored persons (Patent coming from the word "patente" which means "open letter" from the monarch). So it shouldn't be too hard to believe innovation can occur without it.

[Trotskylvania]

Intellectual property is simply a grant of monopoly privilege, which is not compatible with a capitalist system. It is a policy decision based on an assumption that cannot be proven or even supported, that grants of monopoly incentivize innovation. Shakespeare wrote without copywrite protection, so can everybody else.

Shakespeare made his money from the production of plays, not the writing of them.

It is sad that copying others is considered perverse. Innovation is all about copying others, building upon their ideas and making them slightly better. In the history books you hear about the Wright Brothers inventing aircraft, but actually there were many other people who may have even flown before them. They simply built on others ideas, just as most other successful entrepreneurs do. And the Wright Brothers went around suing people over intellectual property violations for years, ensuring the U.S. didn't even have an adequate air force to enter into WWI! (According to Jeffrey Tucker).

Patents and patent law has come a long way since then. More often than not, patents are filed to prevent litigation, and it's very rare for aggressive patenting litigation to occur. Further, patents also encourage the publication of ideas. To file a patent, you need to provide schematics and other relevant data, espescially if you want the patent accepted. This allows competitors to study it. And patents have a short life span; they're essentially an IP holder entering a property into the public domain with short term restrictions.

And I believe a majority of human history was lived without patents or copywrite. The monarchies started granting them as ways to benefit favored persons (Patent coming from the word "patente" which means "open letter" from the monarch). So it shouldn't be too hard to believe innovation can occur without it.

That was never in question. Patents were originally created during the age of nationalism to promote the growth of science and the arts, and in general, they have facilitated that during the capitalist stage of development. What the evidence suggests is that on the whole, patents help promote exchange of ideas, not stifle it.

Coca-Cola never patented the recipe for it's signature cola, because that would have required them to publicize the recipe.

[Moral Libertarians]

Intellectual property is simply a grant of monopoly privilege, which is not compatible with a capitalist system. It is a policy decision based on an assumption that cannot be proven or even supported, that grants of monopoly incentivize innovation. Shakespeare wrote without copywrite protection, so can everybody else.

Shakespeare made his money from the production of plays, not the writing of them.

And? The lack of IP laws didn't prevent either.

It is sad that copying others is considered perverse. Innovation is all about copying others, building upon their ideas and making them slightly better. In the history books you hear about the Wright Brothers inventing aircraft, but actually there were many other people who may have even flown before them. They simply built on others ideas, just as most other successful entrepreneurs do. And the Wright Brothers went around suing people over intellectual property violations for years, ensuring the U.S. didn't even have an adequate air force to enter into WWI! (According to Jeffrey Tucker).

Patents and patent law has come a long way since then. More often than not, patents are filed to prevent litigation, and it's very rare for aggressive patenting litigation to occur. Further, patents also encourage the publication of ideas. To file a patent, you need to provide schematics and other relevant data, espescially if you want the patent accepted. This allows competitors to study it. And patents have a short life span; they're essentially an IP holder entering a property into the public domain with short term restrictions.

Ten, twenty years or however long it is that they last is hardly short-term.

And I believe a majority of human history was lived without patents or copywrite. The monarchies started granting them as ways to benefit favored persons (Patent coming from the word "patente" which means "open letter" from the monarch). So it shouldn't be too hard to believe innovation can occur without it.

That was never in question. Patents were originally created during the age of nationalism to promote the growth of science and the arts, and in general, they have facilitated that during the capitalist stage of development. What the evidence suggests is that on the whole, patents help promote exchange of ideas, not stifle it.

Coca-Cola never patented the recipe for it's signature cola, because that would have required them to publicize the recipe.

The boom in arts and science was largely created by the economic and political liberalism that began with the Renaissance.

[ZombieRothbard]

Shakespeare made his money from the production of plays, not the writing of them.

That is true, and it is what would likely happen in a society without intellectual property.

Patents and patent law has come a long way since then. More often than not, patents are filed to prevent litigation, and it's very rare for aggressive patenting litigation to occur. Further, patents also encourage the publication of ideas. To file a patent, you need to provide schematics and other relevant data, espescially if you want the patent accepted. This allows competitors to study it. And patents have a short life span; they're essentially an IP holder entering a property into the public domain with short term restrictions.

That might be how IP is sold to the public, but the reality is far different. The reason why aggressive patent litigation doesn't occur is because big companies trade patents with each other instead of suing each other, ensuring small companies can never get a leg up. And somewhere there was a website of all the absurd patents that are granted each year, it is ridiculous.

That was never in question. Patents were originally created during the age of nationalism to promote the growth of science and the arts, and in general, they have facilitated that during the capitalist stage of development. What the evidence suggests is that on the whole, patents help promote exchange of ideas, not stifle it.

Coca-Cola never patented the recipe for it's signature cola, because that would have required them to publicize the recipe.

I think patents were created in part to legalize piracy actually (or at least was an early usage of it).

[Veblenia]

Shakespeare made his money from the production of plays, not the writing of them.

That is true, and it is what would likely happen in a society without intellectual property.

Oddly enough, King James I issued a Royal patent to the King's Men in 1603, granting them the exclusive right to perform Shakespeare's plays. You might say the plays were the company's intellectual property.

[Sociobiology]

I've been turned around on this while patents may have been useful open source and short term patents, and defensive publication have actually been proven to stimulate innovation better. technology has reached a point that the long stasis period patents create is becoming a major inhibitor to innovation.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

I've been turned around on this while patents may have been useful open source and short term patents, and defensive publication have actually been proven to stimulate innovation better. technology has reached a point that the long stasis period patents create is becoming a major inhibitor to innovation.

I agree with this, especially in regards to genetic(more accuretly protein) patents.

[Veblenia]

This is a tangent off the libertarian "seasteading" thread

While many modern libertarians are not fans of intellectual property rights, it seems clear that they perform a very important purpose in a capitalist economy. Specifically, they reduce the risk to investors when funding research and innovation. It's a basic truism that copying someone else's idea is cheaper and faster than innovating it yourself. Absent patents, any innovation would be up for grabs in the free market, and the firms that spent no capital to develop the innovation could, once they catch up to the lag with the innovator, produce the innovation cheaper, having not had to recover the R&D investment.

Intellectual property is simply a grant of monopoly privilege, which is not compatible with a capitalist system. It is a policy decision based on an assumption that cannot be proven or even supported, that grants of monopoly incentivize innovation. Shakespeare wrote without copywrite protection, so can everybody else.

Any form of property is a "grant of monopoly privilege". If I own a piece of land, or a car, or a toothbrush, I have exclusive (monopoly) rights to its use. Copyright/patent protections are institutions recognizing that the creative works and ideas they enshrine are original, proprietary goods that took time and labour to produce, and assuring proper compensation for their production.

It's ludicrous to suggest that's somehow anti-capitalist, what institution is more sanctified by capitalism than private property? The story of capitalism's development has been largely the creation and exchange of new forms of property, beginning with the Enclosure Movement right on up to swap derivatives.

[Robert Magoo]

Economic arguments are unnecessary. If a person has the right to their labor, ip must be protected. When you write a piece of software and claim it as yours, you have just as much right to make that claim as you would a physical good. Patents can go way overboard, but I don't think the concept of intellectual property is inherently flawed.

[Distruzio]

Meh. I oppose IP.

[Daistallia 2104]

I've been turned around on this while patents may have been useful open source and short term patents, and defensive publication have actually been proven to stimulate innovation better. technology has reached a point that the long stasis period patents create is becoming a major inhibitor to innovation.

I agree with this, especially in regards to genetic(more accuretly protein) patents.

Patents on genes are particularly pernicious.

Economic arguments are unnecessary. If a person has the right to their labor, ip must be protected. When you write a piece of software and claim it as yours, you have just as much right to make that claim as you would a physical good. Patents can go way overboard, but I don't think the concept of intellectual property is inherently flawed.

IP generally doesn't protect a person's right to their own labor, but rather prevents someone from enjoying the right to their own labor. If I record a CD I own, that is my labor, not the record company's, not the recording studio's, not the artists, but mine.

[ZombieRothbard]

Economic arguments are unnecessary. If a person has the right to their labor, ip must be protected. When you write a piece of software and claim it as yours, you have just as much right to make that claim as you would a physical good. Patents can go way overboard, but I don't think the concept of intellectual property is inherently flawed.

Are idea's a scarce resource? No, they aren't, therefor they are not property.

Also, unless you claim ownership over what is in somebody elses mind, IP cannot be considered property.

[Daistallia 2104]

The story of capitalism's development has been largely the creation and exchange of new forms of property invention of new forms of theft, beginning with the Enclosure Movement right on up to swap derivatives.

Corrected for accuracy. (The enclosue movement is a particularly nice example of naked theft, BTW.)

[Robert Magoo]

I agree with this, especially in regards to genetic(more accuretly protein) patents.

Patents on genes are particularly pernicious.

Economic arguments are unnecessary. If a person has the right to their labor, ip must be protected. When you write a piece of software and claim it as yours, you have just as much right to make that claim as you would a physical good. Patents can go way overboard, but I don't think the concept of intellectual property is inherently flawed.

IP generally doesn't protect a person's right to their own labor, but rather prevents someone from enjoying the right to their own labor. If I record a CD I own, that is my labor, not the record company's, not the recording studio's, not the artists, but mine.

Yes, the cd is your own; the information contained within is not.

[Daistallia 2104]

Are idea's a scarce resource? No, they aren't, therefor they are not property.

Also, unless you claim ownership over what is in somebody elses mind, IP cannot be considered property.

When you, Sibirsky, and all all agreee, albeit for different reasons, I am scareful. l

[Robert Magoo]

Economic arguments are unnecessary. If a person has the right to their labor, ip must be protected. When you write a piece of software and claim it as yours, you have just as much right to make that claim as you would a physical good. Patents can go way overboard, but I don't think the concept of intellectual property is inherently flawed.

Are idea's a scarce resource? No, they aren't, therefor they are not property.

Also, unless you claim ownership over what is in somebody elses mind, IP cannot be considered property.

I'm claiming ownership of the product of my mind, not somebody else's.

[Veblenia]

The story of capitalism's development has been largely the creation and exchange of new forms of property invention of new forms of theft, beginning with the Enclosure Movement right on up to swap derivatives.

Corrected for accuracy. (The enclosue movement is a particularly nice example of naked theft, BTW.)

I'm not defending it, just pointing out that property and capitalism go hand-in-hand.

[ZombieRothbard]

Are idea's a scarce resource? No, they aren't, therefor they are not property.

Also, unless you claim ownership over what is in somebody elses mind, IP cannot be considered property.

When you, Sibirsky, and all all agreee, albeit for different reasons, I am scareful. l

[ZombieRothbard]

Are idea's a scarce resource? No, they aren't, therefor they are not property.

Also, unless you claim ownership over what is in somebody elses mind, IP cannot be considered property.

I'm claiming ownership of the product of my mind, not somebody else's.

You are also claiming ownership over other peoples property and body, since you are saying that they cannot do with their property what they wish (configure it in a particular way, sell it, use their vocal chords in a certain way, play a guitar in a certain way etc.)

[Veblenia]

I'm claiming ownership of the product of my mind, not somebody else's.

You are also claiming ownership over other peoples property and body, since you are saying that they cannot do with their property what they wish (configure it in a particular way, sell it, use their vocal chords in a certain way, play a guitar in a certain way etc.)

You can actually play music other people composed. You just can't record and sell it by passing it off as your own.