RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Intellectual Products and the Right to Private Property

Friday
April 4, 2008

Intellectual Products and the Right to Private Property by Tibor R. Machan

Over the years there has been a debate among supporters of the free market concerning whether so called intellectual property is something to which one may have a private property right. One central element of the case, as advanced by some, is that because intellectual property is intangible, and tangibility makes wha... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (223 messages)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 3:40pm

To address some of Stephan's previous comments:

You think we "own" our own "time"...? What the heck does this mean??

Time is a measurement of motion. And when someone refers to "their time" they are referring to their motions, or actions. That's how we get the expression owning our own time. It literally means owning our own motions.

Stephan wrote:

Look, you don't own "effort". Effort is something you do with your body. You don't need to own your actions, to profit from them.

If you don't own your own actions, then someone else does, and you are thus a slave. To deny that our efforts don't have any tangible measure to them is to deny the existence of the freedom of action.

I think the mistake you are making is in assuming anything you can conceive of, has an owner. If I don't own it, then it means someone else must. Or something like this

Yes something like that. My thoughts are my own, not yours. But the finer points of intellectual property rights is the question of exclusivity to the reproduction of one's creations. I do own my own labor, but I may not necessarily have the right to assert exclusive rights to the reproduction of that labor. It has to be something unique, and something of productive effort where either prior costs are associated with coming up with that unique idea and can be implemented as a tangible product or service. So for example if I come up with an idea of Star Wars and make the movie, I have exclusive rights to the reproduction of that because if I didn't, it would rob me of the benefit of coming with a unique creation. We ought to reward creative efforts, not rob people of them.

Stephan wrote:

The fact that your action can be "traded" does not imply you own it.

Of course it does imply that!! If it's not yours you can't assert a right to trade it.

Jon Trager wrote:

It still seems absurd to me. What, *in essence*, does a patent lawyer do? He argues for legal titles to intellectual property on behalf of his clients, no? If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate a correction. If I'm right, then Stephen's chosen work, the central purpose of his life, *by his own argument* primarily consists of helping some individuals violate the rights of others by gaining or keeping legal titles that he views as wrong (under his utilitarian analysis). If that's true, it's not just absurd; it's also immoral.

Jon you make a good point. I was about to defend Stephan on this one by saying he wouldn't be a moral hypocrite if he was defending clients against an accusation of IP infringement because he doesn't agree in their legitimate existence, however it seems as he has said he also helps people file patents.

Stephan said:

Even if you oppose patents, there is nothing necessarily wrong with obtaining them--like guns, they can be used for good or for evil.

To third party observers, if you find this statement absurd you should. He thinks there is no such thing as intellectual property rights and as such, it would have to mean it is immoral to assert a right over your own creation, yet helps people do just that. He equates this with the ownership of guns but the difference is he thinks the idea of intellectual property rights are intrinsically bad, while guns on the other hand are conditionally bad.

So I think it should be obvious Stephan is a moral hypocrite, however his hypocrisy is not important to the issue of whether intellectual property rights are a valid philosophical concept or not.

Stephan wrote:

John. Please tell me how you "copyright" something? When people say "copyright" as a verb, they say it b/c they mistakenly think that the coypright system is a registration based one...

You are confusing yourself Stephan. I made no mention of how copyrights legally work. As a verb to copyright something means to assert your exclusive rights over the reproductions of your creation. The fact that the federal government automatically copyrights our creations on our behalf doesn't negate the use of the word as a verb, for the very fact the government "copyrights our creations for us" means asserting the exclusive rights to the reproductions of our creations and is thus also used as a verb.

Well, as an anarchist, I DO favor scrapipng the current judicial system.

As an anarchist you would have to be in favor of NO judicial system, not just our current one.

Stephan responding to my request he apologize for his unwarranted ad hominem attacks:

Oh, for God's sake. Sorry, okay! I "retract" my comments (officially, in the Official Objectivist Book of Retractions).

Considering the condescending tone and the insincerity of this apology, I would've preferred nothing instead.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 5:08pm

Stephen: "Patent attorneys do many things. One thing is to advise clients on their legal rights. Another might be to file for patent applications--to help obtain patents. Another might be to defend them in litigation, or to help them sue a patent infringer."

I think all of those concretes may be included in the wider category of trying to secure legal titles to intellectual property, which I said was the *essence* of being a patent lawyer.

Stephan: "Even if you oppose patents, there is nothing necessarily wrong with obtaining them--like guns, they can be used for good or for evil."

Huh? Your view is that government-granted patents *per se* are wrong, isn't it? So how is there nothing necessarily wrong with helping other people get the state to protect work that you think shouldn't be state-protected?

Stephan: "My job is the "central purpose of my life"? Wow. Not my wife, or kids, or family, or maybe libertarian activism?"

No. Your own wife and kids should be very important to you, of course. But they're not the central purpose of your life. The central purpose of your life is (or should be, according to Objectivism) the achievement of your own happiness and self-esteem through your productive work.

Stephan: "It's not true, as I noted above. Obtaining a patent is not violating rights. Nor is using one as a counterclaim (defensively). Only suing an innocent person is arguably rights-violating."

A patent is *essentially* an exclusive right granted by the government to make and sell an invention for a certain time period, right? If so, what happens when someone violates the government-granted right you helped obtain for a client? You sue them, don't you? In other words, you attempt to *force* other people to pay money for doing something you don't really believe is immoral, correct? If I'm wrong, please tell me how. I don't believe I am.

Stephan: "And even here: it is not MY decision, but my client's. Is the lawyer responsible for what the client decides?"

Yes, if the lawyer's job is to initiate force using the state against someone who hasn't violated a legitimate moral right. And you don't think legal patents are moral.

Stephan: "This makes no sense to me: if enforcing a patent is immoral, it's only immoral if it's engaged in by someone who disagrees with patents...? But it's okay for those who mistakenly think patents are justified?"

You're right here. You're actually not acting immorally, because granting and enforcing patents *is* a legitimate role of the state. But if a) you believe it's morally wrong to violate moral rights, and b) you don't believe that making and selling a patent-protected product is violating someone's moral right, and c) you do believe that forcibly obtaining money from others who haven't violated a moral right is morally wrong, then d) you must believe you're acting immorally.

Stephan: "This G*ddamned legal system is not *my* fault, and I refuse to be penalized in my life for it, or to take blame for it. Not an ounce."

Forget the theatrics, Stephan. No one is asking you to "take blame" for the legal system, nor to "be penalized" for it. But you shouldn't make it your job to *profit* from it either, if you're convinced it's immoral. Find a field that supports you and your family and isn't based on enforcing legal claims that you believe shouldn't exist.

(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/09, 9:38am)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 6:12pm

John Armaos:

To address some of Stephan's previous comments:

You think we "own" our own "time"...? What the heck does this mean??

Time is a measurement of motion. And when someone refers to "their time" they are referring to their motions, or actions. That's how we get the expression owning our own time. It literally means owning our own motions.

I'm getting to the point of diminishing returns with you. Either I can't think of a way to splain it, or you just don't get it. I think you are misunderstaning what I'm saying, so probably my fault.

Look, you don't own "effort". Effort is something you do with your body. You don't need to own your actions, to profit from them.

If you don't own your own actions, then someone else does

Perfect example of my point: you think everything has an owner. That's why you feel compelled to say that it's owned by the person it's related to, otherwise, someone else owns it. I think this is nonsense, but apparently am not reaching you.

, and you are thus a slave. To deny that our efforts don't have any tangible measure to them is to deny the existence of the freedom of action.

I have no idea waht it means to deny that actions have a tangible measure to them. What this has to do with ownability of "actions" is beyond me.

I think the mistake you are making is in assuming anything you can conceive of, has an owner. If I don't own it, then it means someone else must. Or something like this

Yes something like that. My thoughts are my own, not yours.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

The way I conceive it, just b/c language puts a possessive "your" on something does not mean it's really an ownable piece of property. I have memories of my childhood; I have love for my wife; I don't "own" these things, and to say this doesn't mean someone else does--it means they are not ownable things. What you seem to be missing is that just as Rand said that property rights are the only rights, owning your body is enough to give you the right to control your actions. Don't you see? Owning your body *is*, in a sense, "owning" your actions (in your sense, in a more metaphorical, imprecise, sense). Owning your body gives you teh right to control your actions--and what is ownership, after all, but the right to control? But see how it derives from--is merely a consequence of--owning your body?

But the finer points of intellectual property rights is the question of exclusivity to the reproduction of one's creations. I do own my own labor, but I may not necessarily have the right to assert exclusive rights to the reproduction of that labor. It has to be something unique, and something of productive effort where either prior costs are associated with coming up with that unique idea and can be implemented as a tangible product or service.

I have to say this does not even seem like an argument to me. It's just a bunch of assertions. What is uniqueness, and who says it has to be unique? Etc.

So for example if I come up with an idea of Star Wars and make the movie, I have exclusive rights to the reproduction of that because if I didn't, it would rob me of the benefit of coming with a unique creation.

Do you realize that copyright is not just the right to reproduce? First, it's not just literal reproduction; otherwise minor changes woudl be enough. So it is broader than that. And how to define this is inherently arbitrary and NON-objective. Second, it includes other rights, such as derivative rights, the rights to perform, or "digitally" broadcast. How any objective system of law would include these ad hoc, arbitrary, state-determined rights is beyond me. I don't trust the state, you see, that mass-murdering mafia, so don't put much stock in the reasons of those guys in coming up with a patent system--the same thugs who give us income tax and the Americans with Disabilities ACt and Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights act and pro-union legislation and prohibition.

We ought to reward creative efforts, not rob people of them.

Maybe the state ought to give them a tax-funded award, if the government-granted monopoly is not sufficient.

Stephan wrote:

The fact that your action can be "traded" does not imply you own it.

Of course it does imply that!! If it's not yours you can't assert a right to trade it.

This is realy not that hard to understand, John. You own your body; you can decide what to do wiht it. You can use this power to make a bargain. This is really not that complicated. Your assertion that this means you "own" the action you perform to induce someone to pay you is just an assertion.
Let me try one more example. Suppose I know the CEO of Dell, and you ask me to use my "influence" with him to persuade him to consider you as a battery supplier. You agree to pay me $10k if I'm successful in arranging a meeting. So, I put in a good word for you with Michael Dell, and sure enough, he agrees to meet with you. You dutifully pay me the $10k. Now: did I "own" my "influence" over Michael Dell?

Jon Trager wrote:

It still seems absurd to me. What, *in essence*, does a patent lawyer do? He argues for legal titles to intellectual property on behalf of his clients, no? If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate a correction. If I'm right, then Stephen's chosen work, the central purpose of his life, *by his own argument* primarily consists of helping some individuals violate the rights of others by gaining or keeping legal titles that he views as wrong (under his utilitarian analysis). If that's true, it's not just absurd; it's also immoral.

Jon you make a good point. I was about to defend Stephan on this one by saying he wouldn't be a moral hypocrite if he was defending clients against an accusation of IP infringement because he doesn't agree in their legitimate existence, however it seems as he has said he also helps people file patents.

Stephan said:

Even if you oppose patents, there is nothing necessarily wrong with obtaining them--like guns, they can be used for good or for evil.

To third party observers, if you find this statement absurd you should. He thinks there is no such thing as intellectual property rights and as such, it would have to mean it is immoral to assert a right over your own creation, yet helps people do just that.

I think IP is not justified, not that it "does not exist." I think the patent system is unjustified. That does not mean obtaining a patent is immoral. It is arguably immoral to sue someone for patent infringement, but merely having a patent is not a rights violation--any more than having copyrights is (we all have copyrights in our individaul contributions to this very thread; that does not make us aggressors).

He equates this with the ownership of guns but the difference is he thinks the idea of intellectual property rights are intrinsically bad, while guns on the other hand are conditionally bad.

So I think it should be obvious Stephan is a moral hypocrite, however his hypocrisy is not important to the issue of whether intellectual property rights are a valid philosophical concept or not.

Stephan wrote:

John. Please tell me how you "copyright" something? When people say "copyright" as a verb, they say it b/c they mistakenly think that the coypright system is a registration based one...

You are confusing yourself Stephan. I made no mention of how copyrights legally work. As a verb to copyright something means to assert your exclusive rights over the reproductions of your creation

. No, it doesn't. This is a unique usage. When you assert your rights, it means to sue someone, or demand payment. No one calls suing someone for copyright infringement "copyrighting" anything!

The fact that the federal government automatically copyrights our creations on our behalf doesn't negate the use of the word as a verb, for the very fact the government "copyrights our creations for us" means asserting the exclusive rights to the reproductions of our creations and is thus also used as a verb.

Well, as an anarchist, I DO favor scrapipng the current judicial system.

As an anarchist you would have to be in favor of NO judicial system, not just our current one.

This is untrue.
Jon Trager:

Stephen: "Patent attorneys do many things. One thing is to advise clients on their legal rights. Another might be to file for patent applications--to help obtain patents. Another might be to defend them in litigation, or to help them sue a patent infringer."

I think all of those concretes may be included in the wider category of trying to secure legal titles to intellectual property, which I said was the *essence* of being a patent lawyer.

Stephan: "Even if you oppose patents, there is nothing necessarily wrong with obtaining them--like guns, they can be used for good or for evil."

Huh? Your view is that government-granted patents *per se* are wrong, isn't it?

Not exactly: it's that there are no natural rights to patents, so the patent system is unjustified. Just like public roads are--do you drive on these?

So how is there nothing necessarily wrong with helping other people get the state to protect work that you think shouldn't be state-protected?

Because having this right does not mean you are using it against anyone--same with copyright. All of us here have lots of copyrights. That's not our fault.

Stephan: "It's not true, as I noted above. Obtaining a patent is not violating rights. Nor is using one as a counterclaim (defensively). Only suing an innocent person is arguably rights-violating."

A patent is *essentially* an exclusive right granted by the government to make and sell an invention for a certain time period, right? If so, what happens when someone violates the government-granted right you helped obtain for a client? You sue them, don't you?

YOu don't have to. And usually, no. As I said, most patents are obtained for defnesive purposes. If I were to sue a competitor, it woudl cost millions, and they might have their own patents, or buy some, to sue me back, and maybe win. It's more of a porcupine thing for most companies: they have them just to make competitors afraid to sue each other. So you have billions of dollars spent just to keep others from using their patents against you, so you have freedom to operate, to compete in the market. A cheaper way to achieve this woudl be to not grant patnets.

In other words, you attempt to *force* other people to pay money for doing something you don't really believe is immoral, correct?

This is not what obtaining a patent does, any more than it's what having a copyright does. Moreover, if you don't file a patent, some competitor might file for the same thing even though they invent it later, and sue you and stop you from doing what you invented first. So it's a virtual necessity, sort of like hiring a tax attorney if you're wealthy. Whether it's immoral to sue someone first, is a separate issue, but first, that's teh client's decision; and second, that's not necessarily what's involved in obtaining patents.

BTW patents are only about 10% or less of my current practice anyway, thank God.

If I'm wrong, please tell me how. I don't believe I am.

Yes, like most libertarians iwth a strong position on IP, you don't seem to understand how the system you seem to be in favor of really works.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 6:31pm

Just a brief note on owning your labor and your time. As I understand ownership, it's the right of use and disposal. So, if I own my labor, it means that I have the right to determine its application, and if I own my time, it means that I have a right to determine how it is spent. Of course, these rights imply ownership of oneself as well; but they could be understood as corollaries of the right of self-ownership -- just as the right of free speech could be understood as a corollary of the right to freedom of action.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/08, 6:41pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/08, 6:42pm)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 6:56pm

Bill I agree with you. I think Stephan is just being pedantic about what I meant to own your own labor. It set off this huge series of posts from him trying to disprove something as so basic as that.
(Edited by John Armaos on 4/08, 7:36pm)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 6:58pm

This is just going in circles.

Stephan said:

Owning your body *is*, in a sense, "owning" your actions

And that's what I've said over and over again. What more can be said? In an effort to try to distinguish your arguments from my own you always eventually inadvertently reaffirm my arguments by coming to the exact same conclusion that is my own arguments.

It sounds like you're just back-peddling to me.

Do you realize that copyright is not just the right to reproduce? First, it's not just literal reproduction

Again as we had already covered in a prior post, this is irrelevant to your position since you don't even agree someone should be able to have their literary piece be copyrighted from literal reproductions.

This is realy not that hard to understand, John. You own your body; you can decide what to do wiht it. You can use this power to make a bargain. This is really not that complicated. Your assertion that this means you "own" the action you perform to induce someone to pay you is just an assertion.

An assertion Stephan to which you apparently agree with. As you said: "Owning your body *is*, in a sense, "owning" your actions"

Stephan:

Let me try one more example. Suppose I know the CEO of Dell, and you ask me to use my "influence" with him to persuade him to consider you as a battery supplier. You agree to pay me $10k if I'm successful in arranging a meeting. So, I put in a good word for you with Michael Dell, and sure enough, he agrees to meet with you. You dutifully pay me the $10k. Now: did I "own" my "influence" over Michael Dell?

If by influence you mean the actions you took to influence Dell to buy from your client then yes of course. You provided a service that you sold to your client, that was your service and you had the right to trade it. With the implication it is "your" service means it is "owned" by you.

I can't believe I actually have to define "your" and "own" now to you:

Dictionary.com

Your: 2. one's (used to indicate that one belonging to oneself or to any person)

Own:
�adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself

n. That which belongs to one

I originally wrote:

[Stephan] thinks there is no such thing as intellectual property rights

You responded:

I think IP is not justified, not that it "does not exist."

That's what I mean. You don't think they are a legitimate concept. But you have no problem living your life pretending that they are legitimate.

I think the patent system is unjustified. That does not mean obtaining a patent is immoral. It is arguably immoral to sue someone for patent infringement, but merely having a patent is not a rights violation--any more than having copyrights is

Sounds like rationalizing to me. The very act of filing a patent for someone as Jon Trager points out: "A patent is *essentially* an exclusive right granted by the government to make and sell an invention for a certain time period, right? If so, what happens when someone violates the government-granted right you helped obtain for a client?"

The fact remains you are helping someone assert what you think is an illegitimate right. That is the definition of moral hypocrisy.

Now the following I will show Stephan's schizophrenia;

Stephan originally said:

You don't copyright anything--it's not a verb.

To which I responded with a dictionary definition from dictionary.com including the verb form of copyright:

�verb (used with object)
4. to secure a copyright on.

Which proves it is also a verb. To which he replied

John. Please tell me how you "copyright" something? ....Yes, to "copyright" something does mean to "secure a copyright on"-

Which shows Stephan agrees it can be used as a verb. He goes on to say to my definition of copyright, that being asserting one has exclusive rights to the reproduction of their own creations:

This is a unique usage. When you assert your rights, it means to sue someone, or demand payment. No one calls suing someone for copyright infringement "copyrighting" anything!

I mean when the federal government automatically copyrights our own creations for us, they are doing so as an agent acting on our own behalf. Again showing the term is still valid as a verb. It seems you forgot what the original disagreement was on.

I said in response to you asserting you are an anarchist:

As an anarchist you would have to be in favor of NO judicial system, not just our current one.

Your respond with just:

This is untrue.

No this is true.

Dictionary.com

Anarchy: 1. a state of society without government or law.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 7:47pm

Stephan:

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

The way I conceive it, just b/c language puts a possessive "your" on something does not mean it's really an ownable piece of property. I have memories of my childhood; I have love for my wife; I don't "own" these things,

Of course you own those things Stephan. If they are yours, you own them. That's what having something be yours means. Now in the original posts I brought up about owning your own labor and being able to trade that, I use labor in a very specifically defined way, that meaning actions used for economic production, i.e. trading an action for something in return. I'm narrowly defining owning an action for the purpose of trade only in these discussions, not just any arbitrary action or thought. Like thinking "Gee, the weather is nice today" that thought isn't of any productive value, no services or products were produced from a whimsical though like that.

I specifically mean action for the sake of an exchange. Like a doctor trading his services for money in return from his patient. So your memories of childhood should not be construed to mean the same thing as owning your labor. Your memories are not something that can be traded in the sense that they are immaterial objects, unless we are discussing you writing a book about them, or being paid to talk about them in lecture halls. Then it is your right to do that, and you can claim ownership to that labor.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 7:58pm

Just to clarify, altho not for JA, for whom clarification is apparently impossible:

Linguistically Anarchy derives from the ancient Greek term, "Archon," which referred to the absolute ruler seen in many of the ancient Greek plays. The Archon's word was law, and you could be put to death at his whim.

There actually were real Archons in ancient Greece, but at one point there was an approximately ten year period when no one was able to claim the title. Enough people liked this period better to have a term coined to refer to them - anarchist - and a label for their position, "Anarchy," literally "without an Archon," but generalized over time into "without a ruler," and, finally, in modern times to "without a monopoly state."

In modern times, the Anarchists of the various threads of anarchy - about as many as there are types of statism, in fact - have rarely advocated a society without "government," meaning a system that sets basic rules and enforces them. Some of the left-anarchists often sound more statist than the statists, in fact! The right anarchists, probably effectively starting with Max Stirner in Germany in the mid-19th century, and with Lysander Spooner here in the U.S., were generally great fans of Adam Smith and free markets. In fact, Stirner, who was once one of Hegel's inner circle and then completely broke with him, was the German translator of "The Wealth of Nations." They tended to advocate distributed systems run by volunteers or as businesses, to take over the functions of the state that we actually need.

Note that Spooner is immortalized in the "Spooner Act," which created the U.S. Postal Service monopoly on first-class mail. Spooner had been running his own system in the first half of the 19th century which was far faster and much cheaper than the U.S. Mail. He could guarantee next day delivery for most of the East Coast, and he had multiple deliveries per day in major metropolitan areas. Even though the U.S. state had already outlawed competition, the fact was that everyone except Congressman with franking privileges was using Spooner's system, so they couldn't find a jury that would convict him or his carriers. So, enraged by this anarchist scofflaw, they decided to use taxpayer money to subsidize the U.S. Mail to the point that it finally became cheaper than Spooner, which was what finally put him out of business. That was the Spooner Act.

It was, however, Andrew Galambos, of the Free Enterprise Institute here in Los Angeles, who brought market anarchy, also referred to as anarcho-capitalism, or agorist anarchism, into the modern era in the late 1960's - although Galambos throughout his life hotly denied that he was advocating anarchy - while at the same time referring to the Tannehills and Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw as intellectual thieves because of their book "The Market for Liberty," which was the most influential book on the East Coast for converting objectivists to anarcho-objectivists. Similarly, Galambos often referred to Spooner's works, but when I approached him about this, he vehemently denied knowing that Spooner was an anarchist.

It was Galambos who was responsible for Rand's article in the Ayn Rand Newsletter, republished in "The Virtue of Selfishness," under the heading "Competing Governments." See my account, taken directly from Galambos himself, of how this went down, elsewhere on the RoR site. Anyone reading "The Market for Liberty" could hardly come to the conclusion that it was describing a disorderly, chaotic or ungoverned society, which is what "anarchy" is often used to mean in popular culture.

However, in that context - of the kind of market-based anarchy described by the Tannehills, it probably is accurate to say that there would be no single "law." Instead there would be a multiplicity of overlapping contracts, spelling out rights, obligations, methods and recourse between individuals and groups, such as trusts or partnerships. If some cult wanted to set up a state within such as society, there would be no-one enforcing "anarchy" upon them. However, as soon as they started infringing upon their neighbors, they might discover that their state was limited only to those who voluntarilly agreed to abide by its authority.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 8:24pm

Teresa: "What's wrong with that? What's wrong with clearing up the definition? Objectivists aren't just "some" atheists. They're THE atheists! There are so many concepts to define a person who claims to be an atheist but really isn't: Luddite (no faith in industry), Nihilist (no faith in values), Communist (no faith in man), Socialist (no faith in the market), Intrinsicist (no faith in the mind or discovery) etc. Objectivists aren't any of those things, they are true atheists. "

But then we would have two terms "atheist" and "objectivist" that mapped to exactly the same set... Are you seriously saying that only objectivists can be atheists? That certainly flies in the face of usage, and it is hard to see how you can justify it epistemologically. Atheism, as I have always understood it, refers to one thing and one thing only - a positive disbelief that there is a God. Simply NOT believing that there IS a god does not make one an atheist. Agnostics do not believe that there is a god. Neither do they claim to know that there isn't one. Atheists state positively that there is no God, for reasons either good or bad. The reasons are not the issue, although certainly important in their own right.

Are you now going to quiz the next Catholic you meet as to the Stations of the Cross, and if they make a mistake on some detail, they must not be a Catholic? Is only one of the hundreds of sects calling themselves "Christian" the real one.

When I was a kid in Bible-pounding Georgia, the local yokels conflated atheism with communism, and more than once one of them told me that any gol-durned atheist should be strung up from the nearest tree. They had always heard "Godless, atheistic commie" in the same breathe, and they were as ignorant about atheism as of communism.

Somewhere in my storage there is a set of very early books on scientology by L. Ron Hubbard, himself. One of them is a dictionary, in which he redefines virtually every important term in the English language to his own liking, as in "science: the set of procedures and beliefs advocated by scientology." I just made that up, but the principle is there, blatantly, page after page. I was amazed that anyone could take the stuff seriously.

Once you get away from definitions based on essentials, then you can corrupt the language to serve whatever ends you choose, as in "progressive politics," or "pro-life." War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Homeland Security. The Patriot Act. And, once you get someone to accept that "science" or "truth" or "atheism" is only what your little group defines it to be, essentials be damned, then that person is your willing slave. (Altho, if your pictures are accurate, being your slave on a temporary basis might not be so awful...)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 8:28pm

John Armaos:

John, we are indeed going in circles, in my view b/c either of your distortion of my views or my inability to explain some (important as I see it) subtleties to you. So just a few replies:

Owning your body *is*, in a sense, "owning" your actions

And that's what I've said over and over again.

But I am emphaiszing it's just a consequence of self-ownership. I emphasize this b/c of the danger--which you give great examples of--of others distorting the idea of "owning labor" into justifying IP and other ridiculous notions.

I originally wrote:

[Stephan] thinks there is no such thing as intellectual property rights

You responded:

I think IP is not justified, not that it "does not exist."

That's what I mean. You don't think they are a legitimate concept.

Sure, it's a legitimate concept. Patent and copyright are current positive rights. Call them intellectual property rights if you want. (I prefer "pattern privileges.") But that does not mean such rights are justified.

But you have no problem living your life pretending that they are legitimate.

I don't pretend they are legitimate. I declaim them as unjust all the time. What are you talking about?

Sounds like rationalizing to me. The very act of filing a patent for someone as Jon Trager points out: "A patent is *essentially* an exclusive right granted by the government to make and sell an invention for a certain time period, right? If so, what happens when someone violates the government-granted right you helped obtain for a client?"

The fact remains you are helping someone assert what you think is an illegitimate right.

Helping someone obtain a patent is not helping them assert it. They aer different things. Again, this is not that hard to comprehend. And asserting an "illegitimate right" is not always immoral--if you sue me for infringing your patents, you can be goddamned sure I'll sue you back for infringing mine, and there is nothing wrong with this. Why? Because by suing me, you become an aggressor. It is okay for me to hit you back with the state force implicit in a patent monopoly b/c that is defensive. Objectivists recognize the distinction between offensive and defensive force.

That is the definition of moral hypocrisy.

Why do you people always resort to this illegitimate argument? Waht is the *relevance( of my moral hypoccisy to whether or not IP is legitimate? Say I am a hypocrite. How does that prove IP is legitimate, or taht my criticisms are flawed?

Stephan:
John. Please tell me how you "copyright" something? ....Yes, to "copyright" something does mean to "secure a copyright on"-

Which shows Stephan agrees it can be used as a verb. He goes on to say to my definition of copyright, that being asserting one has exclusive rights to the reproduction of their own creations:

This is a unique usage. When you assert your rights, it means to sue someone, or demand payment. No one calls suing someone for copyright infringement "copyrighting" anything!

I mean when the federal government automatically copyrights our own creations for us, they are doing so as an agent acting on our own behalf.

"I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help you." Glad you are so trusting of the leviathan state. I'm not.

Stephan:

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

The way I conceive it, just b/c language puts a possessive "your" on something does not mean it's really an ownable piece of property. I have memories of my childhood; I have love for my wife; I don't "own" these things,

Of course you own those things Stephan. If they are yours, you own them. That's what having something be yours means.

I just don't know how to respond to such views.

I'm narrowly defining owning an action for the purpose of trade only in these discussions, not just any arbitrary action or thought. Like thinking "Gee, the weather is nice today" that thought isn't of any productive value, no services or products were produced from a whimsical though like that.

I specifically mean action for the sake of an exchange. Like a doctor trading his services for money in return from his patient. So your memories of childhood should not be construed to mean the same thing as owning your labor. Your memories are not something that can be traded in the sense that they are immaterial objects, unless we are discussing you writing a book about them, or being paid to talk about them in lecture halls. Then it is your right to do that, and you can claim ownership to that labor.

Gee, thanks for clearing that up. What a coherent theory of ownership.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 8:59pm

Phil:

Just to clarify, altho not for JA, for whom clarification is apparently impossible

Blah blah blah blah.....

And so begins another one of Phil Osborne's irrelevant ramblings through history.

To Stephan again. I originally wrote:

But the finer points of intellectual property rights is the question of exclusivity to the reproduction of one's creations. I do own my own labor, but I may not necessarily have the right to assert exclusive rights to the reproduction of that labor. It has to be something unique, and something of productive effort where either prior costs are associated with coming up with that unique idea and can be implemented as a tangible product or service.

So for example if I come up with an idea of Star Wars and make the movie, I have exclusive rights to the reproduction of that because if I didn't, it would rob me of the benefit of coming with a unique creation.

To which Stephan replied:

I have to say this does not even seem like an argument to me. It's just a bunch of assertions.

I disagree. I tried to give a narrowly defined view of intellectual property while still making a general enough concept to include a variety of particular examples of intellectual property.

I'll give several particulars and extrapolate a concept from them.

1) George Lucas comes up with the idea for a film plot about science fiction characters and makes a movie based on this. A great deal of cost went into the production of that movie, including the time spent creating these characters, working out the plots, and writing the script. In the absence of any exclusivity to the benefits from the production, once the film was released anyone can replicate the same movie while foregoing any of the costs associated with the pre-production including time spent coming up with the characters, the plot, etc. Thus, someone who wishes to create a new product must come to the realization he will not benefit from it because the costs associated with creating the product will be exclusive to himself and not to his competitors who copied him.

2) Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, spends millions of dollars on research and development to come up with a drug to cure cancer. The costs associated with this are monstrously high including countless hours of research that result in a dead end, paying the salaries of an army of scientists and workers, and buying all the equipment necessary for the research including microscopes, petri dishes, etc. In the absence of any exclusivity to the benefits from the production of a new drug, once the drug is sold on the market anyone can replicate the same drug while foregoing any of the costs associated with developing this new drug including the research and development. Thus, someone who wishes to create a new drug must come to the realization he will not benefit from it because the costs associated with creating the product will be exclusive to himself and not to his competitors who copied him.

3) An inventor that invents a brand new fishing reel that is being sold at Wal-Mart spent a great deal of money and effort refining his new invention. In the absence of any exclusivity to the benefits from the production of this new invention, once the fishing reel is sold on the market anyone can replicate the same invention while foregoing any of the costs associated with developing this new invention. Thus, someone who wishes to create a new invention like a uniquely designed fishing reel must come to the realization he will not benefit from it because the costs associated with creating the product will be exclusive to himself and not to his competitors who copied him.

Essentially what happens is the competitor who did not bear the exclusive costs to the development of the product is taking an unearned value, i.e. reaping the benefits of a creation while not taking on the costs associated with developing it.

Now, in order for these three individuals/companies to reap the benefits from their production, they must enjoy at least a temporary period of exclusivity to their products because they came up with a new product and thus took on the exclusive costs associated with that.

Intellectual property rights is the recognition that a unique idea that results in a new product is your own creation because the costs associated with it are unique to yourself. Without the exclusive rights to the ideas for a brand new product, there would be no way to be rewarded for the new products you yourself created because you took on the costs that are exclusive to you. You have a right to reap the benefits of your creation, provided it is something someone would value and actually buy.

So, intellectual property is the creation of the mind for purpose of economic production. Common examples would be music, movies, television programs, literary works, drugs, inventions, logos, etc. So this by no means is arbitrarily to be any kind of creation of the mind, it only pertains to that which you are able to trade.

Stephan asked:

What is uniqueness, and who says it has to be unique?

I should think this should be obvious. If you came up with an invention for a fishing reel that has never been seen before, it is unique. If it is a drug that cures cancer where none existed before, it is of course unique. If you came up with a variety of fictional characters and plot-lines for a movie that was never seen before, it is unique.

Dictionary.com

Unique.
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 9:06pm

Stephan:

Gee, thanks for clearing that up. What a coherent theory of ownership.

I'm sorry did I say I was giving you "a theory of ownership"? No. I was trying to explain the context of what I mean to own your own labor and try to distinguish that from owning your affection for someone or owning a memory from childhood.

Sure, it's a legitimate concept. Patent and copyright are current positive rights. Call them intellectual property rights if you want. (I prefer "pattern privileges.") But that does not mean such rights are justified.

You see Stephan, the problem that arises a lot here is you simply don't understand the English language which makes me wonder if it is your second language. Legitimate here means justified. Get it? And the fact that you are willing to promulgate something that you feel is unjustified makes you a moral hypocrite by an definition of the word.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 9:17pm

John, "You see Stephan, the problem that arises a lot here is you simply don't understand the English language which makes me wonder if it is your second language. Legitimate here means justified. Get it? And the fact that you are willing to promulgate something that you feel is unjustified makes you a moral hypocrite by an definition of the word."

John, you were talking about whether the *concept* of intellectual property is "legitimate". Now, I don't know of any "illegitimate" concept, but even if there are some, "intellectual property" is a useful concept, just as is aggression, murder, rape, and robbery. The fact that these are legitimate concepts does not mean that their referents are legitimate actions or practices. See the difference?

I don't "promulgate" the patent system, if you've noticed.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 9:37pm

Stephan:

I wrote: I mean when the federal government automatically copyrights our own creations for us, they are doing so as an agent acting on our own behalf.

You respond:

"I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help you." Glad you are so trusting of the leviathan state. I'm not.

For crying out loud Stephan! I didn't say anything about trusting the federal government or saying they ought to automatically grant us copyrights. I wasn't making an "ought" statement I was making an "is" statement, meaning that is what the government does, not that it's what it should do.

You are a very difficult person to talk to.
You said:

John, you were talking about whether the *concept* of intellectual property is "legitimate". Now, I don't know of any "illegitimate" concept, but even if there are some...

An illegitimate concept would be something that doesn't adhere to the standards of logic, rationality or to reality. So something like "god" would be an illegitimate concept.

"intellectual property" is a useful concept, just as is aggression, murder, rape, and robbery.

How can you think IP is a useful concept when you think it's an invalid one? That makes zero sense.

The fact that these are legitimate concepts does not mean that their referents are legitimate actions or practices. See the difference?

Absolutely. Which is what I've said so many times in this thread when I said just because the way the current legal systems applies the concept of intellectual property rights in a flawed way doesn't mean they are not a valid or flawed philosophical concept. (Do you remember me saying that or should I point out the posts for you?)

But if you take on what you believe to be an illegitimate (i.e. unjustified) action of defending your client's patent, you are doing something you believe is unjust. How do you live with yourself then?

I don't "promulgate" the patent system, if you've noticed

You sure as hell do in practice. You file patents for your clients, what more needs to be said? You are a moral hypocrite. You don't think intellectual property rights are valid rights, but you have no problem with taking action to defend someone's intellectual property rights. You can't both deny these things exist while simultaneously living your life protecting them and not be called a moral hypocrite. If you really want to abolish the recognition of intellectual property rights, you should stop helping people defend their assertion to an intellectual property right.

If you disagree with slavery but you were a slave-owner, you don't think you would be a hypocrite?

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/08, 9:46pm)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 9:47pm

John Armaos:

I wrote: I mean when the federal government automatically copyrights our own creations for us, they are doing so as an agent acting on our own behalf.

You respond:

"I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help you." Glad you are so trusting of the leviathan state. I'm not.

For crying out loud Stephan! I didn't say anything about trusting the federal government or saying they ought to automatically grant us copyrights. I wasn't making an "ought" statement I was making an "is" statement, meaning that is what the government does, not that it's what it should do.

Oh, good. I took your statement that they are acting on "our behalf" as endorsing it.

How can you think IP is a useful concept when you think it's an invalid one? That makes zero sense.

I don't think the concept is "invalid." Any more than the concept of murder is invalid. It is murder itself that is unjustifed, but not the concept for murder. Having a concept for murder, and aggression, is very useful, wouldn't you agree? And it's coherent, and legitimate.

The fact that these are legitimate concepts does not mean that their referents are legitimate actions or practices. See the difference?

Absolutely. Which is what I've said so many times in this thread when I said just because the way the current legal systems applies the concept of intellectual property rights in a flawed way doesn't mean they are not a valid or flawed philosophical concept.

IP is a fine concept. IP as a system is unjust--all types of IP.

I don't "promulgate" the patent system, if you've noticed

You sure as hell do in practice. You file patents for your clients, what more needs to be said?

That's not "promulgating" the patent system. As I explained, it's helping clients protect themselves from a type of aggression whioh YOU, not me, endorse.

You are a moral hypocrite.

And you just favor aggression, that's much better, right?

You don't think intellectual property rights are valid rights, but you have no problem with taking action to defend someone's intellectual property rights.

First, obtaining a patent is not "defending" IP rights. Second, don't you agree w/ Rand that we have no obligation to be martyrs?

If you really want to abolish the recognition of intellectual property rights, you should stop helping people defend their assertion to an intellectual property right.

You guys would love that--the people in some sense in the best position to mount an attack on the system--those who know about it--are the ones uanble to attack it--jsut like the NAACP attacks Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom for opposing Affirmative Action since he "benefited" from it. I see.

If you disagree with slavery but you were a slave-owner, you don't think you would be a hypocrite?

Probably, but owning a slave is wrong. Owning a patent is not--it's enforcing it against an innocent victim that is wrong. Owning a patent (GIVEN a society in which there IS an (unjust) patent system) is like having a gun. IT can be used for good, or for evil.

You are just resorting to ad hominem and distraction now. None of this thrashing around justifies IP. The fact taht you can find an IP lawyer who dislikes IP law does not show that IP is justified. It's really not all *about me*, John--I'm really not that important, in the grand scheme of things, not that I'm not flattered.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 9:52pm

Stephan:

I don't think [intellectual property] is "invalid." Any more than the concept of murder is invalid.

?????????

Probably, but owning a slave is wrong. Owning a patent is not-

??????????

Then for pete's sake Stephan, why have you made every effort to deny that we have a right to intellectual property?

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 10:28pm

Stephan and Phil,

Regarding anarchy, what if I decide to enforce a patent law against an innocent person, and you, believing this to be a violation of the person's rights, undertake to stop me. Are you not acting as a government by preventing me from enforcing my own version of justice?

- Bill

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 3:02am

Stephan is a patent attorney who does not believe in the legitimacy of patents. He defends this by saying that �the people in some sense in the best position to mount an attack on the system--those who know about it�� should properly work in a field they regard as illegitimate as a way of undermining it.

Sort of like a pastor who decides he is an atheist but still wants to work within the church. There are such. There is a Lutheran minister in Denmark�Thorkild Grosboel�who has been quoted as saying he did not believe in God, resurrection or eternal life. Another pastor in the Netherlands, the Rev. Klaas Hendrikse, published a book entitled Believing in a God who does not exist: Manifesto of an atheist pastor.

In his book, Hendrikse says that when he speaks of God, he now refers to the �quality of a relationship� rather than the existence of a divine being. A local newspaper has compared Hendrikse�s �bizarre� outlook to that of a vegetarian working as a butcher.

Stephan says: �Owning a patent is not [wrong]--it's enforcing it against an innocent victim that is wrong � In other words, it�s fine to �own� a patent as long as you never make use of it�as long as you let everyone usurp your so-called �intellectual property� with impunity. It�s fine for Stephan to charge an attorney�s fee for providing clients with something he regards as immoral to use.

Would you heed the advice of a holy man of the cross extolling the glory of life on earth and railing against sacrifice and salvation in the hereafter? Would you listen to a vegetarian preach his meatless philosophy while he slaughtered animals for others to eat? Yet we are supposed to carefully consider the arguments of someone who earns his living by taking money in exchange for legal services he sees as inherently worthless.

Enforcing a hard-earned patent is corrupt, but exploitation of the ignorant customer is righteous.

."..Don't you agree w/ Rand that we have no obligation to be martyrs?" Stephan asks.

Martyrdom is not the price of integrity, Stephan. On the contrary, integrity is a precondition of successful living. Living a lie is the essence of self-immolation.
And it makes your arguments come across like the ravings of a drunk in the village square.

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 4/09, 3:41am)

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 7:29am

John A:

I don't think [intellectual property] is "invalid." Any more than the concept of murder is invalid.

?????????

The *concept* is a valid concept--it accurately identifies somethign in reality--namely, IP laws.

Probably, but owning a slave is wrong. Owning a patent is not-
??????????

*owning* a patent is *having a power to harm* others. Just like owning a gun is having a power to do this. What is wrong is to shoot an innocent person, or sue an innocent person for patent infringement--to *assert* your illegitimate state-granted rights.

Then for pete's sake Stephan, why have you made every effort to deny that we have a right to intellectual property?

? B/c there is no such right. There are legal rights to IP, of course, but this is unjustified.
Dwyer:

Stephan and Phil,

Regarding anarchy, what if I decide to enforce a patent law against an innocent person, and you, believing this to be a violation of the person's rights, undertake to stop me. Are you not acting as a government by preventing me from enforcing my own version of justice?

I don't undersatnd your question. In anarchy there could be no patent rights in the first place, since there is no state or legislature. But I would say that in today's society, if A sues B (presumably innocent) for patent infringement, A is using the state to violate B's rights. Whether B should use force to defend himself is a prudential question.

Dennis Hardin:

Stephan is a patent attorney who does not believe in the legitimacy of patents. He defends this

? What is there to "defend"? I reject the idea that there is anything to defend. The notion that i have to defend presupposes that there is something wrong with this, which I deny.

by saying that �the people in some sense in the best position to mount an attack on the system--those who know about it�� should properly work in a field they regard as illegitimate as a way of undermining it. Sort of like a pastor who decides he is an atheist but still wants to work within the church.

More like the tax lawyer who opposes income tax and works to help his clients navigate the unjust tax system.

Stephan says: �Owning a patent is not [wrong]--it's enforcing it against an innocent victim that is wrong � In other words, it�s fine to �own� a patent as long as you never make use of it�as long as you let everyone usurp your so-called �intellectual property� with impunity.

Actually, it's okay to use it defensively. But look, all of us have innumerable unjust state-granted positive rights--rights to apply for welfare, to sue for racial or gender or ethnic/religious discrimination, to sue for copyright infringement etc. And in any society, we all possess the power to attack innocent people--to become criminals. Having a power, or capacity, to do something wrong, is not doing it.

It�s fine for Stephan to charge an attorney�s fee for providing clients with something he regards as immoral to use.

? It's not always immoral to use it. Again: most patents are defensive. One purpose they serve is to definitely publicize and idea, so that other companies can't get a patent on the same idea and shut me down. Another is to deter others from suing me for violating their patents. What is wrong with that?

Yet we are supposed to carefully consider the arguments of someone who earns his living by taking money in exchange for legal services he sees as inherently worthless.

My legal services are not "inherently" worthless; *given* the unjust patent system, people need patent attorneys to help them deal with it. Just like, given a tax system, you will need tax attorneys. They are providing a valuable service *given the existence of* the tax system; but in an idael world, there woudl be no patent, or tax, system, and no need for patent or tax attorneys. What is a drain on society are the tax laws and patent laws, NOT the service-providers who inevitable arise in response to such unjust systems.

Martyrdom is not the price of integrity, Stephan. On the contrary, integrity is a precondition of successful living. Living a lie is the essence of self-immolation.
And it makes your arguments come across like the ravings of a drunk in the village square.

Oh for God's sake, you guys really are seriosos. I am not living a lie--I like helping arm companies with patent arsenals they can use to defend themselves from unjust lawsuits, just like I imagine anti-tax tax attorneys get some pleasure from helping clients avoid taxes; and like anti-cancer cancer doctors like to help people fight cancer.

Furthermore, you seem to think all IP lawyers do is "help people assert patents". This is not true. They do all sorts of innocent and innocuous, beneficial thigns--transactions, agreements, licenses, review, opinions, searches, advice, etc. Plus non-IP law, like corporate, contract, etc. There is no necessity to violate rights, just b/c you are a patent lawyer.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 8:48am

TSI wrote in Post 8 of this thread:

Stephan isn't a troll.

Do you still maintain that assessment?