From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Mar 15 2000 - 15:41:06 MST
James Wetterau wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" says:
> > James Wetterau wrote:
> ...
> > > James Swayze says:
> > > > Timothy Bates wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > As a disbeliever in patents, this article warmed my heart,
> > > > > http://www.around.com/patent.html
> > > >
> > > > As a hopeful inventor can someone explain to me why patents are
> > > > considered bad?
> > > > In a free capitalist society shouldn't an individual profit from
> > > > their hard won intellectual efforts?
> > >
> > > No. In a free capitalist society, people should profit from the free
> > > exchange of goods or services with other individuals, or any other
> > > freely entered profitable contract or dealing. By contrast, if you
> > > obtain a patent, you prevent me, via a state granted monopoly on a
> > > particular implementation of an idea, from using my own intelligence,
> > > labor and industry to similarly profit.
> >
> > The problem is that it is pretty difficult for the second guy to prove
> > he never had any input from the first.
>
> How is that my problem? That does not justify using the machinery of
> the state to prohibit me from using my own intelligence and labor as I
> see fit. That's what your use of a patent to restrict me does.
No, it doesn't. You can even go to the patent office, buy a copy of the patent
file, take it home, and build the device or whatever. Its perfectly legal, you
don't owe anybody anything, you just can't make money off of the other guy's
idea. The presumption is that once one person has had an original idea and its
been published, the 'land' occupied by that idea in the world of memespace has
now been claimed and is being developed, and that this meme now exists as an
entity in society, so it is not possible to call any other invention of the same
idea as original, unless you can somehow prove that you never had been exposed
to that idea or its offshoots before.. If you think that you have an equal
'right of access' to that memespace, then you are no better than a socialist who
is against property rights.
> Moreover, under what theory of rights do you obtain exclusive
> ownership of a technology just because you were first?
The same theory of rights that grants a land patent to a homesteader who stakes
the first claim on that undeveloped land.
> Only one in
> which rights derive from state grants.
No, state grants are derived from the concept that the state is entrusted by the
people with unclaimed land that is assumed to belong to all, to disburse it in
fair portions as developers seek to claim and develop that land.
> We all routinely benefit from
> civilization and nobody makes us pay. I'm typing in a house that has
> central heating. I enjoy this but I haven't paid the inventor of
> houses or furnaces. What a calamity!
Since patents do not last in perpetuity, and houses and central heating date
back to the time of early civilization, the memes of 'house' and 'central
heating' have become fair use technologies.
> This is a non-problem.
>
> > Any moron can look at an
> > invention and smack their head, saying, oh yeah I see how that
> > works.
>
> In what way does this justify the state's stepping in and assigning
> ownership of a technology?
because once an inventor has published his invention to the general public, then
its not possible for another person to be able to claim that they had originated
that idea subsequently, so it was not actually a new creation of that person's
mind, but a recycling of an existing idea.
> Deal freely with other people, or are you afraid to do so and have to
> call in the nanny state to help?
In a society where not many people seem to think that others should be paid as
fairly for their honest work as they themselves would like to be, and where
concepts of integrity and honesty have nearly lost their meaning, either have
the state do it, or let me start enforcing the old codes of honor and integrity
as it used to be done. Only a gullible dupe would blindly trust everyone without
protection like you seem to.
> > If> they go and start making their own without ever having actually bought
> > the original device from the original inventor, are they really an
> > inventor, or just a cheap shallow crook with no consideration for
> > others?
>
> Is it theft to learn from others' ideas?
It is theft, plagiarism, and basically dishonest to use another's ideas without
credit and requested recompense. If you don't understand this basic concept,
then I have no basis to trust you either. Men who do not understand honor have
no honor.
> Maybe the original inventor should have made the person in question
> sign an NDA.
A patent is a societal NDA. If I invented the automobile, and I made every
person who bought a car from me sign an NDA, I would also have to require that
anyone they ever showed the car to to sign an NDA as well. How feasible is that?
That is the main reason why using only contract law to protect intellectual
property fails, and why patents were created to redress that need.
> Nah, that would require the inventor to actually work hard to protect
> this right. Better for the state to just give her a handout, right?
As opposed to letting everyone else steal her ideas? Enforcing the law and
mandating that members of soceity operate honestly is not a handout, it is
justice.
> > > This is coercive, oppressive and destructive, as well as against
> > > liberty.
> >
> > Sounds like the anarcho-socialist argument against property.
>
> You are mistaken. The parallel is entirely in your head.
>
> In this case it is you who are arguing for the omnipotent state to act
> as the arbiter of property, and it is I who am arguing for free
> trade. You are taking the socialist line here.
No I am not. The anarcho-socialist argument is that property rights don't exist
because they infringe on other individuals 'right of free access'. Opponents of
patents are using the same principle with original ideas. Just as there is a
limit to the amount of land on the planet, once you've sold one piece of land,
you cant sell it again to someone else, once a person has had an original idea
and it has been published publicly, then it is not possible for someone else to
have originated that idea. Given a finite universe, there are a finite number of
ideas.
> > > > Is intellectual property worth less because it springs
> > > > sometimes so easily from the creative mind? ...
> > >
> > > No, make all the profits you want off your legitimate intellectual
> > > property. (Hint -- if your so-called property derives from a grant
> > > from the government, its legitimacy is highly questionable. In this
> > > case, it's a government hand out.) I make profits from my
> > > intellectual property -- I write computer programs, and help people
> > integrate other peoples' software into their systems. These profits
> > > do not depend on coercing others into not doing likewise. That's a
> > > bullies' game, not fit for free women and men.
> > >
> >
> > However patent protection makes sure that EVERY user of your invention
> > pays his fair share,
>
> The universal sign of the socialist argument! Let the government
> decide what is "fair" and redistribute the wealth accordingly.
The government does NOT decide what is fair, the market decides what the fair
value of a particular patent is. All the government does is make sure that
everyone who uses that idea actually pays for it what the market determines it
is worth.
> No thanks, I prefer free dealing.
Free stealing you mean.
> > which is not the case currently with software,
> > where you have between 20-50% piracy rates.
>
> Does the existence of burglary justify the government deciding who
> owns which houses and doling them out in arbitrary 17 year periods to
> whoever can claim them first? Please take your statist schemes elsewhere.
The existence of burglary justifies the government:
a) allowing homeowners to shoot intruders
b) making it a crime to break and enter
c) hiring police to investigate such crimes and bring criminals to justice.
d) protect the original land claims of the first settlers on that land through
the justice system.
Whether the 'government' is a monopoly state or a competetive PPL system is
irrelevant.
If you think burglary is ok, then be prepared to get shot, arrested, and/or
jailed.
> > Those who pay for software
> > licenses wind up paying for the pirates, feel gyped, and are more likely
> > to commit piracy themselves as a result. They know they are getting
> > shafted, but not by who they think they are...
> ...
>
> I can protect my own property thank you. I don't need the nanny
> state and its protection racket.
>
Prove it. Show me a system where you can protect a milliion copies of a software
application distributed around the world from being pirated. It hasn't been
invented yet.
Mike Lorrey
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael S. Lorrey
Owner, Lorrey Systems
http://www.lorrey.com
ArtLocate.Com
http://www.artlocate.com
Director, Grafton County Fish & Game Assoc.
http://www.lorrey.com/gcfga/
Member, Extropy Institute
http://www.extropy.org
Member, National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- General John Stark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:25 MST