| | Steve-
Great set of posts. In addition to the general ideas of rival/non-rival and 'mixing of intellectual labor' which I'm assuming you're incorporating, I'll summarize the aspects I find challenging for truly constructing a ground up definition of IP:
- Length/complexity of work. The argument that a 1000 page novel would not be independently created by someone else (so represents something a copier could/would not have otherwise created) really is strong. The argument for a 5 word phrase- not compelling at all. Independent minds just by chance very likely create the same shorter phrase, but by inconceivably low probability for the novel. This is undoubtedly fuzzy where a reasonable cutoff could be; US copyright law does have some arbitrary cutoff provision for this. Perhaps that's unavoidable and there's not a better provision, but I'm curious if a ground-up concept of property including IP could offer guidelines.
- Independent creation. Far more a concern for patents than copyrights. Many times coworkers or I have crafted software solutions independently that were later found to run awry of patents (so which were 'obvious to those skilled in the art'). Likewise, some of us are inventors on patents on 'inventions' that I have no doubt others legitimately have or are independently creating with zero awareness of our patents. This problem is undoubtedly common across other technologies and industries as well. It cannot be hand-waved away, as this is dealing with someone truly independently coming up with an idea, not just a strawman that they might have. (Rand's own dismissive handling of this problem was incredibly poor. Her misunderstanding of 'first to invent' vs. 'first to file' aside, her argument is akin to if two whalers each independently kill a whale, then whichever races to pay a government bureaucrat first gets to take the others' whale.) I think a ground-up concept of IP would have to somehow accommodate independent creation.
- Expiration/transferability. Your admirable goal appears to be a definition of property that would truly put IP/patterns on equal footing with tangible/rival goods. If you succeed, I see this also meaning they'd be on equal ground with respect to transferability/inheritance. And the common Objectivist view of those would allow indefinite/infinite transferability.
I look forward to what you come up with.
|
|
