Intellectual Property

[A18]

Discuss.

[A18]

I don't get what you mean. Copyrights and patents are intellectual property.

I support it on a limited basis, because ordinary contracts (with regard to sharing the material or information) are impractical in such cases.

[A18]

2. Each individual has a right to property in previously unowned objects of which he takes possession. 

Would this not justify the taking of 'non-scarce' resources?

Under your theory that 'discovering' an 'idea' (I assume this is meant to justify patents as well as copyrights; correct me if I'm wrong), and then claiming it as your own, is essentially the same as acquiring normal, unowned objects, I suppose the 'originator' (for lack of a better word) of the 'idea' and his heirs would be entitled to the exclusive benefits of that idea forever more. The heirs of the 'inventor' of the wheel, for example, could make a fortune. And what about the person to 'discover' fire? This is a very strange idea itself, and perhaps you should claim the rights to it.

It's true that these ideas were not 'claimed.' But the point is, what if they had been? And what does it mean to 'claim' an idea anyway?

Perhaps the U.S. should have patented the atom bomb. We could then accuse the Iranian government of conspiring to infringe upon our property rights.

I think this is a poor justification for intellectual property, but I welcome a reply. I'd also like to hear what Bono thinks. Needless to say, my thinking is not particularly refined on this subject. I personally am much more suspicious of patents than copyrights.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is frankly absurd. The conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that if a man knows he's going to die in five minutes, the property is his, and he has the right to transfer it; but if he dies with the property, the property can now be taken by the first person to come along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You assert that a person, by 'discovering' an idea, takes possession of it, just as a man who discovers an island might take possession of it, correct? That means it is his, and he has the right to transfer it to the same extent that he has the right to transfer physical things.

Of course, I do not buy this analogy. An idea can exist in an infinite number of heads, whereas a piece of land, for example, may only be possessed by one individual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not under your reasoning, whereby once something has been discovered, a person (or entity, I presume) takes possession of it, just as with physical property.

[A18]

Very well. Then the instant before A's death, B obtains possession of A's intellectual property. Hence, A discovers fire, patents it, and the world is at the mercy of his heirs, correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But as Thomas Jefferson said, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." If one person stands somewhere on this piece of land, another person can not stand in that same place.

[A18]

It is the act of discovering the idea for the first time that (I have argued) that gives an individual "possession" of that idea.

Yes, but now that he has possession of that idea, why can't he transfer this property of his to another individual? Person A may obtain land through first possession, but he may nevertheless transfer it to Person B, though Person B was not the first to possess it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When one person stands on a piece of land, another's ability to stand there is lessened. Two people can not utilize the same land for contrary purposes without getting into each other's way. But when one person makes use of an idea, the other person's ability to make use of that knowledge is not lessened.

A person's ability to be the only one making use of something is an abstraction, that cleverly includes another person's activities, while at first glance referring only to the individual under consideration himself.

[A18]

That is not the usual, philosophical justification for intellectual property. The usual justification is that if I have the rights to something, it is a natural corollary that I may transfer those rights to another person.

In any event, that only responds to my reductio ad absurdum. You did not respond to my defense of the distinction I made between 'intellectual property' and physical property.

[A18]

The relevant factor is whether or not your use of the thing in question impairs another person's ability to use it. In the case of a lawnmower, it most certainly does. In the case of an idea, this is in no sense true. Your abstraction obscures the latter fact. The analogy breaks down on the issue of scarcity, then.

Lysander Spooner believed in perpetual patents, correct?