Patents and other intellectual property

[AiliailiA]

Force people to sell patents to anyone who wants them - at a realistic price, Intellectual property is a-ok.

I'm fine, eh?

force ... realistic ...

NO, you're not fine.

[Xsyne]

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of your brow?

[Seleucas]

In order to actually have a point, rather than just masturbating furiously over a hypothetical, you'll have to explain why, despite your brilliant, nay, beautiful hypothesis, the rate at which innovation occurs has increased, not decreased, once intellectual property rights were introduced.

Sure, there's examples where intellectual property rights 'Stinted Innovation' - James Watt's policies concerning his steam engines caused such -, but it's fallacious to assume that a lack of intellectual property rights would've sped up the process, for the simple reason that a lack of such rights wouldn't just be in place once the invention is done and all - rather, it'd be effectively universal. This, in turn, would dramatically reduce the incentive to invest in new ideas (It takes far longer to make the moeny back, the risk of losing it all is higher, and why bother investing time in something that'll not benefit oneself?).

Now, of course the rate of innovation previous to the introduction of IPRs wasn't zero - however, innovation was generally conducted and caused by a very specific class of people (And occasionally their protegés). Namely, rich landowners (Or occasionally the protegés of the state rather than of the rich landowners). They were the ones who could engage in ultimately altruistic endeavours such as, well, research, because they felt like it, despite the investment in such tending rather strongly towards involving a net loss. They could afford to do so. It was their hobby, and it didn't threaten them financially.

Naturally, this rather limited the pool of talents that could produce worthwhile innovations. People like Watt - who came from a rather poor background - would've had immense difficulties flourishing under such a system (A few tried, but they had the curious habit of ending broke and starving after their innovations were stolen from them without compensation. Gutenberg comes to mind), and indeed, generally they didn't bother. There was nothing in it for them.

In short, while IP holders may Stint innovation for their little invention for a little while, the innovative output of systems with IPRs is sometheless vastly superior to systems without them, simply because the talent pool engaging in innovation is vastly greater. Because innovating can suddenly be a job to be desired, rather than a hobby to be engaged in when you're already a multi-millionaire (Or are friends with one).

You can't have the best of both worlds - they're mutually exclusive. And ultimately, IPRs win out.

That aside, I think it's mildly disgusting to effectively approve of theft and leaving innovators broke and starving because it supposedly 'Benefits Humanity'.

The book I mentioned has more evidence, if that is really what you want; I am not going to hammer out an entire work on IP, just note my misgivings.

Regardless, I think you would need to show that IPR caused the increase in innovation; correlation can be deceptive, and the rate of innovation, which is a result of a number of factors, such as a society's wealth and level of education, can be reduced by patent laws ( regardless of intellectual property laws, you likely would not see very much innovation in a dominantly subsistence farming society. In a very affluent, well-educated, professional society, regardless of IPR, you would most likely see more innovation than the previous society.) After all, Holland and Switzerland prospered for a significant amount of time after the beginning of the industrial revolution without a patent system, better than their more bureaucratic neighbors.

In terms of the class that provides for innovation, I really do not think it would be a surprise that even in a society with IPR, most of the innovation would come about as the result of a class that has significant leisure time and wealth, since that would be what is necessary to put production aside in order to come up with new processes. They would also have the advantage that, as people in charge of producing products from which they have become wealthy, they would have substantially more advantage to take advantage of being the first mover upon inventing the product, and, with their resources, be able to continue to innovate so as to maintain that competitive advantage. Even moreso in our modern day, with our increasingly complex technology that necessitates more than just one person to produce new inventions and innovations but which require incredible amounts of wealth, expertise, etc. that cannot be easily replicated. And, considering that there is more to invention nowadays than simple altruism, but of continuing to produce successful products, we should expect there to be more invention and innovation as well.

I think Gutenberg is actually an example of why it would be better not to have IPR. He went bankrupt because he failed to maintain his competitive advantage, i.e., continue to innovate and improve his product so as to make it the best available. It is unfortunate for him, but not so for the consumers of printed works or those who have the acumen to provide better products than he. Johann Fust, the man who supported Gutenberg in his inventing the printing press (and belonging to the class that would support innovation both then, as well as in our present time), did not suffer such a fate. Why? Because after Gutenberg and he parted ways, Fust had taken advantage of his status as a first mover and continued to maintain his competitive advantage by using his assets to continue to provide products that were acceptable to the market, as did many others throughout Europe who innovated on the printing press, but which Gutenberg was unable to do himself. Allowing Gutenberg to have been the sole owner of such a process would only have kept better products off the market and slowed innovation.

As another example, Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin and used his legal monopoly to more or less extort farmers by denying them alternatives to his equipment. However, he also invented manufacturing muskets by machine, without a patent, and took advantage of his first mover status to consistently stay ahead of the competition.

In effect, my point is that IPR does not encourage invention and innovation, but rather disrupts it, by switching from a system wherein one must not only invent the product (and reap the benefits of being the first mover) but continue to innovate so as to stay ahead of the competition, to one in which one can take advantage of prior knowledge and other, simultaneous experiments (after all, there really isn't such a thing as an invention magically springing into mind without any sort of other help, one must rely upon prior information, and often times other people are experimenting in the same field at around the same time), then use them to lock down the market and keep superior products from ever appearing.

If there was no cheaper, or better product that appears after the initial invention, then no one would really desire a patent, as people would only want one's initial product. So, the patents can really only serve to protect oneself from any sort of advancement. Making a better product is not 'theft'; it is progress. And the only innovators that would starve and end up broke are the ones who fail to keep moving forward; those who make the better products would succeed. Those who would not would stay behind, where they belong.

[Four-sided Triangles]

At best, patents are pragmatic, and therefore we can negotiate their terms in order to yield maximum benefits.

[Metroarachnidanopolis]

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of your brow?

Men have stolen from other men since before recorded history.

That said, I'm not going to shrug and sigh when I have my hard work stolen from me.

Trademarks and Copyrights, I think, tend to serve a similar purpose; please correct my if I got that twisted.

[Seleucas]

I just want to add in that, when I was about 20 or so, I had finished writing a novel and was trying to find some way to self-publish it, and would have done so were it not for a 'friend' of mine claiming I had ripped them off (I did not) and threatening legal action if I proceeded, a threat that I doubt would have been possible were it not for copyright. If I were to write something again, I would most likely release it for free or for a token amount, since I am completely disillusioned with copyright.

[Sociobiology]

I just want to add in that, when I was about 20 or so, I had finished writing a novel and was trying to find some way to self-publish it, and would have done so were it not for a 'friend' of mine claiming I had ripped them off (I did not) and threatening legal action if I proceeded, a threat that I doubt would have been possible were it not for copyright. If I were to write something again, I would most likely release it for free or for a token amount, since I am completely disillusioned with copyright.

actually you got it backwards, copywrite is to prevent that sort of thing, all you need is an older piece of the work. most word processing programs save updating information now just for this.
Copywrite is something I believe should exist at least for direct works like art, music and literary writings, and then only for a limited time.

[Daistallia 2104]

I am anticipating an argument based on the idea that monopolization of land via lockean homesteading is an initiation of violence against other people who may want to use that particular parcel of land to achieve their own ends. I would argue it is a defensive action to protect your property that you have justly acquired through homesteading, so it is not an initiation of force. To deny persons of their justly acquired property is an initiation of force, as you are claiming partial ownership over anothers labor. (I know you will disagree, and I am sure neither of us will ever change our perspectives on this).

Diastallia's argument seems to be that homesteading itself is the initiation of force.
Further, I thought you said that it wasn't necessary to create via the process of homesteading. Where is the labor involved?

Indeed so. One in effect says "this is mine by right of my willingness to initiate use of force."

I'll also point out that those arguing Lockean property theory often forget the restrictions with which he justified forcibly appropriating commons as one's own. 1) One may only appropriate as much as one can use and no more - "whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others". 2) One must leave "enough and as good" for others. 3) One may only aquire property only with one's own personal labour by "mixing it" oneself. (Two Treatises of Government, sections 27 and 31, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm)

So, according to Locke himself, most property in the US (and in the rest of the world) is held unjustly, as most is held by people who have aquired far more than their share, have not left enough for others in good condition or otherwise, and have not aquired it themselves with their own personal labor.