Patents and other intellectual property

[Robert Magoo]

Well see, that involved theft. Me creating my own ideas didn't.

Again, you are dodging the point. How did my neighbor acquire the property in the first place? He likely bought it correct? And how did the person he bought it from acquire it? And how was it originally acquired? What is legitimate property and what isn't?

Lockean homesteading is how property is acquired. To acquire land, you have to be the first there. For something to be considered property, it needs to possess scarcity. If everything was super abundant, there would be no need for property, because there would be no conflict in usage of resources (air for example). Since things are scarce however, they need to be rationed and there needs to be ways to settle conflict over who has a claim to use of the resources. The best way to settle this is by determining who has a rightful claim over the property.

Ideas do not possess this scarcity, thus not rendering them property at all.

Alright: Imagine you could rub your hands together and produce oil. It isn't limited and as long as you keep doing that, more will keep coming. Do you not have a legitimate claim to that oil simply because it isn't in limited supply?

[Four-sided Triangles]

Also, how complex must information be before it can be owned? After all, natural, physical systems have information content associated with them. Certain decoding ciphers applied to information from some physical system could happen to yield identical information to something you had copyrighted. The less information you copyright, the more likely this is. A couple bytes? I'm sure the DNA of several animals in nature have violated your copyright before you even filed for it. Can you sue nature?

This is made even more tenable by the ridiculous fact that you can patent your own genetic code.

[Trotskylvania]

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

Is debt a scarce resource? Are bonds property?

This in spades.

[ZombieRothbard]

Again, you are dodging the point. How did my neighbor acquire the property in the first place? He likely bought it correct? And how did the person he bought it from acquire it? And how was it originally acquired? What is legitimate property and what isn't?

Lockean homesteading is how property is acquired. To acquire land, you have to be the first there. For something to be considered property, it needs to possess scarcity. If everything was super abundant, there would be no need for property, because there would be no conflict in usage of resources (air for example). Since things are scarce however, they need to be rationed and there needs to be ways to settle conflict over who has a claim to use of the resources. The best way to settle this is by determining who has a rightful claim over the property.

Ideas do not possess this scarcity, thus not rendering them property at all.

Alright: Imagine you could rub your hands together and produce oil. It isn't limited and as long as you keep doing that, more will keep coming. Do you not have a legitimate claim to that oil simply because it isn't in limited supply?

It needs to be super abundant, it has nothing to do with whether it is limited or unlimited.

[ZombieRothbard]

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

Is debt a scarce resource? Are bonds property?

How is that relevant?

[Robert Magoo]

Alright: Imagine you could rub your hands together and produce oil. It isn't limited and as long as you keep doing that, more will keep coming. Do you not have a legitimate claim to that oil simply because it isn't in limited supply?

It needs to be super abundant, it has nothing to do with whether it is limited or unlimited.

My ideas are not in abundance.

[Daistallia 2104]

Alright: Imagine you could rub your hands together and produce oil. It isn't limited and as long as you keep doing that, more will keep coming. Do you not have a legitimate claim to that oil simply because it isn't in limited supply?

Yes, because it is a tangable product of my labor.

[Daistallia 2104]

My ideas are not in abundance.

Nor have you explained how they can be property.

[Four-sided Triangles]

My ideas are not in abundance.

So, you're saying you don't have many ideas?

Well, you said it, not me.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Also, how complex must information be before it can be owned? After all, natural, physical systems have information content associated with them. Certain decoding ciphers applied to information from some physical system could happen to yield identical information to something you had copyrighted. The less information you copyright, the more likely this is. A couple bytes? I'm sure the DNA of several animals in nature have violated your copyright before you even filed for it. Can you sue nature?

This is made even more tenable by the ridiculous fact that you can patent your own genetic code.

I dont think that you can patent 'your own genetic code'
I'm pretty sure you cannot patent genes, I beleive it the proteins which activate the genes that you an synthisize and patent the synthetic protein.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I dont think that you can patent 'your own genetic code'
I'm pretty sure you cannot patent genes, I beleive it the proteins which activate the genes that you an synthisize and patent the synthetic protein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent

[Cameroi]

i'm not swearing it absolutely one way or another, but i highly suspect the whole concept of being entirely wrong headed. i mean people DO arrive by their own means simultaneously at methods and mechanisms and with so many people on the planet it becomes increasingly inevitable for this to happen. it think what we need to consider is what so called intellectual property actually protects. it protects economic interests from people living in a world that wouldn't need them.

everything having to be owned and begin and end with symbolic value is part of the problem, not of a solution.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

I dont think that you can patent 'your own genetic code'
I'm pretty sure you cannot patent genes, I beleive it the proteins which activate the genes that you an synthisize and patent the synthetic protein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent

It says in your link that a patent is only granted to isoleted gene sequences(definitly not an entire genome) with a specific function, a gene cannot function w/o a specific protein. It also says that human genes and genes occuring naturally in organisms cannot be patented/are not...But it does seem you can patent a gene as opposed to just its protein.
You were right though a gene can be patented, its just useless unless you can find what protein activates that genes function. So you need to patent the protein too.

[Four-sided Triangles]

It says in your link that a patent is only granted to isoleted gene sequences(definitly not an entire genome) with a specific function, a gene cannot function w/o a specific protein. It also says that human genes and genes occuring naturally in organisms cannot be patented/are not...But it does seem you can patent a gene as opposed to just its protein.
You were right though a gene can be patented, its just useless unless you can find what protein activates that genes function. So you need to patent the protein too.

It's still totally fucked that you can patent a naturally occurring object.

[ZombieRothbard]

It needs to be super abundant, it has nothing to do with whether it is limited or unlimited.

My ideas are not in abundance.

Once you share an idea with the world, it becomes in abundance. If you want to be the sole proprietor of your ideas, then you should not share them.

[Jello Biafra]

I see no difference between the justification of a right of ownership of intellectual property and other types of property ownership.

Creation is not a starting point for property.

Really? Then how is it acquired?

[Veblenia]

Is debt a scarce resource? Are bonds property?

How is that relevant?

It's relevant to your theory of property.

[ZombieRothbard]

I see no difference between the justification of a right of ownership of intellectual property and other types of property ownership.

Creation is not a starting point for property.

Really? Then how is it acquired?

The homesteading principle.

[ZombieRothbard]

How is that relevant?

It's relevant to your theory of property.

Debt is not a resource, and bonds are an investment of capital.

[Jello Biafra]

Really? Then how is it acquired?

The homesteading principle.

Could you explain further?

[SpectacularSpectacular]

It says in your link that a patent is only granted to isoleted gene sequences(definitly not an entire genome) with a specific function, a gene cannot function w/o a specific protein. It also says that human genes and genes occuring naturally in organisms cannot be patented/are not...But it does seem you can patent a gene as opposed to just its protein.
You were right though a gene can be patented, its just useless unless you can find what protein activates that genes function. So you need to patent the protein too.

It's still totally fucked that you can patent a naturally occurring object.

Its foggy ground for sure...I don't support biological patents for the most part; there are two sides to the blade though. By being allowed to patent an engineered genetic sequence you offer more incentive for competitive research. But you also lock out the possibility for independent research using those patented sequences. Im torn.

[Veblenia]

It's relevant to your theory of property.

Debt is not a resource, and bonds are an investment of capital.

Bonds are a tradeable instrument. I can own, buy or sell the title to debt. It's a class of intangible property.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Its foggy ground for sure...I don't support biological patents for the most part; there are two sides to the blade though. By being allowed to patent an engineered genetic sequence you offer more incentive for competitive research. But you also lock out the possibility for independent research using those patented sequences. Im torn.

I'm objecting to it on a more philosophical level. Patents are supposed to be for things humans invent. A patent on something naturally occurring seems like a category error.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Its foggy ground for sure...I don't support biological patents for the most part; there are two sides to the blade though. By being allowed to patent an engineered genetic sequence you offer more incentive for competitive research. But you also lock out the possibility for independent research using those patented sequences. Im torn.

I'm objecting to it on a more philosophical level. Patents are supposed to be for things humans invent. A patent on something naturally occurring seems like a category error.

Naturally occuring I agree but I'm torn on gentically modified/engineered sequences.

[ZombieRothbard]

The homesteading principle.

Could you explain further?

Before one can create, one must be there first. The first person to come upon the resources is the owner, not necessarily the person who creates something with it.