RoR: Forum

Hi, Daniel.

You note that the value of an idea lies not so much in its creation as in its actualization. You and I agree. A lot of work lies between an idea and a finished product – specification, design, process development, and then actual production. Not everyone understands that the far greater effort in realizing an idea is usually not defining it well enough so that it is patent-worthy, but figuring out how to make the damn thing. For example, as groundbreaking as the idea for the internal combustion engine was, there is a reason why the process for its manufacture (the automotive assembly plant) and not the product (the automobile) is known as the Eighth Wonder of the World.

None of this slights the inventor. It is a matter of acknowledging that the first step in bringing a new product to market is not always the most important one. The designer and the producer also play critical roles in the actualization of an idea. The value they add is often greater than that of the inventor. Yet, the government takes a different view: The inventor is entitled to a monopoly over his idea, thus giving him a state-protected bargaining power over the designer and the producer that allows him to take more value from the actualization of his idea than the effort of invention justifies.

What I think some have fallen into is circular reasoning: IP rights are just, because they protect the inventor as the most important link in the chain of progress; however, the inventor has such importance because IP rights give him that primacy. Let the scales fall from their eyes, and perhaps they will see it’s not such a bad thing to let the market, instead of the government, determine who has the upper hand among inventor, designer, and producer in the actualization of an idea.

I also agree with you that this issue manifests itself in a variety ways, not just the invention of things, but also the authorship of books, the writing of songs, and the painting of masterpieces. It is because of this variety I think that the flexibility of private contract rather than the one-size-fits-all of government statute is the best way to protect the rights of all involved in making an idea real.

Regards,
Bill

Post 21

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 11:20am

Hi, Regi.

The bottom line is that you were the one who provoked me to check my premises, so you get the credit. (Whether some here think that should be a matter of blame rather than credit is another subject. ;) Conversely, I’m pleased to know that my practical applications of your principles will be useful in a revision of your writings on intellectual property. I am always glad to be of service in the advancement of the truth.

Regards,

Bill

Post 22

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 11:24am

Hi, Joe.

You are correct that argument from tradition does not suffice. However, that was not my intention. No one in this thread has been defining contract as anything other than it is presently understood. Therefore, my reference to the fact that certain types of consideration – in particular, forbearance – had been acknowledged as valid for centuries was to emphasize that I was not stating anything other than what has been solidly established in modern contract law.

I note that you did not actually disagree with me that forbearance is sufficient consideration for a valid contract. I’m sure you do not disagree that forbearance is in fact accepted as consideration under current contract law. So is it your contention that forbearance should NOT be acceptable as consideration? If so, why not? Why should I not be able to exchange my willingness to refrain from an act I am at liberty to take for something I value? If someone finds value in my voluntary restraint, why should he not be able to offer something of value to obtain it? Why shouldn’t such a free exchange of values be reducible to a contract enforceable by a court of law?

Actually I would be surprised if you did object to forbearance as consideration. If you don’t object, then you have the solution to the problem you posed: A contract prohibiting the unauthorized dissemination of an idea does not rest upon the purported property rights of the idea’s originator but rather the willingness of the one to whom the idea is disclosed to forbear upon his right to use the idea as he pleases. It is the forbearance of a genuine right and not the artifice of property rights that makes a contract to control the dissemination of an idea enforceable.

Regards,
Bill

Post 23

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 11:30am

Hi, Joe.

>>Citizen Rat goes on to say that giving the creator of the idea a right to it distorts the market, by weakening the positions of the people who would produce the actual product. That's really screwed up, considering that he's arguing that the designer could simply contract with them. How are the two systems different at all (assuming contracts were valid in this case)? The difference is that outsiders could wait for someone else to produce the first example, and then copy away. This doesn't strengthen the first producers position. It weakens it. It means he has to make all his money in a heartbeat, because some thieves are gonna come along and take it. And that's true in general. The only position you strengthen are those who want something for nothing. Napster is not an example of slipping through cracks in the government's IP. It's an example of looters coming in and taking what they haven't earned.<< [My emphasis.]

That’s not true in general.

For example, I manufacture a product that I have distributed with minor variations for twenty years without patent protection. It consists of a single component with three curved surfaces. I have made thousands upon thousands of these things and shipped them around the world. They aren’t cheap. Plenty of incentive to copy them. Indeed, I encourage my competitors to do so, because once they gotten their customers to use "my" product, I can always get them to switch to me who makes it better, cheaper, and quicker than anyone else.

However, even a product as seemingly simple as mine seldom is copied, and when it is, the copy is crude. Reverse-engineering is not a piece of cake. A lot of effort goes into determining what the design of a product is from the actual product. A finished product is only an approximation of the design. The information that can be gathered from it is limited. Success requires the copier's know-how, not the inventor’s. So it is hardly theft to try to build something to look or function like something you are aware already exists. But I’ve already went on at length about this in the original thread on IP, so I’ll spare you my litany here, Joe.

The fact is that the vast majority of new ideas never receive the protection of a patent. That’s because they are incremental improvements upon existing ideas. Indeed, the only reason reverse-engineering is even a “threat” is because the huge body of common knowledge that inventor and the copier share. As practical matter it is impossible to make a knock-off of something you don’t understand at a fundamental level. This is why it is unjust for the government to give an inventor a monopoly over an idea: It is dependent upon knowledge that we all share.

[As for Napster, I agree with you, Joe, that it was thievery. Presently artists have no choice but to rely upon copyright law to protect their interests, because the existence of copyright statutes makes it impossible to control the dissemination of their works through voluntary agreement. So long as the government forces artists to use its statutory protection scheme, I will acknowledge it is theft when that scheme is violated.]

Regards,
Bill

Post 24

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 6:39pm

Joe's right. The thing boils down to an either/or, and it's good to hear someone who sees this.

Lets break it down a step further to see what those rights are based on:

1) Has IP got value?

Obviously. The plans are worth many times the value of any one of their physical products. That's why they're jealously guarded.

2) Does that property belong to someone?

Well, an IP can only belong to one of these three things: to someone, or to everyone, or to no-one. Upholding the first of these means you believe there can be real innovations made by individuals. Upholding the latter two means individual innovation counts for nothing (this is the "nothing's original" argument). I don't believe this is a viable position.

So, we must decide that IP is in principle both 1)of value and 2)personally owned. Therefore it must become protected by rule of law, same as any other valuable private property. Therefore rights are established on that basis.

I don't see there is a basic problem. Do people think *physical* property rights were established overnight, without centuries of trial and error? It's only early days. Why shouldn't IP be the same?

Now, we should briefly deal with the "nothing's original" argument while we're here as an argument against IP, and note how it becomes an argument against *non-extinguishable* (or eternal) IP rights too.

It's true that every individual innovation takes place in the context of an overwhelmingly large cultural heritage. No novel is even possible without a language, for example. So it's therefore true that all new thoughts stand on the shoulders of old ones, even if the view is completely different! But given that, the cultural heritage is the result of the actions of millions and billions of individuals, each making their stitch in a kind of enormous "crazy quilt" (there can be no "masterplan" after all...). So this culture is entirely dependent on original thought to exist, even though it is far vaster than any single innovation.

Now IP already recognises the importance of our human inheritance - that no idea can be *totally original*; which is why such rights are self terminating - for example in music, copyright is extinguished 50 years after the composer's death, and their innovation goes into the common stock of mankind's ideas. And this seems perfectly fair - should Ayn Rand have paid royalties to King Cadmus's estate for bringing the Phoenecian alphabet to Greece (which eventually became the Western alphabet)? Of course not. So eventually returning innovations to the common stock is only fair, as the artist/engineer/musician etc *benefitted from that stock for free in the first place*!

Most of the questions posed so far, existing IP principles cover. The only ones it can't cover are ones that *demand the impossible* ie: direct access to the contents of people's brains. But then the question becomes: why should we listen to impossible demands?

- Daniel

Post 25

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 6:04am

Hi, Daniel.

>>I don't see there is a basic problem. Do people think *physical* property rights were established overnight, without centuries of trial and error? It's only early days. Why shouldn't IP be the same?<<

Here's the thing: If IP is in fact property, then we do not need another set of rules to deal with it. We treat all manner of intangible property the same way we do physical property, so its lack of physicality cannot be the reason we need to treat IP differently.

Indeed, you note that justice requires that IP be turned over to the public after a certain period of time. But if IP is truly property, is it not an injustice to its owner that the government forcibly divests him of it to socialize the benefits of the property?

The fact is IP is not property, despite its moniker. It is a body of statutes that grant, provided that certain procedures are followed, the originator of an idea what is in effect a restraining order upon all his fellow citizens. Whether or not that is just we can debate, but let us not confuse IP with property. It is a restraint upon the rights of others.

Regards,
Bill

Post 26

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 5:38pm

Bill writes:
>Here's the thing: If IP is in fact property, then we do not need another set of rules to deal with it.

Hi Bill

I think you are confusing *rules* with the basic principles that generate them.

For example, the rules dealing with the sale of a car differ from the rules governing the sale of a piece of land, which differ again from the rules governing the sale of a service like cleaning your house (For example, you do not need to survey a car, and the maid does not present you with a title deed each time she cleans the house - she will just give you a receipt). So the *rules* differ in each case with the nature of the problem to be solved, but the underlying principles remain the same (which is why a receipt is a little bit like a title deed, but is obviously not the same thing). Likewise with IP. The basic principle is the same, though the rules need to be adapted to fit.

>The fact is IP is not property, despite its moniker. It is a body of statutes that grant, provided that certain procedures are followed, the originator of an idea what is in effect a restraining order upon all his fellow citizens.

What you have said here is, in effect: "All intellectual property is theft!" The argument you've put forward - that IP represents a "restraining order" from the originator on his fellow citizens - is in no way different from the traditional Socialist argument about *physical* property!

For example, Simone De Beauvoir said precisely this when she said that private property could only be defined "negatively" - that you never really owned something, you just prevented others from using it. Private physical property *also* grants via "a body of statutes"a "restraining order" on our fellow citizens - you are not allowed to take my car without my permission! So I think when you look carefully at it, this argument that IP is somehow profoundly different has no real basis.

After all, why is the originator not allowed to own the fruits of his intellectual labours - merely his physical ones??

- Daniel

Post 27

Thursday, July 1, 2004 - 6:48am

Hi, Daniel.

You ask a good question: >>After all, why is the originator not allowed to own the fruits of his intellectual labours - merely his physical ones??<<

But he does own that fruit, and he owns it because it is physical. An idea is nothing (in terms of economics) until it is manifested in some physical fashion, whether a writing or a diagram or a prototype. For example, the fruit of a painter's idea for the subject of a painting is the painting. If he says to a fellow painter, "I think a painting of a bowl of fruit would be great idea", you and I certainly would not disagree that the other painter is free to act upon that idea to create a painting that would be owned by him, and not the painter who first came up with the idea for the painting's subject.

OK, so the painter owns the painting he painted. Can someone else copy that painting without his permission? Sure, just so long as the copier does not pass it off as the original, which would be fraud. But what if the original painter does not want his work to be copied? Then he should not reveal it except to those who agree to not copy it in exchange for the opportunity to view his work. In this manner private agreement supplants copyright statutes to control the dissemination of an idea.

As for how collectivists would like to define property, they can clamor all they want about how genuine property can only be defined negatively -- i.e., in terms of excludability. However, that completely ignores how property is created. You own something because you created it, or someone else did and voluntarily transferred it to you.

Ideas don't work that way. You can create an idea, but you cannot transfer it. All you can do is give it some physical expression -- even something as physically wispy as the sonic waves from talking about it -- and then whoever perceives that expression of your idea can form his own idea about it. His idea is not your idea, even if its content is identical to yours (which is hardly a given). I'm sure you agree that you cannot own the thoughts of another man, but that's what it boils down to when one talks of owning of an idea. And this is why IP is properly understood not as property but as a restraint upon the rights of others. IP forbids a person from acting upon his own thoughts.

Well, there's some food for thought, Daniel. ;)

Regards,
Bill

Post 28

Thursday, July 1, 2004 - 7:15am

Daniel,

For example, Simone De Beauvoir said precisely this when she said that private property could only be defined "negatively" - that you never really owned something, you just prevented others from using it.

Here's the thing: when you're talking about physical property, you can definitely prevent others from using it, and others can take and use your item without your permission through force. But what about an idea? If you sell someone a piece of your music, and they have a good enough ear to determine what notes are being played and can create a piece of sheet music that has these notes on it, where is the force? There has been none; by selling the music, you have effectively put the idea out there if people can discern it. Can you really prevent people from using something that they can have without stealing anything? You would need to be a tyrannical being who hounds all those who have your product and might use it or sell it without your permission. Of course, you can't be that, so instead you enlist the government to do it for you, since that's what they're there for.

I think that proponents of IP can be accused of wanting to have their cake and eating it, too. In the case of books or cds, they want to be able to take an idea, perform it or print it in a manner that still makes it fairly easy to copy, and be able to make as much money off of every copy of it that gets sold as if each copy were a unique, inviolate entity. And, as far as design goes, they want to be able to manufacture a product and have no one else be able to look at their product, discover how it works or what it is made from, and make their own products in competition. Whichever way you slice it, it's about government enforcing "rights" to things that, if government didn't exist, could not be enforced anyway.

After all, why is the originator not allowed to own the fruits of his intellectual labours - merely his physical ones??

It isn't that he's not allowed to own an idea; it's that, without government intervention, he can't. Think about this: the only way to let someone else use or gain some benefit from an idea is to share it with them. You can't give them an idea, because it doesn't exist in a form that can be given; it can only be copied. And if it's an idea that can be gotten from a product that was made using that idea, then the idea a person draws from that product is not really the same idea, is it? It's another idea that just happens to be about the same thing.

So, yeah, a person is allowed to own the fruits of their intellectual labor, but ownership shouldn't mean the right to tell people what they can do with an idea that is basically theirs now, since it in their head.

- Kevin

Post 29

Thursday, July 1, 2004 - 11:55pm

Citizen Rat said "No one in this thread has been defining contract as anything other than it is presently understood."

Just to go on record, I am. I'm saying that unless there's a right violation, the government cannot be involved. Period. The current legal system is not defined by the concept of individual rights, and so I reject it as flawed. I don't accept that a government can use force just because it benefits society. A real contract is binding because a violation of it is a violation of rights, not because it's a broken promise.

Now can I take it that all those who are against intellectual property rights believe that the person breaking into your home/factory to steal the plans should be fined for trespassing, and that's it? The fact that they took your work means nothing in the eyes of the law? This is logically your position. Simple confirmation will do.

Kevin, your last post has assumptions, that if used consistently, would mean you're against government protection of regular property rights as well. You say that people can't protect their IP without the government. Technically, it's not true. They could use guns themselves to do it. The argument is only that it would be costly for them to do it. But then again, it would be costly for each individual to protect his own property without government assistance. So does that mean it's not a real right? Government is there to protect rights, isn't it? If IP is a right, then that's the governments job too. What sounds to you like a damning argument against IP means nothing to those who accept IP, just as you wouldn't be convinced with someone who argued that property rights, to be protected, would need to rely on force. Of course it does!

Post 30

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 5:38am

Hello, Joe.

>>... I'm saying that unless there's a right violation, the government cannot be involved. Period. The current legal system is not defined by the concept of individual rights, and so I reject it as flawed. I don't accept that a government can use force just because it benefits society. A real contract is binding because a violation of it is a violation of rights, not because it's a broken promise.<<

You're right. A contract is something more than a promise. It requires an exchange of consideration. Under current contract law, forbearance can be consideration. For example, I agree to forbear upon my right to copy the design of the product you invented in exchange for hiring me to build that product per your design. I asked this of you before: Do you agree or disagree that forbearance is valid consideration for a contract?

>>Now can I take it that all those who are against intellectual property rights believe that the person breaking into your home/factory to steal the plans should be fined for trespassing, and that's it? The fact that they took your work means nothing in the eyes of the law? This is logically your position. Simple confirmation will do.<<

The plans are physical property. The burglar's theft of them is just that, theft. If he broke in and merely copied the plans, he still would not be entitled to act upon that information, because he initiated force to obtain it. However, if I left the plans out in the open so that anyone visiting my plant could see them, I've got no complaint if they go on to copy them. That's because the visitor used no force to obtain the information in the plans.

This, in fact, is not an uncommon situation in a manufacturing plant. Because of the sensitivity of plans, methods, and processes, often certain areas are barred to visitors or visitors sign an agreement to keep confidential the things they observe. Indeed, my experience is that vast majority of manufacturing information is kept concealed by voluntary agreement (contractual forbearance), not patent or copyright (intellectual property).

Regards,
Joe

Post 31

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 7:33pm

Citizen Rat writes:
>OK, so the painter owns the painting he painted. Can someone else copy that painting without his permission? Sure, just so long as the copier does not pass it off as the original, which would be fraud.

Well, I think this is exactly where your argument comes apart.

Let's take the example of a product - say a drug. The drug company, Creative Drugs Ltd calls it Prolix, and it cures speech impediments. Now it spends 5 years and $40m creating and testing it before launching it. The day after it's launched, its competitors CopyDrug Inc go down to the drugstore, buy some, reverse engineer it and put it on the market a month later. As they have almost zero R&D costs to recover in their margin, they launch their competitive product at a 40% discount to the inventors! The public buys the competing product, the copying company makes a fortune, the inventor goes broke.

So you have created a market where inventors *cannot* reap the rewards of their creativity.

And it gets worse. Because the competitors have not only copied the formula, but they've called their copy drug "Prolix" as well, and copied the logo and packaging identically! Ah, says Rat, this is fraud! "Passing off!". Just as if one had forged the signature on the painting!.

Not so. For the brand "Prolix" too is *intellectual property*! Under your principle, a name or logo can have no protection either. For why should a logo design be protected, when the design of anything else - a drug a car - is not?

And it gets worse again. Because a *third* company has decided to cash in on the popularity of Prolix. But this company just sells junk placebos instead of pills. But it calls them "Prolix" too, and copies the packaging and logo identically, so its almost impossible to tell it from the real versions. Under your principles, it is perfectly entitled to do this because there is now no such thing as a registered trademark. It can even create a company called Creative Drugs, and use their corporate ID - all of which is intellectual property! And you can't stop them, because all you're doing is putting a "restraining order" on their rights.

So at this point I think your argument runs into insurmountable obstacles. And contractualism does not get you out of it, as contracts are not freestanding but have to be based on legal principles anyway. And it becomes rather like Joe's point about defending your property with guns; sure, you could, but it's the government's legitimate duty to provide that protection anyway.

The system you're proposing is rather like cleaning your teeth through your butt; you could possibly do it, but there sure are easier ways....;-)

regards
Daniel

Post 32

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 6:54am

Hi, Daniel.

I'm fully aware that trademark sails under the IP banner under current law, but it is a different beast. The fact that the government wants to call it IP doesn't make it so. After all, war isn't peace, no matter how sincerely Big Brother wishes it were so. A trademark identifies the source of a product. To copy a trademark is a fraud, because to do so makes a knowingly false statement about the source of a product. That's why a trademark is valid for only a specific product. A similar mark can be used by another for a product in a different market. That's the reason why McDonald's can't stop a toolmaker from calling his company McDonald's. Again, common law principles are adequate to address this issue, though a federal registry of trademarks is unobjectionable to me to the extent it facilitates interstate trade.

As for your denigration of reverse engineering as little more than theft, I need to point you back to your own statements that the idea is not thing but rather all the work that goes into developing an idea into a marketable product. Reverse engineering requires the same without the considerable benefit of the inventor's knowledge. To the extent that reverse engineering is a snap, it is because the inventor's invention is mostly common knowledge -- and why does that merit the monopoly of a patent? (And why does every IP advocate keep citing the drug industry as the first victim under a non-IP system? Drug companies already reverse-engineer each other's products all the time, add a twist to make them chemically distinct, and try to sell that twist as an improvement. Look at all of Viagra's competitors.)

But all of this brings us back to territory already covered in this thread and the original one. The only new issue I see right now is whether or not current contract law is corrupt by Objectivist lights because it recognizes forbearance as consideration. Joe Rowlands has provocatively asserted that current contract law is not just, but he hasn't specifically made any statement regarding forbearance. It certainly would be interesting to see if there is a valid Objectivist argument against forbearance (though I cannot fathom how). I don't recall if you or anyone else has addressed the issue. But that seems to be the only new one on the subject of "intellectual property".

Regards,
Bill

Post 33

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:42am

In response to someone above: Disclosure of trade secrets is governed by the law of torts-- not contracts. They are still regarded as property for the purposes of the 5th amendment, however.

Post 34

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 7:08pm

Joseph Rowlands,

Here is my thoughts on IP rights: I think one important thing to note is the difference between physical property and non-physical property. With physical property, one can steal. With non-physical property it is not possible to steal. When people say steal they really mean copy without consent.

1. I think a person (A) can own non-physical property. This is where (A) does not tell anyone else.

2a. The person (A) can tell person (B) by agreement that (B) will not tell anyone or use the idea for themselves OR (B) pays (A). In this case, (A) still has full ownership of the idea, and (B) has limited rights to the idea.

2b. There can be many (B)'s, and nothing changes. (A) will still have full ownership of the idea. The (B)'s will have whatever rights to the idea that they agreed to, or else they pay the amount agreed to.

3a. Now lets say that (B) tells (C). Now (B) must pay A, or else he lied. His lie is of the same value as the payment amount in the original agreement, and he is now in debt to A. If he lied, the lie was a breach of negative rights, a use of force, and A now has the right to use force to receive payment.

3b.It was easy to take care of (B). What about (C)? (C) now has a copy of what ever he experienced. (C) did not agree to any limited rights on this copy. Since (C) did not agree to any limited rights, (C) is free to do what ever he wishes with what ever he experienced. (C) may not have (A)'s consent to distribute or sell the idea/media, but (C) is free to do so without initiating force. At this point, I consider both (A) and (C) owners of the non-physical property.

So what happens when someone decides after he's signed the contract and learned about the invention that he wants to keep the idea for himself? What happens if he decides to violate the contract by using the ideas in whatever way he wants? The answer, if intellectual property rights do not exist, is - nothing. Without property, there is no theft. Without intellectual property, there can be no theft of ideas. A contract would not be worth the paper it was written on.

In this case, it is not theft. Simply, the person who decided to keep the idea for himself must pay the person he signed the contract with for what ever amount they agreed on. If the person breaks the contract, then they are lying, an initiation of force, and the inventor has the right to use force to receive his payment.

This also applies to someone who "contracts" with another to develop an idea or technology. There is no guarantee of payment because the contract would not be binding. And selling the idea is difficult because the buyer is unable to inspect the invention before purchasing it. He'd have to pay for it up front, without the ability to change his mind. In fact, legally the "buyer" would merely be giving a gift. It isn't an exchange because one half isn't property.

I don't know about "no guarantee of payment" because I am not sure exactly what the terms of the agreement are. I think it would be a difficult contract to agree on. It would be risky for the person learning of the idea, which would greatly reduce the value of the idea.

The same lack of security affects trade secrets. Imagine the following scenario: You invent a new motor that will revolutionize the world. It's a billion dollar invention. You've locked it up in your factory, so nobody can copy it. You're careful not to let anyone else see it. Someone breaks in at night and makes a copy of the plan. You call the cops, and they find their man. They fine him $100 for trespassing. After all, there was no theft involved. He might not have even broken any windows.

There was no theft involved. The man copied your plans against your will. $100 is a ridiculous amount. Trespassing is an initiation of force, and the tresspasser is responsible for any negative results of his actions. Trespassing and copying a plan without consent is worth the value of the plan, or more specifically the value lost in the plan due to its being copied.

Take this another step. Say you write a novel. It's brilliant, and you've worked hard in order to make it. But it turns out you can't let anyone print it. If you give the novel to a printing press, they can just print it and not pay you anything. It's not theft, since you don't own it. It isn't property. Of course, you could buy your own printing press, and operate it yourself. You might still find a way of making money. But cooperation with others would be impaired.

If you make an agreement with the operators of the printing press, they are responsible for keeping the terms of the agreement.

Without property rights between men, cooperation is hampered because the product may simply be taken. Without intellectual property rights between men, the same problem exists. There cannot be a half-way point on this issue. Either intellectual property rights exist, or they don't.

I think IP rights exist as I have explained above. You may now point out how horrible it is that (C) is now free to do what ever he wants with (A)'s idea. I agree it is horrible, but it is (B)'s fault, not (C)'s. To force (C) not to use the idea would be an initiation of force.

Now since (C) is free to make the idea owned by all, or sell to his heart out, well, he can. It is up to the buyers to decide whether they want to buy from (C) or not. Maybe some people will still buy from (A) because it was (A)'s idea. That's a nice thing for them to do for (A).

Some will complain that if my IP was in effect, there would be less of an incentive to perform research. Maybe so, but at least the research is not funded by an initiation of force. Research can be funded in other ways. If the motor inventor ended up loosing more then what he could get out of the trespasser, maybe some generous people would donate.

Post 35

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 7:45pm

Dean, you say "If the person breaks the contract, then they are lying, an initiation of force, and the inventor has the right to use force to receive his payment." Lying is not an initiation of force. Fraud is, but that's based on property rights (I have an article on Fraud, if you want to check).

The million dollar question, then, is by what right does the government enforce a contract? Philosophically speaking, it must be because a violation of the contract somehow violates the rights of one of the parties. What rights? Property rights. A contract is merely a trade over time. If one party does not fulfill their side of the contract, but the other side did, a theft has occurred. It could be labor, or time, or physical property that was stolen, but in all cases of contract violation there has to be something stolen.

The problem with all the scenarios assuming property rights don't exist is that they expect a contract to still be enforceable while denying that a rights violation has occurred. If, as people say, nobody is hurt by copying someone's ideas, then there is no rights violation taking place. Furthermore, a contract where both sides aren't giving something up is non-binding. If IP can't be stolen or lost, then the contract is really one side giving money to the other for no reason.

Most of the comments on this thread, and on other threads on IP, try to piggy-back on contract laws to enforce IP in an attempt to have the value of IP without recognizing it as real property. My claim is that you can't do it. Either stealing IP is a violation of rights, or it isn't. If it isn't, a contract doesn't make it so. A contract is enforceable because property rights back it, not the other way around.

And if you accept IP is real property, then it opens up the door to patent laws, copyrights laws, etc. that we have today. If you don't accept it, then you have to accept the conclusions and effects.

Post 36

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 7:48pm

Ammendments to my above post:

By "full ownership of (X)" I mean:
(A) has the right to do what ever they want with (X), and (A) has the right to limit other's use of (X), so long as he has full ownership.

In 2a and 2b, (A) does not have "full ownership" anymore. He gave up some of the ownership, to the extent of what ever agreement he made with (B).

For example, consider the following case:

  // I decided to put the case in
  // psuedo code to make it more clear
  // 
  (
    (A) will tell (B)
  ) AND (
    (B NOT(tell OR use)) OR (B (tell OR use) AND pay)
  )

In this case, (A) some lost ownership, because (A) gave rights to (B). (B) is now free to not(tell||use) or (tell||use)&&pay.

In 3b, (C) has full ownership, except no control on any of (A)'s use or (B)s' use of (X).

Post 37

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 8:06pm

"Lying is not an initiation of force."

When you are lied to, a person gives you a false sense of reality. With a false sense of reality, you are unable to make the best decisions available to you. Of course you can argue that you need not believe the lier. Then your sense of reality would still be true. The lier did not force you to believe, hence no initiation of force.

I will have to look at your article on fraud, and see how fraud is different then lying. And I will think some more.

I think patents are another issue. I discussed them in an document that I pushed on the SOLO article queue. I would rather discuss patents in its resulting thread, if the article is ever pulled from the queue and put on the SOLO website.

Post 38

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 9:01pm

I will put it this way: One has the right not to be lied to. It is a need of any being, so long as that being desires to live a long and happy life. It is in our common interest not to lie to each other.

By your description of "Initiation of Force", I would consider lying to be an "Initiation of Force".
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_InitiationOfForce.html

If lying is not an initiation of force, then at least he could be labeled as a lier for all to see, at least until he pays for his damages. Would it be just to require him to put on a button that says what he lied about whenever he leaves his property? Then he will not be so likely to deceive anyone else in public. Selfishly, I think that it is in my best interest to force a lier to pay for his damages (if society agrees with me). I think that its in the best interest of anyone who wants to live long and healthy to force liers to pay for their damages.

What justifies a retaliation of force? Does not the same justification apply to forcing liers to pay for the results of their lie?

Some jokes:
Since I think that it is best to force liers to pay up, lying must be an initiation of force.

And all the of the Americans exclaim "He lied to me, he owes me one million dollars!"

Post 39

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 9:28pm